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

year by the United States Army Engineer School and the 

MSCoE G-37 Publications, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 

2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and 

additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MSCoE 

G-37 Publications, ATTN: ATZT-OPS-AS (Engineer), 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: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers 

informed of current and emerging developments within 

their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their 

professional development. Views expressed are those of 

the authors and not those of the Department of Defense 

or its elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede 

information in other U.S. Army publications. Use of news 

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

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

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $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:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

1101103

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG Bryan G. Watson

563-6192

<bryan.watson@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Fabian E. Mendoza

563-6192

<fabian.mendoza@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-4363

<james.rowan@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Robert J. Wells

563-8060

<bobby.wells@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Robert K. Lamphear

563-4088

<robert.lamphear@us.army.mil>

ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

LTC Timothy M. O’Brien 

563-8045

<tim.obrien1@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Michael S. Mismash 

563-8046

<michael.mismash@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Brian D. Slack

563-7116

<brian.slack@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 Courtney W. Paul

563-4093

<courtney.paul@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

LTC Brian J. Davis

563-2717

<brian.davis6@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>
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General

Bryan G. Watson

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Robert J. Wells

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Robert K. Lamphear

95 Dedication

95 Proposed Fallen Engineers

Memorial

27 Past in Review “Army Engineers

at Pearl Harbor”

By The Office of History, Headquarters,United States Army Corps of 

Engineers

29 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

44 Engineer Doctrine Update

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Susan Stevens

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

FEATURES

06 Farewell

By Ms. Shirley Bridges

07 Military Engineering: A Timeless Profession

08 Destruction of Enemy Traps and Mines 

 By Colonel J. Frank Barber

12 Engineer Buttons and Castle

 By Captain Herbert Vogel

15 Engineering Operations on Advanced Bases

 By Colonel Albert Lane

19 The Engineer School

 By First Lieutenant Thomas Pedersen

21 Training the Effective Sapper

 By Major William L. Jones

24 Selling Engineer Capability to the Maneuver Commander

 By Major V. Paul Baerman

30 USACE District Engineers

By Lieutenant Colonel Laurence M. Farrell and Ms. Julie E. Melow

34 Investigations—Part II: Why Official Inquiries Are Needed

 By Captain Daniel D. Maurer

38 Building Great (Coalition) Engineers

 By Major Timothy R. Beck

46 Clear Your Mind to Clear the Way: Managing the Moment

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

50 Joint Engineer Operations Course: A Combined Approach

By Lieutenant Colonel Shawn P. Howley (Retired) and Major Charles

R. McGinnis (Retired)

52 Who Is the “Real” Engineer?

 By First Lieutenant Claude E. Barron

57 Getting Back to Basics: Building the Army Reserve NCO Corps

From the Bottom Up

 By Brigadier General Bud R. Jameson Jr. and Command Sergeant

Major Steven M. Hatchell

61 Capacity Development—The Pathway to Self-Reliance for Host

Nations

 By Ms. Sheryl E. Lewis

65 Prime Power School Opens at Fort Leonard Wood

 By Ms. Amy Phillips and Ms. Diana McCoy

Volume 41 PB 5-11-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army January-April 2011

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

January-April 2011 Engineer 1

Front cover: ENFORCE 2011 logo by 

SFC Bianka Latham.

Back cover: U.S. Army engineer photos from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, 

and present-day Afghanistan.
2 Engineer January-April 2011

 

Clear The Way 

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

A Timeless Profession

From the very beginning in 1775, 

Army leaders recognized the critical need for a profession of military 

engineer experts serving commanders at 

every level, with formations of engineers 

fighting alongside every combat formation from the point of attack to the ports 

and airfields that sustained operations. 

That’s why we are the oldest professional 

Regiment in the Army; we are a profession that traces our roots back to 16 June 

1775, when Congress resolved to establish 

a Chief of Engineers within the Army. 

This Regiment has played a vital role in 

every military operation—during peace 

and war—that has ultimately shaped America and helped 

define our prominent role as a world leader. It is no different today! Just look at the extraordinary service of Army 

engineers in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, and our own 

Army camps and stations.

This past fall, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General 

George Casey, designated 2011 as the “Year of the Army 

Profession.” Across our Army, the Training and Doctrine 

Command is leading a number of forums designed to closely examine the profession of arms and ask ourselves some 

tough questions: After 10 years of combat, how are we doing 

as a profession? Are we meeting the nation’s needs? What 

must we change to better prepare for the future?

The theme of this year’s ENFORCE—A Timeless Profession—extends the Armywide dialogue on the profession of 

arms to our own Regiment’s role as the Army’s subprofession of military engineers. As we gather the tribe together 

from across our Regiment, we will dedicate much of our 

time toward examining a number of questions: What does 

it mean to be a subprofession of military engineers that 

serves the Army? What are the attributes of the military 

engineer professional the Army needs? After 10 years of 

war, where do we need to make changes within our profession to better serve our Army?

I’m extremely excited about the events during ENFORCE this year and how we have structured the week. 

First, we have moved the dates of ENFORCE (6–9 April) 

so it begins on Wednesday and culminates on Saturday to 

make it easier for members of the Reserve Component to 

attend the main events. We will open ENFORCE with our 

partners in industry displaying the latest technologies at 

Nutter Field House. Go see the displays, 

and allow the experience to expand your 

horizons on the technologies we can use to 

enhance our effectiveness in serving commanders on tomorrow’s battlefield.

Thursday we will convene the Regimental Command Council and discuss 

a multitude of hot topics from the Regimental Campaign Plan that are ready for 

senior leader debate and input. Also on 

Thursday, we will hold several discussion 

groups designed to open a broader debate 

on three key areas where I think we need 

to make some changes in order to meet

our professional responsibilities. Discussion groups will look at—

■ Making changes needed to improve how we educate

leaders.

■ Improving the way we meet the training needs of

the Regiment based on Army Force Generation

(ARFORGEN).

■ Leveraging knowledge management to provide the Regiment with a true virtual collaborative “cloud” that provides members of our profession with the connections

they need to reach back, reach forward, swap ideas, and 

guide regimental decisions about the future.

The discussion groups will report their recommendations to 

a Council of Commanders on Saturday morning.

Thursday will culminate with one of the most solemn 

and respectful moments of the week, as we unveil the Fallen Engineers Memorial in Sapper Grove to honor engineers 

who gave their lives in support of operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. This memorial is a gift from the Regiment—

through your donations to the Army Engineer Association—and we will continue the tradition of adding names 

each year until our mission is completed, those operations 

are concluded, and the team returns home. This is what a 

professional family does...it recognizes the selfless sacrifice 

of its own with honor, love, and respect.

Friday will allow us to focus on the professional attributes of the military engineer. We will conduct a panel discussion—led by engineer veterans who fought in past conflicts—and hear from unit leaders fresh out of Afghanistan 

and a military futurist who will help us glimpse into the future. The discussion is designed to examine the professional 

(Continued on page 6)
January-April 2011 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

Our leadership has told us in FM 

7-0, Training for Full Spectrum 

Operations, that “all operations 

are now full spectrum operations” and that 

“full spectrum operations require mentally 

agile leaders able to operate in any operational theme.” As most of you know, the 

components of full spectrum operations 

are offensive, defensive, stability, and civil 

support operations, and the operational 

themes are major combat operations, irregular warfare, peace operations, limited 

intervention, and peacetime engagement. 

I couldn’t find anywhere in the manual 

that said our mentally agile leaders should 

be of a certain rank or position, so it’s a 

safe bet that this applies to team leaders 

as much as it does to our highest ranking 

officers. So how can we best prepare our private first class 

or second lieutenant engineer to be a mentally agile leader?

We should develop training in our unit that focuses on 

the transitions. We’ve all learned that engineers, cavalrymen, and field artillerymen are the most versatile Soldiers 

in the Army’s formations. As far as I can tell, we’re the only 

ones who have “Fight as Infantry” in our duty descriptions. 

Drill down within the Regiment and you’ll see combat and 

construction engineers performing duties in either field. 

How many military occupational specialty 12N horizontal construction engineers are out there performing route 

clearance duties? It takes mental agility within the platoon 

and company to recognize when to transition from an offensive, defensive, or stability mindset. Some Soldiers call 

it “turning on the light switch” and say that it can only happen when a Soldier understands the environment.

Ever wonder why we’re so smoked after the first four or 

five patrols? It’s because we don’t recognize the environment we’re in. Everything looks like an IED, and everyone 

looks like the enemy. The scouts have a great technique 

that they use when they’re on observation duty. They keep 

a log of everything that happens within their sector. They 

start documenting the patterns of people, traffic, and events 

while on patrol or at an observation post, and after a few 

days a pattern starts to emerge. The mind starts recognizing certain patterns of life and begins to recognize normal 

activity. How much better prepared would our Soldiers 

be if we were to train them in recognizing patterns? The 

training events could be as simple as instructing the platoon members to look for white pickup trucks on the way 

out to the rifle range—how many, what direction of travel,

what make, how many passengers, and what were they

doing are just some of the intelligence requirements for every member of the platoon. Everyone will have varying degrees 

of change-detection expertise. Task your 

more experienced Soldiers to train those 

who need help recognizing patterns.

The same goes for engineering. We exist to support the maneuver formations 

and assure their mobility, enhance their 

protection, enable expeditionary logistics, and build capacity both inside the 

formation and with the civilian population. Simply put, they are battlespace 

owners; we are not. We have to look at 

every situation through the lens of an engineer. An engineer has to recognize the 

lay of the land, how to use the existing 

terrain that provides the best cover, and what routes can 

best move the maneuver commander’s formations. More 

than likely, our maneuver units are doing three of the four 

elements of full spectrum operations all in the same brigade 

combat team. They need mentally agile engineer companies 

to do the same, where one platoon may be clearing routes 

while another is building a combat outpost and the other is 

orchestrating a vocational training program within a village. A key element to this is finding the subject matter 

expert in a particular field of engineering and getting that 

Soldier to the right place on the battlefield. Finding the experts in your unit before you deploy, developing their skills, 

and putting them in specific training events can only help 

you rapidly transition from one phase of combat to another. 

It is a worthwhile endeavor, because every maneuver commander will yell out, “Where’s my engineer?”

This will be my last article for the Engineer Bulletin as 

the Regimental Command Sergeant Major (CSM). CSM Terrence Murphy will be coming in, and I will be transitioning to 

the Maneuver Support Center after this year’s ENFORCE. 

As a former brigade combat team (BCT) CSM, I am pleased 

that we have focused on how to best serve our maneuver 

brothers and our own engineers in the BCT by asking the 

Army to insert an engineer battalion into every BCT. The 

BCT is the centerpiece of the Army’s formations and deserves our best efforts, whether that’s inside or outside the 

BCT formation.

I hope that all of you will join me in unveiling our memorial tribute to our fallen comrades during ENFORCE. It’s a 

fitting tribute to all engineers who have given their lives for 

their family, battle buddies, unit, and country.

Essayons!
Chief Warrant Officer Five Robert K. Lamphear

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show The Way 

4 Engineer January-April 2011

Congratulations are in order to eleven outstanding noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs) who were selected 

for the engineer warrant officer program 

during the January 2011 Warrant Officer 

Selection Board held at Fort Knox, Kentucky. These NCOs represent the best and 

brightest the Engineer Regiment has to 

offer the Warrant Officer Corps. The Construction Engineering Technician Warrant 

Officer Basic Course (WOBC) will include 

three prime power production specialists 

(military occupational specialty [MOS] 

12P), two construction engineer supervisors (MOS 12H) and one technical engineer 

(MOS 12T). The Geospatial Engineering 

Technician WOBC will include five geospatial engineers (MOS 12Y). These NCOs average more than 10 

years of service, have served an average of three combat tours, 

and bring a combined 115 years of engineer technical expertise 

and leadership to the Warrant Officer Corps! 

Many of you have noticed that I end each Show the Way

article with a request for each of you to recruit your replacements by identifying outstanding NCOs who possess sustained 

and demonstrated levels of technical and leadership competency. I cannot stress enough how important this request is. The 

expansion of both engineer warrant officer MOSs continues, 

and it is imperative that we discover and then “sponsor” NCOs 

without sacrificing quality for quantity. I would like to spend a 

little more time in this bulletin on what I have observed when 

evaluating application packets. 

First, let me thank the many warrant officers from all 

three components who tirelessly work to recruit their replacements and have enabled the Regiment to meet its recruiting 

mission for the past few years. Great job! Second, while we 

have been successful in our goals so far, I have noticed some 

cracks in the recruitment foundation. An alarming number of 

application packets I disapprove at the proponent level should 

never make it past the senior warrant officer who wrote the 

letter of recommendation. Let me be very blunt—we can do 

better. For example, recent packets included resumes with numerous misspelled words, incorrect MOS numbers and names, 

letters of recommendation more than a year old, and discrepancies between the DA Form 61, Application for Appointment; 

noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs); and 

Enlisted Record Briefs (ERBs). Soldiers have also asked for 

waivers of prerequisites that clearly cannot be waived due to 

a lack of alternate qualifications, education, or experience. 

The bottom line is that when we elect to write a letter of 

recommendation for an NCO, it becomes

our responsibility to sponsor that NCO’s 

efforts. That means providing an honest 

assessment of the packet, then when the 

Soldier is ready to apply, ensuring that 

the packet is 100 percent correct before 

submitting it to the United States Army 

Recruiting Command or state and Reserve Component warrant officer strength 

managers. The NCOs who aspire to be 

warrant officers deserve our best efforts—

nothing less. 

On another note, have you ever wanted 

to discuss regimental issues, share information, and participate in professional debates in a purely regimental forum? I have 

great news. The Engineer School Commandant has recently approved engineer CW4s to participate in 

the new Engineer Battalion Commander’s Forum. The forum 

is a platform for battalion command teams as well as engineers in key positions across all components. The bottom line 

is that your input is valuable to the Regiment. Your voice can 

help shape or adjust the Regiment’s Campaign Plan. More important, your voice will help feed critical thought to the senior engineer-level forums. Stay connected, participate, and 

engage. Many thanks to our Knowledge Management (KM) 

Officer for her input and efforts to provide world-class KM to 

our Regiment. Sign up at <https://www.kc.army.mil/book/

groups/engineer-battalion-command-forum>.

In addition to the Battalion Commander’s Forum, the Commandant has approved engineer CW5s to participate in the 

“Commandant’s Corner,” the portal where discussions regarding all facets of regimental interest are taking place! The target audience for this forum is 0-6 commanders and key staff 

leaders from across the Regiment, which includes (but is not 

limited to) combatant commands, Army Service component 

commands, brigades, United States Army Corps of Engineers 

divisions and districts, J-4 Logistics, Army G-3 Operations 

and Training/G-5 Civil-Military Operations/G-7 Plans/G-8 

Resource Management, United States Army Forces Command, and United States Army Training and Doctrine Command—and now CW5s. Vote, discuss, chime in, and engage. 

Sign up at <https://www.kc.army.mil/book/groups/usaes

-commandants-corner>.

For more information about how to become an engineer 

warrant officer, log on to the Army recruiting website at 

<http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant>. Until next time,

stay safe.

Essayons et Faissons!
January-April 2011 Engineer 5

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.

Aceves, Sergeant Omar 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade Fort Drum, New York

Beckerman, Sergeant Michael J. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Cruttenden, Specialist Aaron B. 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Delgado Arroyo, Specialist Jose A. 130th Engineer Battalion, Puerto Rico National Guard Aguadilla, Puerto Rico

Harris, Private Two Devon J. 4th Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Polk, Louisiana

King, Specialist Jarrid L. 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade Fort Drum, New York

Kridlo, Specialist Dale J. 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

McCluskey, Sergeant Jason J. 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Moore, Private First Class Benjamin G. 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade Fort Drum, New York

Thode, Sergeant First Class James E. 1457th Engineer Battalion, Utah Army National Guard Kirtland, New Mexico

Torre, Specialist Jose A. Special Troops Battalion, 2d Advise and Assist Brigade Fort Riley, Kansas

Whipple, Specialist Blake D. 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade Fort Drum, New York

Young, Specialist James C. 412th Theater Engineer Command, United States Army Reserve Darien, Illinois

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 to support the design and construction of a Memorial Wall for Fallen Engineers to be located in the Sapper Grove at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri—home of the Army Engineer Regiment. To learn more, go to <http://www.armyengineer

.com/memorial_wall.html>.

Proposed Fallen Engineers Memorial
6 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

I

t has been a privilege and a pleasure to have been associated with Engineer, The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers, for the past 17 years—beginning in October1994 as editor and from April 2003 to March 2011 as managing 

editor. 

The publication has an interesting history that began with a Spring 1971 issue that was known as The Engineer. Major General Robert Ploger, then commandant of the Engineer School, was optimistic that the publication would provide a 

forum to “trigger engineer thinking” and “stimulate controversial subjects...with the objective in mind of progress in the 

profession.” He said that the objective was not “controversy for controversy’s sake.” His aim was to provoke “the thought 

processes of the complete span of our personnel, from young enlisted engineers to career-oriented officers. From them 

may well emanate new ideas, fresh approaches to existing problem areas—solutions, perhaps, to the technical barricades 

facing us.” In the “timeless profession” of military engineering, this attitude is still very prevalent from the current Engineer School commandant Brigadier General Bryan Watson. 

The late 1979 and early 1980 issues were published under the name Engineer, and by the Summer of 1980 to mid1987, it was called Engineer, The Magazine for Army Engineers. In the mid-1980s, the Secretary of the Army directed a 

large reduction in the printing budget, eliminating many periodicals. However, he authorized the Training and Doctrine 

Command to develop a new publication media—the professional bulletin—to keep Army personnel knowledgeable of current and emerging developments within their assigned areas of proponency. So the third issue published in 1987 became 

Engineer, For Army Engineers. The fourth issue of that year bore the name Engineer, The Professional Bulletin for Army 

Engineers, and has remained that except for changing the word “for” to “of” in 2001.

As this ENFORCE issue went to press, I was presented my Certificate of Retirement after 32 years as a Department 

of the Army Civilian and moved on to the next phase of my life. It is not without some sadness that I leave, because many 

of you have become like old friends. I’ve watched some of you be assigned and reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood several 

times, and I’ve followed your careers as you became leaders in the timeless military engineering profession. One example 

of that is Brigadier General Watson, who I (as a training and doctrine editor) first knew as a captain back in the early 

1990s. It has been gratifying to see this young and capable engineer officer become an even more capable leader of the 

Engineer School, ever encouraging young engineers to share their experiences and expertise with others.

Thanks to all of you in the Engineer Regiment for the tremendous support you have given me over the years. And 

thank you also to the very talented and dedicated Engineer staff members—both now and in the past—who have helped 

me continue to improve the quality and usefulness of Engineer. With their skill and commitment, I have no doubts that 

the publication will continue to thrive under the management of Diane Eidson, another veteran editor.

attributes of the military engineer that have served us well in 

past wars—through the eyes of our veterans—and then consider the challenges we will face on future battlefields to discern what adjustments we must make in leader development. 

We will end the day with our keynote addresses. First, Colonel 

Don Snider (Retired), who is leading the Armywide discourse 

on the profession of arms, will give us his perspective on military engineers as a subprofession of the Army. Then our 52d 

Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, 

will address the assembled members of the Regiment and provide his perspective on the changes he has witnessed and lived 

through over the course of his career, with insights on what 

that means for the future.

Throughout the week, spouses are encouraged to participate in the Spouse Program, which includes getting some 

hands-on training on automatic weapons in the Engagement 

Skills Trainer, observing a demonstration of fixed and float 

bridging, and going through a tour of “a trainee’s first day.” 

There will also be a number of social events for spouses during 

the week, including a luncheon on Thursday.

On Saturday, we start the day by cheering on the finalists of the Best Sapper Competition as they give their all to 

cross the finish line first. The competition begins on Wednesday, and you can visit events during the week. If you want 

to see the heart and soul of our Regiment, BE THERE! We 

will then conduct a number of professional development 

seminars that are regionally focused to give our combatant 

command engineers a chance to showcase the complexity of 

engineer operations in each of the major theaters. The Army 

Engineer Association will hold its Awards Luncheon, where 

we will recognize the winners of the Itschner, Grizzly, Van 

Autreve, Outstanding Warrant Officer, and Outstanding Civilian awards. Of course, we will gather that night in Nutter 

Field House for the Engineer Regimental Ball in honor of our 

award recipients and will present the Gold deFleury to this 

year’s winners.

That’s a full agenda, I know, and I only hit the major events. 

So come to ENFORCE and help us celebrate our “timeless profession,” and then help us shape this Regiment’s future. See 

you there.

Lead to Serve!

(“Clear the Way,” continued from page 2)

Farewell ... 

From the Managing Editor, Shirley Bridges
36 Engineer May-August 2010

Military Engineering

A Timeless Profession

1775 - Present

I

n the following pages, you will find some intriguing “retro” articles 

from the Engineer Regiment’s past. These interesting articles were 

incorporated into this issue in support of the ENFORCE theme, “A 

Timeless Profession.” The articles span the years of 1924–1979 and include items from past issues of what is now Engineer, The Professional 

Bulletin of Army Engineers—which was first published in 1971—and The

Military Engineer—first published by the Society of American Military 

Engineers in 1920. You will find some timeless principles of military engineering from those who fought the fight, including studies on improvised 

explosive devices from World War I, base camp construction in World War 

II, training engineers in the Vietnam era, and some institutional regimental history. 

“Destruction of Enemy Traps and Mines,” by J. Frank Barber, The Military Engineer, Volume XVI, Number 89, September–October 1924, p. 374. 

“Engineer Buttons and Castle,” by Captain Herbert Vogel, The Military Engineer, Volume XXXIII, Number 188, March–April 1941, p. 103. 

“Engineering Operations on Advanced Bases,” by Colonel Albert Lane, 

The Military Engineer, Volume XXXVII, Number 238, August 1945, p. 299.

“The Engineer School,” by First Lieutenant Thomas Pedersen, The Military Engineer, Volume XXXVIII, Number 247, May 1946, p. 184. 

“Training the Effective Sapper,” by Major William L. Jones, The Engineer, Volume 3, Number 2, Summer 1973, p. 16. 

“Selling Engineer Capability to the Maneuver Commander,” by Major 

V. Paul Baerman, Engineer, Volume 9, Number 2, Fall 1979. 

January-April 2011 Engineer 7
8 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

Aweek or so after the armistice, the 304th Engineers were visited by a staff officer from G. H. Q., 

.a Colonel of Engineers. Regimental headquarters 

were still on Samogneux Hill, along the Meuse and north 

of Verdun some 11 or 12 kilometers. It was here on this 

barren and muddy slope that the regiment had dug in on 

November 1, and it was here that regimental headquarters 

stayed until December 26, the day after that memorable 

Christmas of 1918. 

The staff officer had under his arm a great roll of maps, 

American, French and German. These were unfolded, and 

then ensued a long conference which included general instructions and details for the clearing of several extensive 

areas of enemy traps and mines, as well as removing (policing) from these designated areas “duds,” grenades, flares 

and, in short, every article of an explosive or dangerous 

nature. The Colonel’s orders were explicit, direct, and definite. The task was uncanny and, to the mind of a man with 

troops, unwise and a hazard unnecessary for our men to 

undertake. However, war is war, and orders are orders; so, 

with due dispatch, the regiment went to its task.

The orders covered the removal of traps, mines, “duds,” 

mined dugouts, etc., in three major areas and five minor 

areas, all known to be intensively organized by this means 

of defense and generally shown on the captured German 

maps with more or less accuracy. These maps, both German and French, would, in some cases, show traps and 

mines which did not exist but, more frequently, whole 

series of traps, which had never been plotted on the maps, 

would be discovered.

In the first case, it was assumed that it had been 

planned to place mines in a certain location for certain defense purposes and, for lack of time, labor, or other reason, 

the scheme or location had been neglected or abandoned. In 

the second instance, which was by far the more frequent, it 

was a case of a local sector commander’s being more enthusiastic in this mode of defense and more energetic, with the 

result that he attempted to mine every logical strategical position but had neglected to record properly, 

both for his own use and, as it proved subsequently, 

for ours, the location and type of these mines on his 

battle sheets.

These were the conditions under which the regiment undertook its task. The weather was typical: 

rainy, misty, and with inches of mud under foot. 

The areas were, in general, distant from the thenregimental area, so that the assigned details had to 

move out and bivouac temporarily in the location in 

which they were to work.

Especially qualified officers and men were selected for this work with great care, as the hazard was 

fully realized. To this end, men who had been accustomed to handling explosives—mining engineers, 

contractors, and men with quarrying experience, 

were chosen. They were instructed emphatically 

that caution was to be observed as the first element 

of their duty, and that haste and carelessness were to be 

avoided.

By Colonel J. Frank Barber, Engineer Officers’ Reserve Corps

Destruction of Enemy Traps

and Mines

A Timeless Profession

Enemy Traps Prepared for Destruction

German Percussion Ignition Devices

The staff officer had under his arm a great roll of maps, 

American, French and German. These were unfolded, and 

then ensued a long conference which included general instructions and details for the clearing of several extensive 

areas of enemy traps and mines, as well as removing (policing) from these designated areas “duds,” grenades, flares 

and, in short, every article of an explosive or dangerous 

nature. The Colonel’s orders were explicit, direct, and definite. The task was uncanny and, to the mind of a man with 

troops, unwise and a hazard unnecessary for our men to 

undertake. However, war is war, and orders are orders; so, 

with due dispatch, the regiment went to its task.

The orders covered the removal of traps, mines, “duds,” 

mined dugouts, etc., in three major areas and five minor 

areas, all known to be intensively organized by this means 

of defense and generally shown on the captured German 

maps with more or less accuracy. These maps, both German and French, would, in some cases, show traps and 

mines which did not exist but, more frequently, whole 
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 9

Our men met with two minor accidents which, luckily, 

were not fatal; but from the amount of explosives handled, 

the several types, and the varied and totally unknown conditions and circumstances, the toll might have been much 

heavier, as it proved in other engineer regiments during 

similar work. But, owing to caution, experience and good 

judgment on the part of the officers and men of the several 

details, we succeeded in our task with a minimum cost.

It would be tiresome to go into detail as to the type and 

number of mines taken out from the several areas, but it is 

interesting to note that more than three tons of explosives 

were removed and destroyed and, in all, a total area of 167 

square kilometers were fairly well cleared. The work covered the period from November 17 to December 24, 1918, 

and a total of 7 officers and about 200 men were employed.

The territory to be policed was divided into three areas: 

Areas No. 1, Ornes-Maucourt in the Verdun Sector; Area 

No. 2, Ville-en-Woevre and Fresnes-en-Woevre; and Area 

No. 3, Samogneux and Brabant. In the third area, it was 

largely a case of destroying “duds,” grenades, flares, etc.

The work in Area No. 1 consisted principally of removing 

and destroying German mines and explosive traps, mostly 

of the anti-tank type. A great number of these, of the box 

type, and each consisting of two 3-inch shells, were found.

These traps were buried in the ground in rows with the 

top flush with the surface, and staggered one or two meters 

apart. The rows extended on both sides of the road for a distance of over half a kilometer and were guarded on either 

side, both front and rear, by a line of barbed wire entanglement. These particular traps were rendered harmless by 

lifting the box lid and cutting the fuses in several places, 

the traps being left open to the weather.

There were also located a large number of traps consisting of one 6-inch shell each, buried in the roadway, with 

a plunger igniter and detonator in the nose of the shell. 

These were planted, as usual, in a staggered and more or 

less irregular design across the roads and for some distance 

on either side of the highways. These traps were all destroyed by placing a small charge of T. N. T. with detonator 

and time fuse, on each plunger, and exploding the shells 

in place. 

Also, in this area were located a large number of mines 

consisting of a box with about 20 kilograms of H.E., set 

flush with the surface of the ground; when the box lid was 

forced down, the fuse was ignited and caused the explosion. 

These traps were placed parallel and alongside the road 

at a distance of some three or four meters apart and were 

evidently intended to destroy wagons and tanks. They were 

dug up and placed in piles, and were detonated by means of 

a small portion of T. N. T. discharged by a time fuse.

In another section of this area, a great number of antitank mines, of the shell and box type, were found, each having four 3-inch shells, laid on their sides, and two igniters 

and fuses. These traps were set in rows running at right 

angles to the road, and lay between two lines of barbed 

wire. The fuses were cut or disconnected and the shells left 

exposed to the weather.

Later, in an adjacent area, over 300 anti-tank mines of 

the “yoke” type were located, dug up, and destroyed. This 

type consisted of about 8 kilograms of H.E. (perdit, usually) 

placed in a small box about 4 inches deep and 12 inches 

square. This box had a yoke and a trigger connecting four 

igniters which, in turn, connected with four detonators 

and then, to instantaneous fuses. A pressure of some 40 

or 50 pounds on the yoke would cause the explosion. These 

mines were set at intervals of about a meter in a double 

row across a ravine and were surrounded by barbed wire. 

The yokes and triggers were carefully detached from the 

boxes, and the latter were piled together and destroyed by a

T. N. T. mud-cap. 

Details of firing mechanism

Common Type of Enemy Trap
10 Engineer January-April 2011

A quantity of 6-inch shells was located in this same area, 

buried in the usual manner, with plunger detonators up. 

These were destroyed in place by blasting or mud-capping.

In sub-area seven of this same area, a large quantity of 

contact mines were located in an old quarry near Ornes. 

These consisted of a box containing about 10 kilograms 

of perdit placed at one end. They had two igniters and instantaneous fuses leading to the charge, fastened in such 

a manner that, upon raising or pressing down the lid, the 

mine would explode. The lid was held in position by 

five wires and made a mine which was very sensitive and dangerous, and which required very great 

care in the unloading. The mines were usually set 

at irregular intervals, without system, and slightly 

below the surface of the ground, being covered with 

a light layer of earth, grass or brush. The safest 

way to destroy these traps, it was found, was to 

detonate them in place with a half block of T. N. T., 

well-placed under a heavy mud-cap.

A road mine, consisting of four charges of perdit 

of about 60 kilograms each, placed four feet under 

the roadway and connected with time fuse and detonators, was found at another location in this area. 

This mine was not indicated on the maps. It was 

unloaded and the contents blown.

Many of the planted or road mines, when uncovered and 

deloused, as the men termed it, were found to be of rather 

an ancient vintage, having been affected by surface water, 

and often rendered harmless. This condition, however, was 

not ascertainable until the men had undergone the uncertainty and hazard of opening them up.

This detail encountered also several concrete dams, 

backing up the water of small streams and flooding areas of many acres. These flooded areas made an effective

obstacle to advancing troops and, consequently, an effective 

defensive element. The dams were usually blown by using 

some of the enemy’s own perdit. The charges had, however, 

to be placed in water-tight containers and planted well at 

the base of the structures.

In this area, a highway bridge prepared for demolition 

by placing five charges of H.E., of approximately 45 kilograms each, at vital points on the girders; a foot-bridge 

with two charges, each containing 55 kilograms of perdit, 

placed on the supports; and a light railway bridge with several charges placed about the supports were found.

Late in November, one of the details located, under a 

bridge over the Ornes river, near the town of Ornes, nine 

mines set in sheet-iron containers and arranged with time 

fuses. They also located several bangalore or pipe torpedoes in this area. These were usually made of 2-inch pipe 

and ranged anywhere from 12 to 20 feet in length. In some 

instances, they would be arranged with a trip igniter and 

in others with a time fuse, but they were invariably heavily 

charged.

Another scheme or method of defense was to blow a large 

crater in the road and then plant a series of tank and infantry mines on either side for a kilometer or more. Throughout, the enemy’s organization of the ground evidenced 

unlimited energy and the expenditure of a vast amount of 

labor. Many of their devices were crude, yet generally practical. The most pertinent criticism would be in the matter 

of weather-proofing their containers. This seemed a universal fault.

Many bridges were encountered, especially in, and adjacent to, the town of Ornes. These had all been prepared for 

demolition with ample charges placed on the struts or major members but, through lack of time or for other reasons, 

they had not been fired.

Dugouts were a special problem. Groups or settlements 

of these dugouts were found where, in many instances, the 

entrances had been planted with a trap or mine. Many 

an American soldier, particularly of the souvenir-hunting 

type, has met his death through this scheme of trickery on 

the part of the enemy. 

Anti-tank Box Type Mine

Details of Firing Mechanism
January-April 2011 Engineer 11

The general and most popular plan was to place a charge 

of from 25 to 50 kilograms of perdit in a container within 

the entrance of the dugout, and connect it with the igniter 

and instantaneous fuse. These igniters were so placed that 

when any pressure was exerted on the step, it exploded the 

charge. The method adopted in destroying this style of trap 

was to shoot the whole dugout by means of an ample charge 

of perdit, the enemy’s own explosive, it not being deemed 

worthwhile to hazard the life of an American soldier by 

entering and exploring a subterranean habitation which 

never would or could be of future benefit to anyone.

The Ville-en-Woevre and Fresnes area was handled by 

another detail. While they encountered some of the same 

type of traps, it was apparent that this section had been 

under a different sector commander. 

There were two types of mines generally used. These 

consisted of a charge of from 8 to 12 kilograms of perdit in 

a light wooden box covered with tarred felt and arranged 

with a detonating device. Often, the mine was enclosed in a 

heavy wooden box and buried just under the surface of the 

ground and camouflaged with grass, earth or other material. In some cases, the mine was placed inside a trapezoidal, wooden box that was set in the top of the ground. The 

detonators of the mines were connected with the traps by 

trip wires so that the slightest jar would explode the mine.

A line of over 760 anti-tank mines was left by the enemy 

just southwest of Ville-en-Woevre. These mines consisted 

of either a 150-millimeter or 220-millimeter shell enclosed 

in a wooden box. The lids of the boxes were so connected 

with the detonating mechanism of the shells that they 

would be exploded when a tank or heavy object passed over 

it. A man’s weight was not sufficient to detonate them. The 

planting of these mines usually followed the contours and 

extended more than 1 1/2 kilometers on either side of the 

road. They had all been carefully camouflaged.

In most instances, the mines were set with top flush 

with the ground surface and camouflaged with grass, brush 

or a light covering of earth typical of the immediate area.

The detonators were sprung by the exertion of pressure 

on the lids of the containing cases. In some places, a very 

light or delicate pressure was sufficient, yet in others, the 

mechanism was such that material pressure was required 

to obtain detonation.

Usually, in the case of the 155-millimeter mines, about 

two feet of instantaneous fuse connecting the detonators, 

which were spring by pressure on the supporting blocks, 

were used.

In the case of the 250-millimeter shells, the detonator 

and fuse lighter were enclosed in the shell with tip or nose 

up. In this type, a trip wire was attached to the cotter-pin 

of the fuse lighter and strung across the box so that if the 

lid were forced down, the cotter-pin would be jerked out, 

allowing the fuse lighter to explode the mine. These detonators were cemented into both sides of the shells, so it was 

impossible to remove them, making it necessary to destroy 

the whole mine.

To destroy these mines, the shells were collected in 

piles, after cutting the wires or fuses, and a block of T. N. T. 

was mud-capped against the nose of one of the shells. This 

was fired by cap and battery. Each group contained 10 or 

12 shells, and several groups were wired up together. The 

detonation of one shell usually was sufficient to explode 

all in the group. The explosion of such a series was very 

violent, and splinters sometimes flew a kilometer or more, 

while craters of 30 feet in diameter and 12 feet deep were 

blown. It was necessary to protect the men by constructing 

temporary dugouts, or using other suitable shelter.

Yoke Type of Anti-tank Mine

Ingenious Tripping Device for German Trap Mine

(Continued on page 14)
12 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

Editor’s Note: The seal of our Society...includes in its design the turreted castle which, since 1840, has been the dominating feature of the insignia of the Corps of Engineers. 

Lieutenant Blodgett, newly commissioned in the 

Corps of Engineers, had been thoroughly enjoying 

himself until the young lady asked that question 

about his buttons. He had had a fine dinner, the orchestra 

was playing smoothly, and he knew that his new uniform 

fit him perfectly. Then came the question!

“Why,” she inquired, “do you wear buttons different 

from those that Daddy wears?”

Now when a girl is the daughter of a General Officer 

and that General Officer happens to be your Division Commander, you can not very well slide out from under such 

a question by a flippant remark to the effect that maybe 

it’s her Old Man who’s wrong. No, this was undoubtedly a 

question calling for a sensible answer, and he was stumped.

Looking back upon it all he was sure that his answer 

had left much to be desired, and to make it worse, he had 

even muffed the next question as to the significance of his 

castle insignia. Three days later, when seeking out the 

truth, he blushed the color of his company guidon to recall 

that he had stuttered something about “that building out 

by the reservoir in Washington—or perhaps the library at 

West Point.” At the time, though, he had seemed to remember that someone had once told him that one or the other 

of these buildings had served to furnish the original design 

for the insignia of his branch. It was all very vague.

As a matter of fact, the Lieutenant should not be too 

severely criticized for failure to know the answer to the 

question so unexpectedly propounded. The whole story of 

the insignia is obtainable only from fragmentary records 

and incomplete descriptive articles. The assembling of pertinent data is an almost impossible task to anyone not in 

the immediate vicinity of Fort Belvoir and Washington.

For Lieutenants who do not have the answer, therefore, 

and any others who may be interested, the following information is presented.

Historical Data

According to General Harts,1

 the gateway to the city 

of Verdun was taken by the Marquis des Androuins 

.as the basis of a design which he made about 1780 

for a Corps of Engineers in the young American Army. Androuin, an erstwhile resident of Verdun, and an officer of 

the French Army had volunteered for service in the United 

States during our War of the Revolution and had been given the task of organizing the Corps of Engineers.

Following the Revolutionary War, the history of the 

Corps of Engineers became entwined with that of the Military Academy at West Point, and the castle design was apparently forgotten until about 1807. In that year, Colonel 

Jonathan Williams began the construction on Governor’s 

Island of the first casemated battery in this 

country as one of the defenses of New York. 

Whether his design was influenced by the 

early insignia of his Corps or not, the final 

structure, completed in 1810, was so like 

a castle in its appearance that it became 

known as “Castle Williams.” An outstanding feature of its design was a large eagle 

over the center.2

 Since Colonel Williams 

had served as the first Superintendent of 

the United States Military Academy, beginning April 13, 1802, it is probable that 

he was attempting to perpetuate the castle 

insignia in his design of the battery.

In any event, Castle Williams produced 

such a profound effect and brought so 

much credit to the Corps that when distinctive buttons were designed a few years 

later (probably about 1812), they were 

made to embody a casemated, embrasured,

A Timeless Profession

By Captain Herbert D. Vogel, Corps of Engineers

Gateway to the City of Verdun
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 13

crenelated battery of masonry defending a waterway, with 

a National eagle over the center. The French word Essayons

was apparently inserted to suggest the influence exerted 

upon Colonel Williams during his residence in France as 

an American Agent at the time of the Revolutionary War.

There is at present in the Ordnance Museum at West 

Point, a button from the uniform of Capt. Alden Partridge, 

worn in 1816. This button is, in general, identical with the 

present Engineer button, the only difference being that the 

individual elements, mainly the bastion, are of slightly different aspect. A uniform worn by Sylvanus Thayer about 

1830 has similar buttons.

From 1821 to 1851, officers of Engineers wore a star and 

wreath as a distinctive collar device, but in 1839 a turreted 

castle had been adopted by General Totten as the basis 

of a design for a belt plate. This castle was substantially 

the same as we now know it and apparently similar, if not 

identical to the one designed by Androuin. The following 

is quoted from a letter from the Office of the Chief of Engineers in 1903:

Sept. 12, 1839: John Smith, military tailor, 168 Pearl 

St., N.Y.C., sent to Gen. Totten (Sup’t. U.S.M.A.) a belt 

plate showing the “Castle” made according to the design 

furnished him by Capt. F.A. Smith. Gen. Totten replied, 

Sept. 17, “The work is satisfactory except the castle. I think 

it best now to have the castle executed in this city, possibly under my own immediate supervision to serve as a 

pattern.” Oct. 25, 1839, 

the belt was returned 

to Mr. Smith “approved” 

in a letter signed “by order, F.A. Smith, Capt. 

and Asst. to the Chief 

Engineer.”

In 1840, an order was 

issued to define items of 

the uniform in considerable detail. The following description is taken 

from this order:

Buttons—gilt, nine-tenths of an inch exterior diameter, 

slightly convex; a raised bright rim, one-thirtieth of an inch 

wide; device an eagle holding in his beak a scroll with the 

word “Essayons,” a bastion with embrasures in the distance, surrounded by water, and a rising sun; the figures 

to be of dead gold upon a bright field. To be made after the 

design in the Engineer Office. Small buttons of the same 

form and device, and fifty-five hundredths of an inch exterior diameter.

The same order stipulated that engineers would wear 

silver castles on their epaulettes, forage caps, and belt 

plate. All orders and regulations prior to 1840 and later 

than 1813 prescribed only that engineers would wear the 

“button now established,” no description being given of said 

button. In 1813, the General Order stated that engineers 

would wear a button of “distinctive design with motto.” 

This substantiates the view that the small group of Engineer officers existing at that time chose their own button 

and that it was continued by tradition until 1840, when it 

was described and established in orders.

In 1851, regulations were published relative to uniforms 

and insignia of the Army and included in these was the 

following description: “Cap ornament for officers of the 

Corps of Engineers: A gold embroidered wreath of laurel 

and palm, encircling a silver turreted castle.” Enlisted men 

wore the same castle but of gold metal.3

 The choice of silver for the officer’s insignia seems to follow directly from 

the traditional colors of the Engineers, which were red and 

white. In G.O. No. 93, A.G.O., Nov. 26, 1866, the Battalion 

Color was designated to be of “Scarlet * * * * bearing in the 

center a castle with the letters ‘U.S.’ above and the word 

‘Engineers’ below, in silver; fringe white, Cords and tassels 

to be red and white silk intermixed.”4

 It is thus seen that 

silver castles were traditional with officers of the Corps of 

Engineers from at least 1851 until the promulgation of AR 

600-35 in 1921, when silver metal was exchanged for brass 

in conformity to the rest of the Army. 

A Board of Officers convened by Par. 14, S.O. 52, March 

3, 1902, A.G.O. decided, relative to buttons for the uniform, 

that they should be: “For all officers—Circular, slightly 

convex, device, coat of arms of the United States. * * * * 

Engineers to retain their present design but conforming 

in all other respects to that for the Army.” This order was 

Castle Williams

Officers’

Button

Soldiers’ Collar

Ornament

Officers’

Castle
14 Engineer January-April 2011

subsequently amended as follows: “For all officers except 

Engineers * * * * For officers of Engineers * * * * circular, 

slightly convex; device, an eagle holding in his beak a scroll 

with the word ‘Essayons,’ a bastion with embrasures in 

the distance surrounded by water, with a rising sun. * * * * 

Insignia * * * * Corps of Engineers, a silver turreted castle.”

Recapitulation

Piecing together the information contained in the 

preceding paragraphs, the following sequence of 

events is deduced:

1780—The Marquis des Androuins designed a castle insignia for a corps of engineers (Corps du Genie) in the Continental Army, this design being based on the gateway of 

the City of Verdun. A similar castle had been used as early 

as 1159 on the shield of the Count of Lenzberg.

1802—Jonathan Williams, an Engineer officer, became 

first Superintendent of West Point.

1807—Jonathan Williams began construction of the 

first casemated battery in this country at what is now Governor’s Island.

1810—Castle Williams was completed to the great credit of Colonel Williams and his Corps.

Circa 1812—Small group of officers comprising the 

Corps of Engineers, began wearing a distinctive button 

with castle, water, rising sun, eagle and motto, all of which 

relate to Colonel Williams and his castle.

1813—Engineers were directed by regulations to wear a 

distinctive button with motto.

1839—General Totten directed design of present castle.

1840—Silver castles were ordered worn on epaulettes, 

forage cap, and belt plate. Distinctive buttons were described in detail for the first time.

1851—Buttons were again described, and silver castles 

(surrounded by laurel and palm leaves) were prescribed as 

cap ornaments.

1902—Buttons were again described and prescribed.

1921—Silver castles were changed to gold.

Endnotes

1

Brig. Gen. William W. Harts, “Origin of the Engineer Insignia,” The Military Engineer, September–October, 1930.

2

S.A. McCarthy, “The Insignia of the Corps of Engineers,” 

The Military Engineer, September–October, 1921. 

3

Uniform and Dress of the Army of the United States, June, 

1851, Wm. A. Horstmann and Sons, Philadelphia.

4

”History of Engineer Troops in the U.S. Army, 1775–1901,” 

Occasional Paper No. 37, Engineer School, Washington Barracks, 1910.

For the purposes of this feature, the article “Engineer 

Buttons and Castle,” by Captain Herbert Vogel, is printed 

as it appeared in The Military Engineer, Volume XXXIII, 

Issue Number 188, page 103, copyright March–April 1941, 

reprinted with permission of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME).

In the town of Ville-en-Woevre, the Germans had constructed a deep gallery shelter and road mine under the 

main street, parts of which were used as a storehouse for 

their immense stock of explosives, and other chambers 

loaded for discharge. In one room 500 kilograms of perdit 

were stored, and in the main chamber some 200 kilograms 

of the same explosive. At the entrance to the gallery, however, was a charge of 3,000 kilograms and, unquestionably, 

it was the intention of the Germans to blow up the crossroad before evacuating the town. It was assumed that the 

armistice was responsible for their change of mind. The 

perdit was removed from all the galleries and fired.

In addition to clearing the several areas of the deliberately placed traps and mines, the details collected and 

destroyed tons of “dud” shells, grenades, trench mortar ammunition, pyrotechnics, cartridges and shell.

In disposing of this material it was the custom to lay a 

base of grenades first, then successive tiers of shells, mortar bombs, rockets, etc., and more shells. The pile was detonated by means of a stick grenade with a time fuse cut for 

several minutes. 

The material was placed for demolition in old dugouts 

or deep trenches, in order to confine or localize the effect of 

the explosion. Gas shells were treated by burying in deep 

shell holes and covering with a layer of chloride of lime and 

several feet of earth.

The Germans were partial to two typical positions for 

anti-tank defense. A gap or ravine which would be the probable course selected by the tanks in an advance was heavily 

mined in their anticipation. Elsewhere a road mine would 

be exploded, thus diverting the tanks to either side of the 

road, where a warm reception had been prepared for them.

About the 24th of December, the details were relieved 

and rejoined their respective outfits, and the work was continued by captive Germans.

The work was carried on over a period of seven weeks, 

and tons of explosives were destroyed or rendered harmless. Some 200 men were employed in the ultra-hazardous 

task, yet they met with but two minor accidents, due largely to the care, caution, judgment and experience of the officers and noncoms in charge and to the courage and skill of 

the enlisted personnel. 

On December 26, the day after the most unique Christmas ever experienced by American troops, spent in the 

same desolate and shell-torn area where the last days of 

fighting of the Meuse-Argonne had left us, the regiment 

was ordered with the division back to the Souilly area, 

which proved to be the first step on our long journey home.

For the purposes of this feature, the article “Destruction of 

Enemy Traps and Mines,” by J. Frank Barber, is printed as it 

appeared in The Military Engineer, Volume XVI, Issue Number 89, page 374, copyright September–October 1924, reprinted with permission of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME). 

(“Traps and Mines,”continued from page 11)
January-April 2011 Engineer 15

I

n all the theaters of operations on our far-flung battle 

lines, enemy forces are being driven back and new bases are being established for our front-line forces. Many 

problems arise in developing these bases. Some of the problems are more or less common to all advance bases, while 

others are peculiar to particular locations and conditions. 

Many different methods, some better than others, are used 

to solve common problems. The detailed knowledge of how 

particular problems have been solved in certain bases is 

often of great value to officials in other bases. This article, 

covering engineering problems encountered in some forward Southwest Pacific bases, is written in an attempt to 

pass on some useful information and also to encourage discussions on this vital subject

Advance Planning

The importance of advance planning for a new base 

cannot be stressed too highly. This planning should 

be started prior to actual landing operations. A skeleton staff, made up of officers from each major branch of 

the service, should take part in this planning. Every available means should be used to obtain as much knowledge as 

possible about the new base. One of the best methods of doing this is to study aerial photographs of the area by means 

of a stereoscope.* A large-scale planimetric map is a great 

aid in co-ordinating this advance planning and very useful 

to the tactical troops both prior to and after the landing has 

been made. If a suitable map is not available, a reasonably 

accurate map can be quickly made from aerial photographs 

by using the radial-line method where the map is made to 

the average scale of the first two photographs. (See Par. 

78e, TM 5-230.) Tentative locations for airdromes, roads, 

wharves, telephone lines, bivouac and storage areas, hospitals, et cetera, can be spotted on this map. 

The recommended scale for this map is 1:7,200 or 1 inch 

= 600 feet as this is the most practical scale for the general purpose use of the aerial photographs from which it is 

made. Distances can be readily scaled by using the 60 scale 

on the Engineer’s scale. Having photographs taken periodically in this uniform scale makes plotting of construction 

progress on the map very easy and reduces materially the 

extensive field surveys normally used for this purpose.

Planning After Landing Has Been Made 

During, and immediately after, the initial landing 

operations, the tactical situation predominates, 

and roads for supplying the combat troops should 

receive first consideration. With proper advance planning 

these roads can be located so as to fit in with the final plan 

for the base. As the enemy is driven back, thorough ground 

reconnaissance should be made as a check on the tentative 

advance plan for the base. Use of aerial photographs is of 

great assistance in this reconnaissance.

Normally, the first actual base construction will be airdromes for the Air Corps and most of the heavy construction equipment will be needed for this purpose. Our own 

tactical roads and former enemy roads will have to be put 

to maximum use as, initially, very little equipment will be 

available for this type of construction. However, the use of 

a few pieces of equipment for building permanent, welllocated roads will usually pay big dividends, and often 

these roads can be built with less equipment than would be 

required to maintain the poor roads properly. Also, in early 

operations, the supply of all types of transportation and 

spare parts for repair are always at a premium, so damage to this equipment due to poor roads should be reduced 

to a minimum. Provision for proper drainage is of major 

importance. Plans for this drainage should be made before 

construction starts and should be continually kept in mind 

throughout the life of the base. Sufficient, competent staff 

inspectors should be in the field contantly, at night as well 

as during the daytime, to supervise construction. It is desirable that the primary features which should be covered 

in such inspections be well defined, in order to insure that 

consideration be given, by the appropriate technical staffs, 

to the principal factors effecting efficient prosecution of construction operations under their supervisory control. These 

inspectors should insure that proper construction methods 

are employed on these specific projects. For example, they 

should check such things as unbalanced effort in the use of 

man-power and equipment. Every effort should be made to 

eliminate bottlenecks. In the early stages, Engineer troops 

will be at a premium, so the main objective should be the 

efficient planning, supervision, and coordination of these 

units to attain the maximum of results quickly by the minimum of overall engineer effort.

Another vital problem in the early stages of any operation is the lack of ships to transport needed supplies and 

the lack of facilities to unload ships when they do arrive. 

Supplies for the tactical troops, both ground and Air Corps, 

generally receive first consideration. There is always a 

scarcity of lumber and other supplies for engineering construction. Every effort should be made to put sawmills into 

operation promptly in order to correct this situation. Where 

possible, native poles should be utilized in constructing 

buildings for operational offices, mess halls, and covered 

storage. Troops should remain quartered in tents until 

such time as essential construction is completed.

Engineering Operations on Advanced Bases

By Colonel Albert L. Lane, Corps of Engineers 

A Timeless Profession
May-August 2010 16 Engineer January-April 2011 Engineer 37

Details of Planning and Construction

The stereoscopic examination of aerial photographs 

will be found to be one of the most useful tools for 

planning all types of construction. There are certain 

fundamental principles in construction, which if followed, 

will lend to the efficient operation of the base. A brief description of the application of these fundamental principles 

to the various base construction projects are as follows:

Airdromes—The planning of airdromes is too complicated a subject to cover in this article. Adequate information on it is given in various War Department publications. 

However, it is desired to call attention to the great assistance that aerial photographs will give in suitable sites. 

Runways, parallel taxiways, and hardstands can be laid 

out on these photographs by stereoscopic study and the 

photographs can then be taken into the field and the photo location placed on the ground. A good method to use in 

these studies is to use pieces of transparent acetate cut to 

the proper size for the scale of the photograph to represent 

the runway, hardstanding or other features, the location 

of which is being studied. The best ground location for the 

features can be determined by shifting these transparent 

models on one photograph of an overlapping pair while the 

stereoscopic study is being made.

Roads—For the efficient operation of a base, roads, 

wherever possible, should be built as a series of straight 

tangents connected by easy curves. With the prevalent 

heavy volume of traffic and bad dust conditions, crooked 

roads slow up operations and cause many accidents. For 

example, the right angle turn and the bridge shown in

Figure 1 were the cause of a number of accidents resulting in many injuries and one fatality. The location of this 

road was eventually changed as indicated, after which no 

more accidents occurred there. If the available photographs 

had been used initially in locating this road, most of these 

accidents and considerable unnecessary road construction 

would have been avoided.

Where roads are built in areas of frequent rains, it is 

absolutely necessary to provide a fully-crowned cross section and to have adequate drainage. Soil stabilization is 

especially important in road building; by its use a firm, 

usable road can usually be built by the proper mixture of 

materials found along the road right-of-way, thus saving 

the time and equipment which would be consumed by the 

hauling of road-surfacing material from distant points. An 

experienced, practical man who can dig a few test holes, 

feel the soil and then prescribe how much of each soil is to 

be used in building each particular stretch of the road is invaluable for this type of work. Periodic sieve analyses and 

laboratory tests should be made of the various types of soil 

on the base in order to determine what mixture of available soils will give the best results. However, usually such 

a wide variation in soil conditions will be found that use of 

such tests for each little stretch of road or airdrome will be 

found too time-consuming to be practical. It is far better to 

have a man who by feeling and looking at soil can prescribe 

the proper mixture to use. An experienced civilian from the 

Australian Public Roads Department, who was employed 

in an advisory capacity at several bases, proved to be invaluable for this type of work.

Wharves

Normally, the first semi-permanent docks installed 

at any base are D-type docks, 30 feet wide, built 

to serve one Liberty Ship. Comprehensive plans 

should be made for eventual dock expansion so that 

when individual Liberty Docks are connected up to form 

a continuous dock extra construction required to secure a 

straight face for the dock will be avoided. A Phase-2 dock 

is one whose width is expanded from 30 feet to 70 feet. A 

Phase-2 and -3 dock is one in which the space between approached to the Phase-2 dock are filled in so that trucks 

can be backed up to the back face of the dock. A Phase-2 

and -3 dock can handle a third more freight with the same 

men and equipment than can a Phase-1 dock; hence, original wharf construction plans should provide for eventual 

extension to this type of dock. Figure 2, page 17 shows the 

work in progress on extending a Phase-1 dock to form a 

Phase-2 dock.

If possible one or more large transshipment warehouses should be built close to the docks so that fork lifts can 

transport cargo directly from the ships to the warehouses 

and vice versa. All large depots and storage areas should be 

located as close to the docks as possible. The desirability of 

such locations becomes especially apparent when bases begin to disband and there is a scarcity of both labor and motor transportation. This procedure consolidates the base, 

thus permitting available labor and transportation to be 

shifted quickly to points where they are most needed.

Water Supply

Experience has shown that, where possible, a central water-supply system 

should be built at the earliest possible 

date to serve the main base installations. 

Such systems can usually be installed quickly by using Avgas tanks and 4-inch Avgas 

pipeline. At some bases, a great deal of material, time, and labor has been used in providing small individual water points whose 

Figure 1. Relocation of Road to Eliminate Hazards inadequacy eventually required that a central
January-April 2011 Engineer 17

system be built. One of the main considerations in planning 

such a system is to provide water for ships at the docks. If 

possible, the source of water should be located so that water 

can be supplied by gravity rather than by means of extensive pumping operations. Pumps are generally both hard to 

obtain and to maintain and a sizable crew is needed to keep 

them in operation.

Bridges

Where tropical deluges, causing flash floods carrying much debris, are prevalent, bridges should be 

built with as wide span and as much clearance as 

possible. In one case, such a debris jam wrecked the existing bridge and changed the course of the river so that it 

endangered extensive base installations farther on downstream. This danger was relieved by blasting out a new 

channel in order to move the river back to a satisfactory 

location. 

Most of the bridges in the Southwest Pacific Area bases 

have been of pile bent construction and much trouble has 

been caused by flash floods washing out the abutments 

of these bridges. The remedy for this situation has been 

to drive the end pile bents at points as far up the bank 

slopes as possible and use an extra stringer span at each 

end. Experience has shown that by building these bridges 

with a floor elevation 2 feet above the level of the roadway 

and using the stringer spans as ramps, traffic is slowed 

down and damage to bridges due to impact is materially

reduced.

Covered Storage

When a base is first started some covered storage 

must be provided immediately as protection for 

perishable and critical items. Since, normally, 

lumber and other construction materials are not available 

at these early stages, the common practice has been to construct buildings 20 feet wide of native poles and to using 

tarpaulins for roofing (see Figure 3). It has been found that, 

in this type of construction, buildings 40 feet wide can be 

constructed almost as quickly as the 20-foot buildings and 

one such building gave more storage space and better protection than did two 20-foot buildings. Neither of these two 

types of buildings is satisfactory for efficient base operation. Where possible, storage sheds with concrete floors, so 

that supplies can be stacked and handled by means of fork 

lifts, should be constructed at the earliest possible date (see 

Figure 4). 

A good plan to secure quick temporary coverage is to 

use tarpaulins over individual rafters which are placed on 

the top of carefully piled stacks of supplies as illustrated in 

Figure 5, page 18.

Staging and Training Areas

Plans should be made to locate 

staging areas so that adequate 

training areas are easily accessible. Also, staging of units will be greatly facilitated if the areas are laid out to 

accommodate standard-sized units, and 

if housekeeping facilities, such as headquarters buildings, mess halls, water 

tanks, storage buildings, latrines, and 

shower baths are built before the unit arrives. The buildings need be only native 

pole frames that can be covered by the 

units’ own tarpaulins.

Figure 2. Extending Dock to Phase-2 Type

Figure 4. Prefabricated Storage Shed with Concrete Floor

Figure 3. Storage Sheds, 20 Feet Wide, of Native Pole Construction
18 Engineer January-April 2011

Miscellaneous Base Facilities

Much improvisation is needed in order to provide 

the various facilities that are required for base 

operations. Frontispiece shows how salvaged oil 

drums used as a retaining wall and engineer heavy equipment were employed to prepare a foundation for a concrete 

loading dock to be used by the Quartermaster for distributing Class 1 supplies. Figure 6 shows the construction for 

the water supply of a WAC camp. A clamshell bucket was 

first used to dig a large hole for the well, later to lower a 

strongly built lined framework into this hole and, finally, 

to backfill the loose sand around this frame. This was a 

much quicker operation than the normal method of sinking 

a shaft. Note the native poles used as columns for the water 

tower structure. A church was also built by using native 

poles and a canvas tarpaulin for a roof.

A base carpenter shop equipped with power, cross-cut, 

and rip saws and other labor-saving devices is an essential 

base facility. It can be used day and night for making furniture, packing crates, boards for signs, mess tables, benches 

for theaters and churches, and framing for all types of portable buildings, et cetera. A sign-painting shop, electrical 

equipment-repair shop, and a combined water-supply and 

plumbing shop are also essential.

This whole discussion has been based on the situation 

where our air power has been so superior to that of the enemy that danger from enemy bombing has been very slight. 

Where danger from bombing is great, provisions will, of 

course, have to be made for dispersal of activities and utilization of natural cover for camouflage wherever possible.

Conclusion

The Engineering considerations needed to insure the 

success of forward base operations are:

1. Careful advance planning.

2. Thorough knowledge of terrain secured by personal 

reconnaissance and by stereoscopic study of aerial photographs.

3. Properly located and constructed base facilities such 

as airdromes, roads, wharves, bridges, water-supply installations, storage facilities, staging areas, et cetera. 

4. A comprehensive, continually followed up plan for 

drainage.

5. An adequate and qualified engineer supervisory staff 

making day and night inspections of essential construction 

and maintenance work.

6. Knowledge of the overall needs of all branches of the 

Service, and continuous contact with these Services, to understand and plan in advance to meet changing situations.

7. Consolidation of base facilities so as to have economy 

of time, space, and effort. This is especially important in the closing up stages of a base when 

there is a scarcity of labor including prisoners, 

natives, and casual labor so that the withdrawal 

of engineer troops to new forward bases will not 

disrupt operations.

*See “Use of Aerial Photographs,” by Colonel 

Albert L. Lane, in The Military Engineer, July, 

1943.

For the purposes of this feature, the article 

“Engineering Operations on Advanced Bases,” 

by Colonel Albert Lane, is printed as it appeared 

in The Military Engineer, Volume XXXVII, Issue 

Number 238, page 299, copyright August 1945, 

reprinted with permission of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME).

Figure 5. Improvised Cover for Stacked Supplies

Figure 6. Water-Supply System for a WAC Camp
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 19

Nestled on the peaceful banks of the Potomac River in the verdant countryside of old Virginia, on 

the historic Fairfax estate of 18th Century fame, 

is situated the world-famous Engineer School, the seat of 

learning for the Corps of Engineers. Recent investigation 

has disclosed this to be the oldest Service school in the 

army, whose roots extend through the pages of history for 

over 150 years. West Point, New York, Willetts Point, New 

York, and Washington Barracks, D.C., were former homes 

of the school.*

From a humble beginning on the Hudson to its present 

establishment on the Potomac, and throughout each succeeding war, the Engineer School was to demonstrate the 

wisdom of its founders and the excellence of its teaching. 

The Civil War proved for the first time the vital significance 

of the Corps of Engineers and it is not surprising that many 

of the famous generals of that war, including Meade and 

Robert E. Lee, were Engineer officers. It was in the Virginian campaign that the federal Engineers, on the night of 

June 14, 1864, built the longest ponton bridge in history, 

over 2,000 feet, across the James River. By midnight, June 

15, Grant’s entire army with all its artillery had crossed 

the river. The Rhine crossing was still 80 years away. It 

was near the James River crossing that hundreds of engineer officers, students at the Engineer School, received 

their instruction in modern river crossing operations in 

preparation for the hardest school of applications—actual 

warfare.

But it took World War II to convince the world that 

modern war is an engineer’s war. The miracles performed 

on every beachhead, river, harbor, and airfield throughout 

the globe, are tributes to the glorious tradition of the Corps 

of Engineers. It was not a mere coincidence that the atom 

bomb project was entrusted to these same Engineers. Since 

the war began, over 23,000 Engineer officers were taught 

modern military engineering at the Engineer Officer Candidate School; over 20,000 Engineer officers were given additional training in specialized military subjects; and over 

22,000 enlisted specialists were trained in its modern shops 

and classrooms. Among the many subjects taught are included mines and booby traps; bridges; camouflage; water 

purification and supply; airdrome construction; roads; demolitions; map reproduction; surveying; photography; and 

Engineer heavy equipment, including bulldozers, graders, 

scrapers, shovels, and pile drivers. The battle importance 

of the subjects taught and the high standard of instruction 

have attracted Engineer officers and enlisted men from over 

thirty allied nations to come and study or visit at the school.

The teachings at the school include only proven doctrine: lessons learned and tested in battle. Intelligence 

reports from all the theaters are received, studied, and 

evaluated for their military significance. These reports 

are supplemented by first-hand reports of overseas observers who are constantly on the alert for new ideas, 

techniques, and enemy material. The cream of this sifting process is incorporated at once into the instruction at 

the Engineer School and published in the many engineer 

manuals which are prepared and written by its Research 

and Training Publications Department. These manuals 

are written and edited by a skilled staff of professional 

writers with literary and editorial experience, and are 

illustrated by a group of artists many of whom were nationally known in civilian life. These publications are then 

printed and bound by the school’s $350,000 reproduction 

A Timeless Profession

The Engineer School

By First Lieutenant Thomas A. Pedersen, Corps of Engineers

Abbot Hall, Headquarters Building, The Engineer School
plant operated by an expert staff of experienced technicians. This is one of the finest plants of its kind in the nation and is capable of turning out all varieties of printing, 

lithography, and photography.

As described briefly by Lt. Gen. Raymond A. Wheeler, the 

present Chief of Engineers, in his article in this issue, many 

Engineer officers held high commands during World War II. 

But now the Engineer School turns to peacetime instruction and training. And in the quiet countryside of Virginia, on land bombarded by British war ships in the War 

of 1812, and where Lee once established his headquarters 

in the Civil War, the Engineer School begins a new chapter 

in its illustrious history.

*

See What You Should Know About the Army Engineers, 

by Lt. Col. (now Brig. Gen.) Paul W. Thompson.

For the purposes of this feature, the article “The Engineer 

School,” by First Lieutenant Thomas Pedersen, is printed 

as it appeared in The Military Engineer, Volume XXXVIII, 

Issue Number 247, page 184, copyright May 1946, reprinted 

with permission of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME). 

20 Engineer January-April 2011

Engineers Breaching Barbed Wire Entanglements with Bangalore Torpedo

Converging Tracer Ammunition Demonstration on the Bayliss Combat Range
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 21

Effective countermine training is almost universally 

accepted as being in about the same state as it has 

been over the past 40 years—unsatisfactory. This 

has created the MICMIS Study which has generated the 

need for a sapper military occupational specialty (MOS). 

The design of a program of instruction supporting an 

MOS is normally done through a process called systems engineering. This involves three basic steps prior to developing the actual lessons. First, the job itself is examined, and 

a list of tasks is prepared that shows everything the specialist must be able to do. Second, these tasks are examined to 

determine where they can best be learned—service school, 

unit, or on-the-job training (OJT). Third, the tasks selected 

for training are each broken down further into knowledges 

that are then taught or trained as parts of specific lessons. 

In evaluating a program to train an effective sapper, 

one task—that of finding a mine or booby trap—cannot be 

analyzed by listing knowledges, because such a list will not 

enable the graduate to consistently find the mine or booby 

trap. When this is the case, the task has not been trained. 

An easy path is to regulate the task to OJT, but now—as in 

the past—the price in combat is too high, and the problem 

is not solved. The program of instruction under development must therefore, of necessity, include—along with the 

remaining conventional MOS tasks—the task of finding 

mines. This article concerns itself with the training of the 

unique task of “finding mines and booby traps.” 

Extensive attempts in recent years have been made to 

determine and analyze the human characteristics or traits 

which make up the outstanding patrol point men. Whatever enables them to find mines and booby traps better 

than others has not yet been isolated. Some individuals 

just excel in this skill more than others. The experts who 

have been interviewed and tested learned their skills by 

experiencing real live situations. Their skills were trained 

and sharpened to a fine edge through individual adaptation—much the same as a child’s reflexes are automatically 

adapted to his environment. These specialists are not constant with each other when they explain why they are more 

skillful than their contemporaries. 

Education of an individual takes many forms other than 

that normally found in the classroom. Reports by some of 

By Major William L. Jones

A Timeless Profession

Training the Effective Sapper
May-August 2010 22 Engineer January-April 2011

our most noted educators document that both humans and 

animals rapidly learn tasks on their own simply by being 

put in a situation where they desire to do the task successfully and the means to do it are available. For a simplified 

illustration let us put a mouse at location X and food at 

location Y. 

On the first trial the mouse takes 1 1/2 hours to find the 

food with obvious difficulty. Subsequent attempts shorten 

until the mouse learns this maze and gets the food within 

a few seconds. The mouse is next placed in a new maze. 

Does he completely start over? No. The mouse has learned 

to learn. Experience is transferred and both his initial trial 

time and his total learning of the new maze are appreciably 

shortened. Now, if this trained mouse could talk could he 

really explain why he is faster now? Does he himself really 

know all the cues he acts upon when he moves through the 

maze? This principle of the mind’s automatically learning 

to adopt a new environment also works with humans, and 

although the cues providing stimulus are not always identified, learning still takes place. 

This theory is currently widely used during military 

field training, but success is dependent on rigid adherence 

to the following two factors—

■ The student motivation must be very strong, causing

either a fervent desire to be successful or an equal1y 

strong fear of failure. The motivation should parallel, as 

much as possible, that of the combat environment for 

which it is being prepared. 

■ The learning or training environment must be as close 

as possible to the real environment. This is difficult, 

since conditions such as fear, fatigue, and time require 

very careful analysis and preparation and are essential 

if valid skill transfer is to take place. A seemingly minor 

compromise can sometimes destroy the environment 

sufficiently so that effective learning transfer does not 

occur. The student learns to train but does not learn to 

accomplish the task. These principles can now be applied to the countermine task of “Find an Enemy Mine 

or Booby Trap.” 

Motivating men is a leadership problem that is always 

present in training, both in units and at service schools. 

Most men attempt to do well, but need some inducement to 

sustain themselves if the environment becomes tough. Sapper training will be complex and physically demanding and 

will require a high efficiency level with detailed accuracy 

under conditions of stress. The student must work hard 

to pass the instruction program and then be motivated

sufficiently to maintain his skills and knowledge beyond 

graduation. One proposal is to authorize hazardous duty 

(demolition) pay for sapper training—and continuously 

for sapper graduates who can maintain proficiency, regardless of their current assignment. Controlled testing 

with very high minimum standards would be required 

quarterly or semiannually to include new information 

learned by individuals through self-study programs that 

each sapper needs to continue. These rigid standards, if 

maintained, will generate an espirit that will sustain the 

sapper corps—the hazardous duty pay will compensate for 

the real explosive hazards in this specialty plus offer the 

needed intense training motivation by providing a very 

real and tangible loss that will result from failure. I know 

of no other motivation that will provide the needed desire 

during and after the course that will generate the needed 

performance quality. 

From the training viewpoint the best environment 

would be a real one—real mines employed by and against 

a real enemy using real weapons and ammunition. To save 

injuries, compromises have to be made, but each compromise must be seriously considered for necessity and for 

proper compensations. For example, when eliminating the 

mine itself, a training aid must be substituted that looks, 

feels, and functions the same. The mine is replaced with 

a duplicate that does everything except injure men. This 

single substitution is serious. From the motivation point of 

view, fear of failure, needless to say, is drastically reduced. 

Given the fervent desire to pass the course as outlined in 

the paragraph above, this compromise can be partly compensated by failing a student and dropping him from the 

program the fifth time he unsafely detonates a device, 

regardless of the circumstances. This automatic negative 

motivator parallels closely the concern real mines cause. 

In theory, the first accident should be grounds for failure, 

but the loss of potentially good sappers would be too high. 

In combat, men are hot, tired, and impatient. In training, 

hard physical requirements, long hours, tight schedules, 

and a strict cadre can reconstruct many of these hazardous 

distractors. A third environment pitfall is that individual 

consistency in the work of the mine layer trains the countermine student in those specific consistencies. By having 

two or more teams of students—who do not meet—work 

against each other, each will develop and employ improvisations, based on their analysis of other teams designed to 

deliberately deceive. This adds the challenges and diversity 

that are needed. 

A side benefit is the discussion within an installing team 

analyzing if and how a system being employed could be 

“Sapper training will be complex and physically 

demanding and will require a high efficiency level 

with detailed accuracy under conditions of stress.”
January-April 2011 Engineer 23

countered. Thus it can be concluded that, to learn the task 

of finding a booby trap, it must be learned in the most dynamic, realistic fashion possible. The course must be structured around a 24-hour day and be physically and mentally 

demanding. 

In developing a sapper course using the above ideas, the 

problem of managing and controlling the students arises. 

To maintain realism, the missions must be exceptionally 

clear with the instructors relegated to quietly grading leadership, evaluating mine and countermine techniques, and 

declaring casualties.

 The missions will initially involve simple tasks but ultimately evolve to large-area problems with many alternative solutions. The support requirements can be kept to a 

minimum, since most preparation is done by two or more 

squad-sized student units continuously working against 

each other. Techniques will grow in sophistication as

time passes. 

A key reminder should be emphasized at this point. Devices used for training must be installed and removed prior 

to real equipment failing; in this, the installing squad will 

miss the major portion of the training potential. An example of one exercise toward the end of the course might be—

■ SQUAD #1: Move from A to B (distance of six miles) 

between 0600 and 0830 tomorrow. Booby traps are very

likely to be about. This squad has the alternative of 

picking several routes, using trails or not. 

The course will be approximately 7 to 9 weeks in duration, rigorous both mentally and physically in its demands on the student. Input requirements and graduation/qualification standards 

will be very high since the graduate will be considered an expert in theory and practical application of combat demolition techniques, all phases of mine/countermine warfare, and to instruct 

troops of all arms in appropriate phases of demolitions and mine/countermine warfare. The first 

two weeks of the course will consist of demo/mine/countermine obstacle planning and design, 

methods of instruction and physical acclimation with emphasis on the student learning to teach 

his peers appropriate subject matter. The last weeks will be conducted in the dynamic training 

mode, and will concentrate on detailed use of all demo/mine/countermine hardware (including foreign materials) and intensive physical development. Throughout the course, the role of 

instructor will phase from that of the traditional instructor to that of monitor/supervisor; the last

1 1/2 to 2 weeks of the course will be administered by students under instructor supervision. The 

use of live explosive/mines in practical exercises will also progress during the course. All students 

will employ and handle all available U.S. explosives/mines and representative items from foreign 

nations. Maximum emphasis will continually be placed on stress situations, developing high skill/

confidence levels, and producing a professional instructor expert. The major portion of this program 

of instruction will not be time structured to a 40-hour week but be continuous field training 12 hours 

per day, 6 days per week. Graduation will be a challenge requiring high motivation and aptitudes. 

■ SQUAD #2: This squad must outwit Squad #1. Keep in

mind that the squad roles will soon be reversed. By 

designating squads or patrols as the basic school training units, graduates will live many examples of dynamic training and, as a result, will be able to take a wealth 

of training ideas to their future assignments.

 The sapper program has the potential opportunity to develop a viable countermine plan. If all the aforementioned 

constraints and conditions are met, the Army’s new sapper 

will have pride in his ability and sufficient confidence in 

his subject—so that he will become its advocate and inspire 

confidence wherever he goes. 

Major Jones, currently the chief of the Demolition/Mine 

Warfare Division, Department of Applied Engineering, U.S. 

Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, is a graduate of Norwich University and the University of Missouri at 

Rolla. He served as a combat engineer company commander 

in both the 12th Engineer Battalion, 8th Infantry Division, 

in Germany and with the 27th Engineer Battalion in the 

Republic of Vietnam between 1964 and 1967. He also later 

served as the Battalion Executive Officer, 8th Engineer Battalion, lst Cavalry Division, in Vietnam from 1970 to 1971.

This article is reprinted as it appeared in The Engineer 

(now known as Engineer, The Professional Bulletin of Army 

Engineers), Volume 3, Number 2, page 16, Summer 1973. 

SAPPER COURSE CONCEPT
24 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

The maneuver commander on today’s battlefield has a vast quantity of combat power at 

his call. In addition to the correct employment of his direct and indirect fire weaponry, he 

can effectively increase his combat power with a 

variety of combat multipliers, such as smoke and 

electronic warfare. 

One of the most useful combat multipliers is terrain reinforcement, done either by the maneuver 

unit alone or, most profitably, in conjunction with 

supporting engineers. However, its usefulness is 

directly proportional to the maneuver unit’s ability to understand and apply terrain reinforcement 

measures. While it is incumbent on the maneuver 

commander to understand terrain reinforcement 

and its contribution to combat power, it is also the 

engineer’s job to increase awareness of terrain reinforcement operations. 

Terrain reinforcement (TR) operations are simply those measures that degrade enemy mobility 

and improve friendly survivability. To be effective, those operations require a fully developed 

coordination/partnership role between engineer 

and maneuver unit. Obviously, the maneuver commander must perform terrain analysis to have a 

good knowledge of the ground on which he will be 

operating. 

There are a number of techniques which engineers can use to demonstrate the value of TR operations to 

maneuver commanders. This article examines those techniques from the viewpoint of a maneuver arms officer, with 

the goal of contributing to his awareness of TR operations. 

Probably the most important step to keeping maneuver 

units in tune with TR operations is the establishment of a 

firm unit-to-unit relationship. Obstacles to the formation of 

such a relationship are many, but it is essential that these 

obstacles be overcome. The maneuver unit only appreciates 

other members of the combined arms team to the extent 

that those members are known and available. Ways to foster the unit relationship include the mutual exchange and 

review of training schedules, field training exercises, and 

classroom instruction. If a maneuver brigade habitually 

receives the training schedules of each company of the engineer battalion, then the company commanders within the 

engineer battalion should also have access to the brigade’s 

training schedules. Each engineer company commander’s 

platoons should also receive the training schedules of the 

battalion which it habitually supports. The engineer platoon leader should review the schedule to determine if he 

can offer assistance with that battalion’s training. After a 

period of time, the battalion should be aware that an engineer is part of the team, willing to assist. 

Likewise, the engineer would be smart to send his company training schedule to the brigade operations staff officer (S-3) if there is training being conducted in which units 

of brigade could participate. To promote the unit-to-unit relationship, the engineer has to “sell” himself and his product. Regular, personal visits by engineer platoon leaders 

and company commanders also go far in promoting their 

“product” and improving training schedule interaction. 

By Major V. Paul Baerman 

A Timeless Profession

Claymore mine being set on live-fire range at Fort Carson
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 25

Maneuver unit exercises should include 

engineer support or expertise. Of course, 

the field training exercise (FTX) is the most 

obvious example, but there are numerous 

other opportunities for engineer support or 

expertise—command post exercises (CPXs), 

war games/simulations, sand tables, training exercises without troops (TEWTS), terrain walks, and so on. TEWTS and terrain 

walks offer particularly good opportunities 

for the engineer to assist and foster knowledge of engineer capabilities.

TEWTS are generally low-key exercises that offer ample time for interchange 

of ideas, impromptu classes, and understanding of each other’s jobs. At some 

time during these activities, the engineer 

should be explicit in pointing out where 

he cannot help and where the maneuver 

commander must help himself. Engineer 

expertise does not necessarily mean officer presence. 

In many cases, lower-ranking, knowledgeable engineers might prove more 

worthwhile—for example, a D-7 operator 

talking to a maneuver platoon leader. In 

particular, the engineer should stress those 

items which he considers in an engineer reconnaissance. 

Officer and NCO classes also present opportunities to promote unit relationships. 

Again, it is a matter of the engineer forcefully “selling” himself and his product. There is enough 

change in engineer doctrine, when coupled with maneuver doctrine changes, to accommodate numerous engineer 

presentations to unit officers and NCOs in a classroom

environment. 

An additional opportunity for promoting unit relationships occurs when the brigade engineer and his subordinates participate in unit social functions. 

But there is probably no better place to establish the capabilities of TR than during training. Here, the engineer 

can offer his expertise to train individuals, or he can offer 

training tips to the maneuver unit commander. 

Many basic TR tasks are included in maneuver unit 

Soldiers’ Manuals and Skill Qualification Tests. A unit can 

save valuable time by “packaging” hands-on training in 

kit form. One kit might come in a footlocker-size container 

and deal exclusively with the unit’s authorized mines. The 

kit would include all the mock-up mines (from TASC), any 

graphic training aids (to be handed out to the troops), plus 

laminated cards on which instructions for emplacement 

and retrieval of each type of mine are included. 

Kits can be used at small unit level during slack time 

(such as in the motor pool), for regular training periods, as concurrent training, or for inclusion in inclement

weather schedules. Because kits are prepackaged, they can 

be used quickly and with little advance preparation. Other 

similarly designed kits could cover such subjects as troopemplaced obstacles (such as fougasse), demolitions, and 

booby traps. 

Range training should be conducted with an eye to maximizing the potential of the range. By coordinating with the 

appropriate range authorities, units can conduct interesting, realistic TR training while on another type of range. 

How many times have you seen troops bored to death 

with concurrent training, such as weapons assembly and 

disassembly, while waiting to fire or awaiting transportation? Spice up their life a bit—let them fire a claymore, or 

prepare and set off a demolitions charge, or build a flame 

mine. It’s guaranteed to keep their interest and avoid training doldrums. The engineer can provide the expertise to 

start this training and, at the same time, to get across the 

importance of TR operations. 

There are a number of easy ways, while in the field, to 

increase the maneuver commander’s awareness of the use 

of obstacles and the effectiveness of terrain reinforcement. 

Many of these ideas use soldier ingenuity and promote the 

kind of thinking that will help overcome the odds we might 

be faced with on the European battlefield. 

Destroying a mine in place with C-4
26 Engineer January-April 2011

Here are some examples: 

■ Since mines are difficult to portray in the field (unless

you use TASC mock-ups which must be accounted for 

and cost money), take scrap 2x4 lumber and cut it 

into 6-inch lengths. Paint the resulting blocks blue, and 

stencil the word “MINE” on top and bottom. Several 

hundred of these can be made up and issued for field 

training. If some are lost, it doesn’t really matter. Scattered throughout an avenue of approach, these dummy

mines force an attacker to perform some sort of mineclearing action. To make the situation more interesting, 

bury a tear gas grenade (with pin pulled) in the ground 

and put a block on top of the grenade spoon. Anyone 

who comes along and kicks or lifts the dummy mine 

will set off the tear gas. This is called mine awareness 

and causes the attacker to slow down and be more careful when he encounters “blocks” the next time. 

■ Counter-strike (CS)/smoke grenades with pins pulled 

and buried in a road obstacle will definitely slow the 

combat engineer vehicle (CEV)/tank dozer crew that 

pushes down the obstacle and sets off the grenades. The 

crew will also be more careful at the next obstacle. 

■ CS powder and/or pellets can be used to increase the

value of less substantial obstacles by creating confusion or more difficult working conditions. How do you 

disseminate the CS? Tie or tape a baggie, with CS powder or pellets inside, to every smoke grenade or smoke 

pot. No matter what color smoke, one whiff of the burning CS and masking procedures will slow everybody 

and make them more wary. 

■ TR operations also include survivability of the friendly

force. Survivability not only includes digging in personnel and equipment, but deceptive measures to increase 

the lifespan or usefulness of fortifications. The tubelaunched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided 

(TOW) and Dragon are crucial antitank weapons that 

must be protected. If you’ve had that maneuver unit out 

with their claymores, suggest splicing several strands 

of used claymore wire together and wire a TOW M-80 

blast simulator to the ends of the claymore wire, setting the entire device off with the claymore “clacker.” 

Voila! They’ve duplicated the signature of the antitank 

missile firing without giving away their position. 

Such actions will increase the value of obstacles and, 

more important, increase the maneuver unit’s interest in 

TR planning. “Tricks of the trade” of this sort allowed an 

armored cavalry platoon scout section, ably supported by 

engineers, to bottle up a mechanized infantry battalion for 

more than four hours in one recent exercise. And the scouts 

and engineers thoroughly enjoyed themselves! 

These are just a few of the methods by which engineers 

can better sell their product to maneuver commanders and 

make the combined arms team more effective. The more 

aware that the maneuver commander is of his engineer assets and their capabilities, the better off he and his engineer partner and their soldiers will be. 

Major Baerman is an armor officer who wrote this article 

while attending the Command and General Staff College. 

Previous assignments have included command of a tank 

company and armored cavalry troop and assignments as a 

battalion, brigade, and squadron S-3.

This article is reprinted as it appeared in Engineer (now 

known as Engineer, The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers), Volume 9, Number 2, page 27, Fall 1979.

Bangalore torpedo set to fire
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 27

When the opening scene of U.S. involvement in World War II occurred 

on 7 December 1941, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) was there. At 0755, two 

waves of Japanese warplanes from 

a naval task force about 250 miles 

north of Hawaii appeared over 

Oahu. Some headed for American warships at Pearl Harbor 

and the planes on the ground 

at nearby Hickam Field; others hit Schofield Barracks, 

Wheeler Field, and Bellows 

Field. USACE in Hawaii consisted of Soldier-engineers in 

the Army’s Hawaiian Department and the Honolulu Engineer District, then part of the 

South Pacific Division.

Colonel Albert K.B. Lyman, a 

native Hawaiian who later attained 

the rank of brigadier general, was 

the Hawaiian Department engineer, 

with offices at Fort Shafter. Within his 

command were the 34th Engineer Combat 

Regiment, the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion, and the 3d Engineer Combat Battalion of 

the 25th Infantry Division. All 

of Lyman’s engineers were at 

Schofield Barracks. These military engineers were enlarging and modernizing facilities 

at Fort Shafter and Schofield 

Barracks, building antiaircraft gun sites, and bombproofing 

coastal fortifications. A portion of the 804th Engineer Aviation 

Battalion was building U-shaped dirt bunkers for aircraft dispersal at Wheeler Field.

On the civil side, Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Wyman, 

the Honolulu District Engineer, had offices employing 10 

officers and 400 civilians at the Alexander Young Building 

in Honolulu. Fourteen field area offices had 3 officers and 

200 civilians. There had been a rapid increase in defense 

projects after France fell in 1940, so many District team 

members were at work that morning. Wyman’s 

work force was building stationary earlywarning radar sites on Kauai, Maui, and 

Oahu, although none were operational on 

7 December. The transfer of Army Air 

Corps construction from the Quartermaster’s Department to USACE 

that was authorized in November 

1940 also increased Wyman’s responsibilities. His District took 

over enlarging eight airfields 

and building two new ones and 

began work on a gasoline and 

bomb storage site at Hickam 

Field. In October, Wyman 

began his most important 

project—building an air ferry 

route across the South Pacific 

to Australia. By December, 

airfields were being built on 

Christmas and Canton Islands, 

in Fiji, and on New Caledonia. In addition to defense work, 

Wyman remained responsible for 

civil works projects, such as dredging

Honolulu Harbor.

No District team members or engineers were killed when the Japanese struck 

without warning, but there 

were close calls. The area 

engineer in charge of construction at Bellows Field 

watched with horror as 

Japanese planes strafed 

the field, destroying most of the P-40 Warhawk fighter 

planes. He directed dispersal of his equipment and, because of his efforts, none was lost.

One lieutenant who had been reassigned to the mainland—and who had recently turned over Alpha Company, 

3d Engineer Combat Battalion, to his successor—was at 

Schofield Barracks that morning, preparing to leave the 

next day. One of the first bomb blasts blew out a window 

of his house, and he ran to get his pistol to shoot at the 

low-flying planes, forgetting he had already turned in his

By the Office of History, Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers

Army Engineers

at Pearl Harbor

Past in Review

Native Hawaiian Colonel Albert K.B. Lyman, the Army’s Hawaiian Department engineer during the attack on Pearl Harbor, commanded the 34th Engineer Combat Regiment, the 

804th Engineer Aviation Battalion, and the 3d Engineer Combat Battalion of the 25th Infantry Division. U.S. Army photo
May-August 2010 28 Engineer January-April 2011 Engineer 37

weapon. He hurried to Schofield Barracks, where the battalion commander gave him back Alpha Company. He found 

his men in the street, shooting at attacking planes, and told 

the supply sergeant to give weapons to anyone who asked 

for them and to tell them to shoot at the Japanese planes. 

Later, the lieutenant almost had to pay for the weapons, 

because in the haste to go to war, no one had asked for—or 

given out—receipts!

That afternoon, the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion 

began salvage operations at Wheeler Field. The 3d Engineer Combat Battalion moved with the 24th Infantry Division to the north shore to defend against the expected 

Japanese invasion, which never came. As eventful as 7 

December 1941 was, it was but the first of many days of 

war for the engineers in Hawaii. The Honolulu District 

completed the ferry route in January 1942 and built more 

airfields and port and base facilities for the war. All the 

Hawaiian Department engineer units served in the war. 

The 34th Engineer Combat Regiment served in the Central Pacific and landed on Kwajalein. The 804th Engineer 

Combat Battalion, also in the Central Pacific, saw action at 

Saipan. The 3d Engineer Combat Battalion and 64th Engineer Topographic Battalion went to the Southwest Pacific 

and fought and built their way through the Solomon, New 

Guinea, and the Philippine Islands.1

USACE Honolulu District editor’s note:

Brigadier General Albert Kualii Brickwood Lyman 

(5 May 1885–13 August 1942) was born in Paauhau, 

Hamakua Coast, Hawaii, and was the first ethnic Hawaiian to attain the rank of general or admiral in the United 

States Armed Forces—achieved during World War II. He 

attended schools in Hilo and the Kamehameha and Punahou Schools in Honolulu and graduated from the United 

States Military Academy at West Point, New York. From a 

family of 15 siblings, he was the grandson of David Belden 

Lyman—a Christian missionary from New England who 

settled in the Hilo, Hawaii area—and the descendent of 

Kualii, high chief of Oahu. His nephew, Richard Lyman Jr., 

was a trustee of the Bishop Estate in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

The Lyman House Memorial Museum in Hilo, the repository of the history of the Lyman family, is open to the public. 

Brigadier General Lyman graduated from West Point 

with honors, number 15 in his class of 103. During his 

33 years in the United States Army, he had 25 assignments in 12 states and four overseas posts (Panama, 

France, Cuba, and the Philippines). Having served in 

1913 at Schofield Barracks in Oahu, Hawaii, as a junior 

officer, he was assigned there in May 1940, where as a 

full colonel he was commanding officer of the 3d Engineer Combat Battalion. He was also responsible for construction projects, thereby performing virtually two fulltime jobs. He was promoted to brigadier general on 11 

August 1942. Two days later, he became ill at the home 

of his brother-in-law and died before medical help could

reach him.

Among the numerous awards he received, Brigadier 

General Lyman was awarded the Distinguished Service 

Medal posthumously for his service from July 1940 to

The 804th Aviation Engineer Battalion cleaned up the wreckage caused by the Japanese bombing of Wheeler 

Field when Pearl Harbor was attacked on 7 December 1941. U.S. Army photo.
August 1942 for completion of “construction of defense projects before the anticipated completion dates.” On 19 April 

1943, the Hawaii state legislature declared that the main 

passenger terminal of the Hilo International Airport be 

called the General Lyman Terminal. The military schools 

he attended were the United States Army Engineer School 

and the Army Industrial College.

Brigadier General Charles R.B. Lyman (20 August 1888–

15 April 1981), Albert’s brother, was the second AsianHawaiian-Pacific Islander American (AHPIA) to be accorded the rank of general or admiral. He graduated from West 

Point on 12 June 1913. During his 36 years in the Army, 

Charles had assignments in nine states and three overseas 

posts—Australia, New Guinea, and the Philippines. His 

duty was almost wholly with the infantry. In July 1941, 

shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Charles, a full 

colonel, was appointed military governor of Maui, Lanai, 

and Molokai. After 11 months in that position, he was deployed to Australia as assistant division commander of the 

32d Infantry Division. He was in the first group of troops 

that attacked Tanah Merah Bay, Dutch New Guinea, and 

he personally directed the front line units that seized

Hollandia.

Charles Lyman was promoted to brigadier general in 

1944 and served as commanding general of the 32d Infantry Division, which in June 1945 was deployed in Luzon 

and subsequently in the Leyte Campaigns, Philippines. 

January-April 2011 Engineer 29

The war ended at this point, and Charles participated in 

the signing of the peace treaty in Baguio, Philippines. His 

decorations included the Combat Infantryman’s Badge; Silver Star for gallantry in leading his troops in the Dutch 

New Guinea invasion; the Legion of Merit with oak leaf 

cluster; the Bronze Star with oak leaf cluster; and four 

campaign ribbons.2

Endnotes

1

Portions of this article appeared in slightly different 

form at USACE Headquarters Historical Vignettes, Vignette 002, “The Engineers Fought and Lived Through Day 

of Infamy,” 2000, <http://www.usace.army.mil/History

/hv/Pages/002-Pearl%20Harbor.aspx>, accessed 28 January 2011.

2

Japanese American Veterans Association news release, 

“The Lyman Brothers of Hawaii, Both West Point Graduates, are the First Asian Hawaiian Pacific Island Americans to Gain General’s Rank,” Vol. II, No. 51, 7 January 

2008, <http://www.javadc.org/Press%20release%2001

-07-08%20Lymn%20Brothers%20of%20Hawaii%20Are%20

First%20Asian%20Hawaiian%20Pacific%20Island%20

Americans%20to%20Gain%20General's%20Rank.htm>,

accessed 28 January 2011; and <http://www.asianweek

.com/2008/01/22/lyman-brothers-first-asian-americans

-to-gain-general%E2%80%99s-rank/>, accessed 28 January 2011.

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 photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that illustrate information in the article. Please do not include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send each of them as a separate file. Do not embed photos in PowerPoint®

. If illustrations 

are in PowerPoint, avoid excessive use of color and shading. 

Save digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied from a website must be accompanied by copyright

permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content of the

article. Also include a short biography, including your full name,

rank, current unit, and job title; a list of your past assignments,

experience, and education; your mailing address; and a fax number and commercial daytime telephone number.

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 or 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 by e-mail to <leon.engineer@conus.army

.mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, along with a double-spaced 

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 professional bulletins.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide
30 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

Given the current force structure and operational 

assignments, many officers’ first assignment in 

USACE occurs at the commander or deputy commander level. Currently, USACE has 45 districts, each 

with commander and deputy commander positions. Nine 

districts are commanded by a lieutenant colonel and 36 

are commanded by a colonel. In addition, there are nine 

USACE divisions commanded by a general officer, each 

with a colonel deputy commanding general position. This 

force structure yields a demand of 99 officers, mostly at 

the lieutenant colonel and colonel grades. Many officers

successfully complete battalion command and then are selected for a colonel-level command slot in a USACE district, 

or successfully complete an assignment as an operations and 

training or executive officer and then are sent to a USACE 

district as a senior major or junior lieutenant colonel.

Training Plan Needed

Serving successfully as the commander or deputy commander with no prior experience in the USACE organization is a challenging and arduous experience. 

This is true for any organization. To be successful 

under these conditions 

requires a dedicated training plan that reinforces 

the USACE Campaign 

Plan to develop and retain 

a highly skilled workforce. 

The purpose of this article 

is to provide a certification recommendation and 

self-development training 

plan that can be tailored 

to a specific district and 

implemented with few 

resources and minimal 

time and provide the new

USACE District

Commanders

By Lieutenant Colonel Laurence M. Farrell and Ms. Julie E. Melow

As Lieutenant Colonel Smith sipped his morning coffee and prepared for classes at the United States Army War College, 

he suddenly felt a variety of emotions. Checking the United States Army Human Resources Command website, he saw his 

name as a command selectee on the Strategic Support list. “Strategic Support” meant command in the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), and although he had extensive service in tactical and nontactical positions, he had never 

served there. He knew little about USACE, but in a few months he would take command and lead a billion-dollar organization of almost 1,000 civilians, focusing on construction projects in several states. His thought was, “How can I lead an 

organization I know so little about?”

Construction on this 

California project, the San 

Ramon Recycled Water 

Pipeline and Pump Station, required solid understanding of construction 

scheduling to accommodate the city’s changing 

traffic requirements.
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 31

commander increased credibility and skills within the first 

six months of command. This recommendation includes 

project management certification and a way of quickly 

ascertaining which courses hold the most benefit to the 

commander and attending those courses as soon as possible. This allows USACE, the Army, and the individual to 

achieve the most successful command. 

Ironically, many officers discount the technical component of district command in USACE, one of the Army’s most 

technical organizations. Many new commanders say their 

assignment is to “provide leadership and organizational 

management.” Though this statement is accurate, it does 

not negate the technical requirements of district command. 

For example, would an artillery officer at the battalion or 

brigade level ever tell the maneuver commander that the 

technical requirements of field artillery were not part of his 

duty description? Of course not. A successful field artillery 

battalion commander must have a basic knowledge of field 

artillery. The same principle is also true for a USACE command. District commanders must understand certain technical components within their respective districts and this 

is why, even at the battalion and brigade levels, commanders are chosen by branch. The Army fully realizes that even 

at the colonel level, technical competency matters. 

The Army also understands that as officers rise in grade 

to general officer level, the technical requirements at each 

position decrease. This is why general officers do not wear 

branch insignia on the Army service uniform and are assigned and managed by an Armywide organization, the 

General Officer Management Office. Even the title of general means generalist—one who does not specialize in a 

particular function. 

New district commanders have the foundations for a 

successful command. No one expects the commander to be 

a trained engineer. Not only is that an unrealistic goal, it 

is completely unnecessary. Each district has a large component of trained professional engineers who meet the 

technical requirements of the district. Providing leadership to the organization through influencing, operating, 

and assessing is the most important aspect of command. 

The leadership and management requirements of district 

command are similar to any other command. The Army’s

required schooling, such as the Engineer Basic Officer 

Leader Course, Engineer Captains Career Course, and the 

United States Army Command and General Staff College 

provide an extensive background in construction management that meet the day-to-day requirements of district 

command. By the time most officers are lieutenant colonels, 
32 Engineer January-April 2011

they have a graduate degree that reinforces their engineering and/or management skills. Again, this adds to the commander’s skill set when leading a USACE district. Finally, 

the two required USACE precommand courses (PCCs), held 

immediately before and approximately 90 days after taking 

command, are almost three weeks long. They provide an 

extensive background in USACE missions, operations, and 

functions. The takeaway products and binders from these 

two courses provide substantial reference material for the 

new commander. (Unlike other PCCs, deputy commanders 

are welcome to attend the USACE course and often do so.) 

All of these set the foundation, but if the true goal is to be 

great, more training is required. 

The USACE Campaign Plan (page 31) asks what we will do 

to make USACE great, and Goal 4 is to “build and cultivate a 

competent, disciplined, and resilient team equipped to deliver 

high-quality solutions.” Implementing this recommendation 

reinforces behavior expected of the workforce in a learning 

organization. The Project Management Business Process is 

the guide to the USACE method of operating and is defined 

in Engineering Regulation 5-1-11, Program and Project Management. Clearly, project management is a key component 

in making USACE great. To be effective, a new commander 

needs a firm understanding of, and adequate training in, the 

technical requirements of project management and the technical aspects of the district’s core functions.

Understanding, Training Needed

Anew commander, to be effective, requires a firm 

understanding and adequate training in the basic

.technical requirements in project management and 

the technical aspects of the district’s core functions. 

Project Management. Most of a district commander’s 

time and effort focus on projects—civil works such as levees, dams, and locks; or military construction such as 

barracks, day care facilities, and battalion headquarters. 

Project management is different from construction management in that it focuses on the entire project’s life cycle 

from planning, scheduling, budgeting, contracting, construction and, finally, to closeout. Construction management is a subset of project management. Fully understanding the project management process is essential to being a 

successful commander. Not only is USACE a project-based 

organization, but understanding the project management 

process allows more appropriate shifting of resources when 

required. Previous Army training for new commanders focused on construction management, not project management. Fortunately, project management is a relatively 

defined skill set and there are many one-week training 

courses that train and reinforce a person’s understanding 

of it. Many of the district commander’s teammates have 

attended these courses and obtained the Project Management Professional (PMP) certification. (USACE formally 

encourages its project managers to obtain this certification.) It is provided and administered by the Project Management Institute and certifies that an individual has the 

basic skills to be a project manager. Like many others, this 

certification has review books to help people study. The 

process of certification enhances knowledge of project management and helps the commander become a better leader. 

Having a certification and the skills it encompasses brings 

credibility to the USACE organization, the Army, and the 

individual. Finally, maintaining certification also reduces 

the potential for inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and embarThe San Ramon project required contract modifications to accommodate unforeseen geotechnical conditions.
January-April 2011 Engineer 33

rassment. The following website provides information on 

the Project Management Institute and the certification 

process: <http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages

/AboutCredentialsPMP.aspx.>.

District Core Functions. Thoroughly understanding 

a district’s primary functions, core missions, and primary 

funding streams is the most unique and challenging aspect 

of serving as a district commander. USACE, unlike other 

Army organizations, derives its funding from managing 

projects. Simply stated, more projects equal more funding and more capacity. Different projects are also funded 

through different authorizations and appropriations. Adding to this complexity, each district is different and even 

districts within the same division can have widely divergent missions. 

For example, in the South Pacific Division, the San 

Francisco District is a civil works-only district focusing 

on navigation, recreation, and regulatory functions. The 

Los Angeles District and the Albuquerque District focus 

primarily on military construction, while the Sacramento 

District has both extensive civil works and military construction missions. Even districts that appear to have similar missions may have different organizational structures 

due to “Centers of Excellence” located within them. Understanding a district’s core mission also allows the commander to better communicate with each project’s local or federal sponsor. Commanders in USACE routinely interface 

and communicate directly with public citizens and local, 

state, and federal officials, to include members of Congress. 

These individuals often have direct and pointed questions 

concerning projects in the district that affect their constituents. It is essential for a new district commander to quickly 

assess the business lines that provide the district with the 

most funding and with the most public interaction. Once 

a commander determines the primary business lines, simply enrolling in an appropriate USACE resident training 

course ensures more than fundamental knowledge in the 

proper arenas.

With more than 39,000 civil servants and an annual 

attrition of more than 5,000 people per year, USACE has 

a voracious annual requirement to recruit, train, professionally develop, and retain qualified personnel. This training and professional development is primarily conducted 

in-house by the USACE Engineering and Support Center, 

Huntsville, Alabama, in the Proponent-Sponsored Engineer Corps Training (PROSPECT) Program. USACE annually offers hundreds of courses in areas tailored to cultivate 

and synchronize with the organization to make them efficient, concise, and accessible. These courses are described 

in detail in the USACE Purple Book at <http://pdsc.usace.

army.mil/downloads/PurpleBook2010.pdf>. 

Once a commander determines and confirms his own 

“training requirements” with the district’s subject matter 

experts, the next step is to register for the courses and attend the training. Setting the example in support of training encourages individual growth, which establishes a 

foundation for finding solutions to the stakeholder needs 

identified in the USACE Campaign Plan. Though these 

courses do not make the student an expert, they provide an 

increased level of knowledge and enable the commander to 

ask the proper questions at the appropriate time.

Summary

Serving as a district commander or deputy district 

commander is an exciting, challenging experience. 

The Army’s traditional career path provides officers 

with the skills required to be successful, but more can be 

achieved to obtain excellence. Officers assigned to USACE 

are especially knowledgeable in leadership, management, 

and construction management; however, most of them have 

limited project management experience. The fact that each 

district is unique adds to command complexities. To be successful, officers should create a self-development training 

plan that quickly hones their project management skills 

by obtaining PMP certification, then determine the critical 

business lines that fund and affect their district so they can 

become more technically proficient in those business lines. 

This certification and training plan should be completed 

in the first six months of command, giving the commander 

sufficient time to lead and guide the district with his or 

her newfound skills. This flexible training plan will provide 

the new commander with a strong launching pad to more 

efficiently allocate resources, earn respect from stakeholders, and reduce command risk by obtaining greatness.

Lieutenant Colonel Farrell serves as the Executive Director of Military and International Operations for the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Previous assignments include commander, San Francisco District, USACE; and deputy commander, Gulf Region Division, North District, Tikrit, Iraq. He holds a bachelor’s in 

civil engineering and a master’s in civil engineering from 

the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University 

of Science and Technology). He is a registered professional 

engineer in Missouri and a certified project management 

professional. This is his fourth article for Engineer Professional Bulletin.

Ms. Melow serves as a finance and accounting officer 

with the Regional Business Directorate, USACE Transatlantic Division, Winchester, Virginia. Previous assignments 

include resource management chief with Gulf Region Division, North District, Tikrit, Iraq; and chief of resource 

management for Afghanistan Engineering District North, 

Kabul, Afghanistan. She holds a bachelor’s in business and 

economics from Eastern Oregon University in La Grande, 

Oregon, and is a certified public accountant in North 

Dakota. 
34 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

Part I of this discussion (Engineer, September–December 2010) reviewed some of the legal and practical justifications 

for the command’s inherent authority to initiate inquiries into cases of suspected misconduct; systemic failures in leadership, training, or maintenance; or any event or issue that alarms the unit’s leadership. The second part of the discussion 

focuses on methodology. If the goal is to foster minimally intrusive but productive and reasonable inquiries, then it is 

important to reflect on what kinds of questions to ask, what subjects are appropriate, and how to draw conclusions and 

recommendations from the answers. 

By Captain Daniel D. Maurer

How We Investigate

Command-initiated investigations and inquiries are 

often plagued by three significant but related problems: 

■ They are usually conducted by officers with little or no 

training or experience with investigations.

■ They typically lack sufficient objectivity and neutrality. 

■ They are not sufficiently thorough or comprehensive. 

Any of these ailments can lead to serious unintended 

consequences, the worst of which might be the prosecution 

of a Soldier for a crime that someone else committed or the 

prosecution of a Soldier when the matter could reasonably 

have been disposed of differently.1

 Prosecution also may become more challenging, perhaps as a result of evidentiary 

problems or because the commander finds that making a 

disposition decision that is “warranted, appropriate, and 

fair” is problematic.2

For the lay officer, playing detective is hard—as is making a fair, thoughtful, evidence-based recommendation to 

the commander about how to dispose of a case.3

 Discussion 

of the following topics may ease that task: 

■ How the commander can define the scope of the investigation for the benefit of the investigating officer (IO)

■ How the IO can plan the investigation, given the commander’s scope

■ How the IO can use critical thinking to execute a thorough, timely, unbiased, and useful investigation

Defining the Scope of the Investigation

Acommander about to launch a fact-finding mission must be clear about the scope of the inquiry 

.or investigation. A proper “scope” instruction in an 

appointment memorandum (or any other directive to investigate) marks the left and right bounds of what should be 

investigated. The commander’s intent should drive the IO’s 

“concept of the operation”—the sequential, collaborative efforts used to accomplish the underlying goal.4

 The scope is 

further defined by the particular Army regulation (AR) that 

drives the investigation. For example, AR 735-5, Policies and 

Procedures for Property Accountability, identifies specific requirements for financial liability investigations of property 

loss (FLIPL), while AR 600-8-4, Line of Duty Policy, Procedures, and Investigations, guides line-of-duty investigations.

Consider the facts involved in an escalation-of-force 

(EOF) incident. The machine gunner with a crew-served 

weapon in the trail vehicle of a route clearance patrol alleges that the aggressive driving of a pickup truck demonstrated potential “hostile intent,” and that its subsequent attempt to pass the patrol—ignoring visual 

warnings to back away—constituted a “hostile act.” Consequently, the gunner opened fire on the passing truck—

hitting the radiator, tires, and windshield—causing the 

truck to skid to a stop and roll to the side of the road. In 

this example, if the commander’s intent is to confirm that 

the EOF was justifiable rather than a negligent discharge 

(ND) during a show of force with the weapon, the scope 

would likely include questions about the gunner’s specific 

observations, his training, and the information he shared 

with his crewmates before or after he fired his weapon. A 

clearly expressed intent will help the IO develop appropriate questions to ask witnesses.

These three fields of inquiry include numerous questions that will eventually add precision to the fact-finding 

process. Like “mission analysis” in the military decisionmaking process, defining the scope is the first analytical 

step toward ensuring that IOs receive enough relevant information to make a deliberate and considered strategy for 

investigating. 
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 35

For some incidents, the scope may be relatively obvious. 

If a female specialist raises an informal complaint of genderbased harassment against a male staff sergeant, the scope 

will naturally configure itself around the statements or actions of the two individuals, observations made by others, 

and the impact of that conduct on the purported victim. But 

other cases are more ambiguous and deserve a thoughtful 

plan, as the previous EOF example demonstrates. A proper 

scope will force the investigating officer to ask questions 

and think about context from multiple perspectives. This 

is not always an easy or straightforward task. The servicing judge advocate (JA) advisor, after learning the intent 

of an investigation and the basic facts of an event, can help 

design an inquiry with a reasonable scope. The advisor will 

look at the event from an even more detached and neutral 

point of view, with an eye toward collecting evidence and 

fitting the facts to a plausible explanation.5

Depending on the nature of the incident, the time and 

personnel resources available to the commander, and the 

advice of a servicing JA advisor, the inquiry can be as informal as a verbal directive to a platoon leader to “look 

into” certain allegations or concerns. Or the inquiry can 

be as formal as a direct written appointment of an IO with 

a specified scope and deadline, requirement for a legal inbrief and legal review, and the formal due process protecting procedures of AR 15-6, Procedures for Investigating 

Officers and Boards of Officers.

6

 There may be instances, 

however, when the wide-ranging authority granted by military law and custom should not be employed.7

 When cases 

involve sexual assault, domestic abuse, violence resulting 

in medical treatment or hospitalization of a victim, or offpost interviews of civilians not affiliated with the military, 

the complexities and logistical burden on the command 

are too great. The evidence may be forensically challenging; the issues may be too sensitive to be handled by a lay 

officer; or the expertise needed to understand the crime 

scene may exceed the command’s resources, knowledge, 

and time. In these cases, it is always better to quickly open 

the doors to the professional criminal investigators of the 

Criminal Investigation Division. The best advice to commanders is to seek advice from their servicing JA advisor 

for an opinion on the form the inquiry should take. That 

advisor can help develop a plan that will guide the IO in 

the right direction.

The IO’s To-Do List

Each IO may prepare and attack an investigation 

differently, and each legal advisor may suggest a 

different approach, depending on whether it is a 

generic commander’s inquiry, an AR 15-6 investigation, a 

FLIPL, or a line-of-duty investigation. However, several 

successful best practices are recommended.

Preparation. IOs should prepare by reading their appointment memorandum or discussing it with their commander. The appointment should be viewed as a mission 

from higher headquarters and the appointment memo 

should be considered the initial mission analysis. It is 

the IO’s job to figure out how to answer the commander’s 

questions, paint a clear picture of what occurred, explain 

why it happened, and give the commander maximum freedom and flexibility to decide on a just and appropriate 

course of action. 

Consultation. IOs should consult the proper legal advisor. A well-drafted appointment memo should direct the 

IO to seek advice immediately from a JA advisor. To avoid 

potential or perceived conflicts of interest, the IO should 

contact an attorney other than the serving trial counsel, 

who acts as prosecutor. (At the brigade level, there are usually two JA officers, thereby reducing the risk of conflicts.) 

Advice on best practices and legal requirements should 

come from a source as neutral and independent as possible. 

In our brigade, for instance, all IOs are advised by the command judge advocate at the beginning, end, and throughout their investigations, while the brigade’s trial counsel is 

screened out. This way, should the investigation uncover 

misconduct, the commander can seek an unbiased perspective from the attorney charged with adding in the administration of military justice. 

Besides offering counsel on general best practices, the 

legal advisor can explain how, where, and when to take 

sworn statements (always, if possible); when Article 31 

rights protection against self-incrimination advice must 

be given (whenever an IO seeks written or verbal evidence 

that may incriminate the person providing the evidence); 

how to determine whom to interview and in what order; 

and the form or type of questions to ask. 

To illustrate how not to frame questions for interviewees, consider Example No. 1, drawn from a real sworn 

statement:

This example clearly depicts an IO who never received 

(or failed to pay attention to) legal counsel during the investigation. The first question is a compound query, embedding multiple subjects under one roof, which can only 

serve to confuse the interviewee. As a result, it is unclear 

to what the first answer is referring. What specific act did 

the interviewee just admit to—or did he admit to anything 

at all? And on what date did the act or acts happen? Next, 

Q: Have you ever consumed alcohol with, done illegal 

drugs with, visited SPC Jones in her CHU alone, or 

kissed SPC Jones in your CHU on 24 May 2009 or at 

some point between 26 May and 4 April 2009?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you had an inappropriate relationship with 

SPC Jones?

A: No.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

Legend:

CHU - containerized housing unit

SPC - specialist

Example No. 1

drugs with, or visited SPC Jones in her CHU alone, or
36 Engineer January-April 2011

the answer to the second question does not make any sense 

in relation to the first answer, and the interview certainly 

should not have concluded on that note. Perhaps the interviewee was confused by the barrage of questions. Or perhaps the IO simply failed to read, digest, and prepare for 

an ambiguous answer. Had the IO consulted with a legal 

advisor first, together they could have developed lines of 

clear, simple, direct questions. IOs should prepare for each 

interview with the goal in mind of acquiring specific information and should always clear up ambiguous responses. 

By failing on these fronts, the IO adds a substantial constraint on the appointing authority—the commander—who 

must now try to make a fair and appropriate choice based 

on incomplete or confusing data.

Organization. IOs must keep track of evidence. There 

is no doctrinal method to adopt, just a best practice of organizing and identifying the documents, statements, or 

physical evidence that is collected or being sought. Since 

these items will form the nucleus for the IO’s findings and 

recommendation, it is imperative to develop and adhere to 

an organized system of record-keeping. This system may 

also help frame further lines of inquiry. Example No. 2, 

below, is a very basic sample.

Categorization. IOs should practice knowledge management to capture the facts of the investigation, to account 

for their own biases and assumptions, and to mitigate possible damage caused by erroneous logic.8

 Reference points 

can be categorized in Example No. 3 (page 37).

This methodology could be useful at the outset of an investigation, referenced periodically throughout the process, 

or tailored for each interview. The point is to be conscious 

of common investigative blunders which, if left unchecked, 

could taint the process and limit the commander’s options. 

For instance, assuming that the discharge of an M240 machine gun round was negligent—merely because it was 

unintended—risks ignoring other environmental, human, 

or mechanical factors that might suggest the incident was 

more accidental than negligent. Consequently, the Soldier 

might join the deep ranks of fellow Servicemembers quietly 

and presumptively punished for the common ND instead 

of the command making efforts to improve training for 

M240B gunners, confirm proper preventive maintenance 

and servicing of weapon systems, or identify mechanical 

failures in a particular weapon.

Often—especially when working under the stresses of 

time, the watchful eye of the commander, or a desire to get 

back to normal duties—there is a tendency to draw conclusions based on assumed facts rather than the evidence. 

This can lead to a faulty cause-and-effect analysis. An IO’s 

background and experience may make him well suited to 

investigate certain matters, but that familiarity also carries the risk of a certain myopia or narrowness of inquiry. It 

is important for the IO to self-identify initial presumptions 

of what he knows or thinks he knows.

Conclusion

This article has captured some key lessons learned 

from watching successful investigations help the 

command make sound, reasonable choices regarding misconduct or other issues. Some of these tips, on the 

other hand, were gleaned while watching faulty investigations unravel and therefore thwart a command’s ability to 

act appropriately. For the commander trying to design the 

proper scope of an inquiry—or for the new IO unsure of the 

first, second, or eighteenth step to take—this article may 

make the process a little easier to grasp. Besides the IO’s 

Legend:

1SG - first sergeant

Aug - August

BN - battalion

DA - Department of the Army

IDing - identifying

POW - privately owned weapon

Example No. 2

Witness is

reluctant to get 

involved because he works

for suspect

Excel® spreadsheet,

weapon
servicing JA advisor and senior officers or peers with past 

experience as investigators, following are more resources 

to use:

■ AR 15-6, Procedures for Investigating Officers and

Boards of Officers, 2 October 2006.

■ Field Manual (FM) 3-19.13, Law Enforcement Investigations, 10 January 2005.

■ AR 195-2, Criminal Investigative Activities, 15 May

2009.

■ AR 27-10, Military Justice, 16 November 2005.

■ Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) United States, 2008

edition.

Captain Maurer serves as the command judge advocate 

for the 36th Engineer Brigade (Joint Task Force Rugged). 

Previous assignments include trial counsel for the brigade 

at Fort Hood, Texas; assistant task force engineer; sapper 

platoon leader attached to a 4th Infantry Division mechanized infantry task force during Operation Iraqi Freedom; 

and battalion support platoon leader and supply officer in a 

mechanized engineer battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado. He 

holds a bachelor’s from James Madison University, where 

he was Distinguished Military Graduate from the United 

States Army Reserve Officer Training Corps program, and 

a law degree from The Ohio State University.

Endnotes

1

This article will not go into great depth regarding 

the myriad disposition choices available to a commander. 

These generally range from the administrative reprimand, 

counseling, extra training, rehabilitative transfer, administrative reduction, administrative separation, or nonjudicial punishment to the preferral of charges leading to a 

court-martial. There are also any number of other corrective actions that a creative first sergeant can conjure up.

2

MCM United States, 2008, Rule 306(b) discussion.

3

Ibid. The military justice system requires that the commander consider myriad factors when making that initial 

decision, to include what kind of punishment fits the crime, 

January-April 2011 Engineer 37

the background and service of the suspect, the nature of the 

offense or misconduct and the extent of harm caused, the 

available evidence, the reluctance of the victim or others to 

testify, and the motives of the accuser or other witnesses.

4

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

paragraph 2-92.

5

Misconduct is not the only cause of an investigation. 

For example, having a JA help in designing the scope of 

an inquiry into widespread suicide ideations across several 

subordinate commands may reveal the need to consider 

family, rank, finances, deployments, operational tempo, 

drug dependencies, and command climate as factors.

6

For example, see AR 15-6, paragraphs 3-10 and 3-11, 

which define both “facts” and “recommendations,” as well 

as the regulation’s requirement for sworn statements on 

Department of the Army (DA) Form 2823 and Article 31 

rights “waivers” on DA Form 3881.

7

See MCM, Rule for Court-Martial 303: “Upon receipt 

of information that a member of the command is accused 

or suspected of committing an offense or offenses triable 

by court-martial, the immediate commander shall make or 

cause to be made a preliminary inquiry into the charges or 

suspected offenses.”

8

A “false cause” is an example of a logical fallacy. It is 

a conclusion that some event must have been caused by 

a particular initiating act because the two occurred close 

in time or location, without identifying other intervening 

causes or factors influencing the eventual outcome.

Example No. 3
38 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

G’day from the Royal Australian Engineers (RAE) 

School of Military Engineering (SME) at Steele 

Barracks, Moorebank, New South Wales, Australia. Like more than 20 United States Army engineer majors before me, I am the military personnel exchange program officer assigned to the United States Army Engineer 

School, attached to United States Army Pacific, and further 

attached to SME. By position, I am the officer commanding/

senior instructor for the Engineer Tactics Wing, responsible for training engineer officers and combat engineer noncommissioned officers (NCOs). Officer training consists of 

three courses: 

■ Regimental Officers Basic Course (ROBC) for all new 

engineer officers coming into the RAE

■ Engineer Operations Officers Course for junior

captains

■ Combat Officers Advanced Course for senior captains 

before promotion to major and company-level

command 

There are promotion-related courses for four NCO groups:

■ Combat engineer corporals

■ Combat engineer sergeants

■ Engineer warrant officers (WOs)

■ Combat engineer WOs 

Australian Army NCO ranks are modeled after the British Army, in which corporals are equivalent to grades E-5 

and E-6, sergeants to grade E-7, WO Class 2 to grade E-8, 

and WO Class 1 to grade E-9. The Engineer Tactics Wing 

also oversees the Assault Pioneer Officer/NCO Course for 

the Royal Australian Infantry, consisting of light infantry training on demolitions, breaching, and watermanship 

(small boat operations) to support infantry assaults. This 

article will briefly highlight the ROBC for 2010.

Regimental Officers Basic Course

ROBC is almost 7 months long, the longest combat 

arms officer basic course in the Australian Army. A 

.list of the topics covered by the course shows why:

■ Operations

■ Introduction to technical engineering

■ Basic combat engineering (BCE)

■ Geospatial engineering

■ Search operations

■ Demolitions

■ Mine warfare

■ Watermanship and bridging

■ Force engineering
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 39

■ Force survivability, including chemical, biological,

radiological, and nuclear detection (CBRND) and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD).

Course Phases

Operations. The operations phase of ROBC gives the 

course a doctrinal foundation for topics such as offensive, 

defensive, and urban operations, emphasizing how engineers conduct and support them. Students learn how engineers conduct the individual military appreciation process 

to support engineer unit planning and provide engineer 

input for the staff military appreciation process, which is 

similar to the U.S. Army’s military decisionmaking process. 

The operations phase is spread throughout the course, with 

topics covered by lectures and tactical exercises without 

troops (TEWTs).

Technical Engineering. This phase introduces officers 

without engineering degrees to the subject. Starting with a 

mathematics test (or “maths,” as Australians say it) to determine their level of knowledge, students receive lessons 

on everything from basic algebra to the physics of structures. Introduction to building codes; case studies on construction projects; and practical exercises on construction 

recons, structures, and concrete are all part of this phase. 

Students team up to build model bridges out of dry spaghetti and participate in bridge-loading competitions for 

bragging rights. As a bonus, one of the SME wings (training companies) got a decent concrete slab to use for a break 

area as part of the concrete practical exercise. While the 

“nontechs” are having fun, the officers with technical backgrounds conduct technical reconnaissance missions and design projects to be executed by other training courses.

Basic Combat Engineering. The course brings both 

sections of the course back together to learn ropes, knots, 

block and tackle, leverage, hand and power tools, and basic 

field fortifications. The RAE are responsible for water point 

operations, so students learn about water purification and 

conduct reconnaissance for water point operations. This is 

a very important mission, as seen during the Australian 

Army’s disaster relief mission to Sumatra in 2009. Students enjoy getting out of the classroom and getting dirty 

during this phase of the course.

Geospatial Engineering. Back in the classroom, students get their introduction to geospatial engineering, or 

“Geo.” The Geo phase is designed only to skim the surface 

Students set up a troop harbor—or platoon field site—command post during a field exercise.
40 Engineer January-April 2011

of the subject and give instruction on 

surveying. Students conduct a practical survey exercise around the Steele 

Barracks grounds to familiarize themselves with survey equipment and recording practices and procedures.

Search Operations. Search training in the RAE has roots in the United 

Kingdom’s Corps of Royal Engineers, 

as does our own Army’s. It focuses 

on everything from basic systematic 

techniques for searching structures, 

buildings, areas, personnel, and vehicles to the use of specialized tools and

explosives-detection dogs and proper 

evidence handling procedures. RAE 

troops (platoons) get search missions 

while deployed, to include high-risk 

search and route clearance with dismounted searches at 

designated vulnerable points along the route.

Demolitions. Arguably the most academically challenging phase, “dems” gives young officers training in theory, safety procedures, and calculations, concluding with a 

live demolitions range exercise and a demolition mission 

during their final field exercise. This phase gives in-depth 

background during the theory and calculation lessons, explaining how different explosives work. This provides more 

flexibility for mission accomplishment, since an RAE officer can draw upon explosives from Australia, the United 

States, United Kingdom, or New Zealand, and quickly determine how to achieve the required effect. This phase traditionally results in more retests than any other phase of 

the course.

Mine Warfare. Mine warfare training is important 

to Australian Army leaders since they stress training for

a war, not the war—current operations, in other words. 

The ROBC students receive training on national policies 

concerning mines, reporting requirements, procedures for 

planning and emplacing mines, and reducing minefields. 

This phase gives plenty of hands-on training in employing 

mine detectors and probing rods, culminating in a minefield breaching exercise at night.

Watermanship and Bridging. ROBC students historically love the watermanship and bridging phase of the 

course, which covers small-boat operations, water safety, 

engineer bridge reconnaissance, and planning and construction of military bridges, including medium girder 

and floating support bridges—our old ribbon bridge. This 

phase gives the students a mental and physical workout. 

Mentally, students must learn the calculations required for 

planning bridging operations. Physically, they must work 

in crews to emplace and remove several medium girder 

bridges—to include three 13-bay, double-story builds (double, link, and pier) and a 14-bay, double-story build on a 

restricted site with a reverse bank strip—during their final 

field exercise. This phase isn’t all hard work. Small-boat 

and ferry operations (with Zodiac® inflatable boats and 

float bridge rafts) add a little fun to the course.

Force Engineering. The force engineering phase 

teaches nontechnical students the basics of construction 

Left: ROBC students build a scaleddown nonequipment bridge during 

the course.

Below: The students destroy the 

bridge in a follow-on demolition 

mission.
January-April 2011 Engineer 41

to support force protection. Students go over basic construction design, planning, construction management, and 

horizontal construction—including testing procedures and 

hands-on heavy construction equipment demonstrations. 

The hands-on demonstration is a great concept, allowing 

students to “play” on equipment before arriving at their 

units. Lessons continue with force protection design, including blast and ballistic effects, risk mitigation, rough 

assessments of postblast damage, and the planning and 

construction of nonequipment bridges. 

Force Survivability. This phase covers the topics of 

CBRND and EOD, both part of the engineer mission of the 

RAE. This phase is strictly an introduction to these topics for the new engineer officers. Engineers can attend full 

courses on CBRND and EOD following successful completion of ROBC. Currently, EOD is basically an additional 

duty or “second hat” engineers wear in the RAE. The combat engineer troop sergeant (platoon sergeant) may be the 

unit EOD technician, obliged to support a combat engineer 

troop and maintain individual proficiency in EOD operations. In 2011, the first EOD squadron, or company, will 

stand up to try out the concept of centralizing the EOD

skill set.

The ROBC also includes TEWTs, field exercises, and 

range safety officer (RSO)/officer-in-charge (OIC) qualifications week.

Tactical Exercises Without Troops. While a lot of 

the training is delivered by classroom lecture, the use of 

TEWTs and field exercises provides a method to reinforce 

learning and permit assessment of each student to determine competency. TEWTs cover engineer support for offensive, defensive, and urban operations. The defensive and 

urban operations TEWTs are favorites, because students 

get on the ground to finalize and brief their plans. The 

defensive TEWT has been conducted at the same hilltop 

farmhouse in Mittagong, New South Wales, for more than 

30 years, giving students a commanding view over the engagement area they plan to defend. The urban operations 

TEWT takes the course out of the classroom and into the 

Holsworthy Barracks urban operations site. 

Field Exercises. All of the course lessons and TEWTs 

help prepare students for their field exercises.

■ Exercise Coral. This exercise provides a forward operating base environment where students live and run 

missions for two weeks. It gives them the opportunity for 

practical application of course topics in a low-intensity, 

nation-building setting. While not assessed for record, the 

ROBC students get feedback and guidance on their technical execution of engineer tasks and their tactical execution as leaders. This exercise was developed as part of past 

course feedback from instructors and students.

■ Exercise Kokoda. This is the culminating exercise of 

the ROBC. Students deploy to the field for two weeks for 

practical application of course topics in a high-intensity

environment and are assessed for record. Starting in a 

troop harbor—or platoon field site—in the Holsworthy 

Students learn the possible results of failure to search role players for CS grenades.
Training Area, the class functions as a light engineer troop 

supporting a maneuver battalion. Students rotate leadership roles as troop commander, troop sergeant, reconnaissance officer, or as one of three section commanders (squad 

leaders). The students must build up their troop harbor while

conducting missions ranging from forward landing strip 

denial to reserve bridge demolitions. By design, the exercise 

keeps the students very busy. Opposing Force Soldiers become a great tool to reinforce good practices and highlight 

poor practices. The threat—and use—of chemical agents in 

the form of CS grenades kept students during the recent 

course on their toes and in their protective gear (which they 

appreciated, since most of the evenings were near freezing). 

One of the most memorable missions was the reserve 

demolitions on Engineers Bridge—a uniquely designed 

Bailey bridge that is famous in the RAE, since every ROBC 

class conducts a reserve dems mission on it. One lucky student first gets to conduct a reconnaissance of the bridge, 

then plans the mission of emplacing demolitions to prepare 

the bridge as a reserve target. A different student acts as 

the troop commander to prepare the bridge. During the 

mission, students don rigging harnesses and climb onto the 

bridge while placing inert charges as planned by the recon 

officer. A “mortar attack” by the opposition was repelled, 

but CS gas lingered a long time that cold morning, and the 

smell was still in the air hours later. The students had to 

break down their troop harbor, to include removing protective obstacles and filling in the fighting positions they had 

called home for a week, and deploy to the urban operations 

site. There they had to search the area, occupy an abandoned building, plan and build a defense of it, and interact 

with people who were both for and against the Australian 

Army. 

This final phase of the exercise was a real challenge 

for the students to accomplish their missions and protect 

themselves while working within the rules of engagement. At some points, students were confronted by dozens of role players and had to make split-second decisions. 

A well-placed CS grenade from a role player who hadn’t 

been searched ended the course’s barbeque lunch, before 

“final call” finally went out. The students had their ups and 

42 Engineer January-April 2011

ROBC students search a role player.

Engineers Bridge 

is wired with 

inert demolition 

charges.
downs during the exercise, but it was clear they were learning, retaining, and improving throughout its length. 

Range Safety Officer/Officer in Charge. SME helps 

RAE units with RSO and OIC qualifications by running a 

week of range qualifications at the end of the ROBC schedule. The Australian Army requires RSO and OIC personnel 

to qualify on a range, then to be certified to run that range 

as RSOs or OICs. This certification is permanently recorded and follows the officers for their careers. This allows 

students to leave ROBC and be certified to act as RSOs or 

OICs at certain ranges, regardless of what unit they are 

posted to. This range week greatly helps the RAE overall 

and reduces training costs. 

Conclusion

Upon completion of Exercise Kokoda, course members got to relax for 24 hours before going on to 

their specialty courses. Officers heading to combat 

engineer regiments were off to the Search Advisors Course; 

those heading to construction squadrons—to include 

sister Service officers—and the foreign students, went to the Construction Commanders Course; the remaining two officers headed to the 

Geospatial Officers Basic Course. All 

of these courses run for three weeks 

and provide a critical qualification 

for new engineer officers. A number 

of them were assigned to units set to 

deploy to Afghanistan in a few short 

months.

Overseeing the ROBC class for the 

RAE was an unbelievable experience. 

The course included all of this year’s 

new engineer officers from Australia, 

New Zealand, Brunei, and Vietnam. It 

also included the first-ever fully qualified East Timorese engineer officer. 

The impact of this exchange program 

is far reaching as former students 

from the Australian and U.S. Armies 

progress through their careers.

Major Beck is the officer commanding/senior instructor of the Engineer 

Tactics Wing, SME, Moorebank (Sydney), Australia. He has served in leadership and staff positions at platoon, 

company, battalion, brigade, and 

division levels. His most recent Operation Iraqi Freedom tour was from 

December 2007 to February 2009, as 

the brigade combat team (BCT) engineer, 3d BCT, 4th Infantry Division 

(Mechanized) in Baghdad, Iraq, including the battle for Sadr City. He is 

a graduate of the Engineer Captains 

Career Course, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York, 

and a master’s in liberal arts from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

January-April 2011 Engineer 43

A group of ROBC students pose with their last medium girder bridge.
44 Engineer January-April 2011

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Doctrine Branch, Engineer Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.4

(*FM 3-34.2)

(*FM 3-90.12)

Pending

(Aug 00)

This is the engineer keystone manual. It encompasses all engineer doctrine; integrates 

the three engineer disciplines of combat, general, and geospatial engineering; and 

addresses engineer operations across the entire spectrum of operations.

Status: Revising manual to incorporate the engineer lines of support framework.

Estimated publishing date is 4QFY11.

FM 3-34 Pending

(Apr 09)

This is a full revision, to include the renaming and renumbering of FM 3-34.2, 

Combined Arms Breaching Operations, and FM 3-90.12, Combined Arms Gap 

Crossing. Changes in the force structure have required adjustment of the tactics, 

techniques, and procedures (TTP) associated with breaching and clearance 

operations. The Marine Corps is dual-designated on this manual, which will replace 

their Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-19.3, Marine Air-Ground Task 

Force (MAGTF) Breaching Operations.

Status: To be published 2QFY11.

General Engineering

TM 3-34.48 1/2

(*FM 5-430-00-1

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater of Operations 

Roads, Airfields and Helipads

Pending

(Aug 94)

(Sep 94)

This manual will serve as a reference for engineer planners in support of joint and 

theater operations in the design of roads, airfields, and helipads. This manual is 

currently dual-designated with the Air Force. The Air Force (as well as the Navy and 

Marine Corps) plans to adopt the new manual also.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 3QFY11.

TM 3-34.41 Construction Planning and 

Estimating

NEW This new manual is being produced by the Navy, in coordination with the Army and 

Air Force. The manual will provide the TTP and planning factors for conducting 

construction planning at the crew leader level. The manual will also provide useful 

expeditionary construction planning factors for use by planners at all levels. 

Status: Estimated publishing date is 3QFY11.

Publications Currently Under Revision

Combat Engineering

ATTP 3-34.55

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Pending

(Jun 85)

This is a full revision of FM 5-103, Survivability.

Status: Initial Draft staffing in 3QFY11.

TM 3-34.43

(*FM 3-34.451)

(*FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Pending

(Dec 92)

This manual will provide technical information for obtaining samples and performing 

engineering tests and calculations on soils, bituminous paving mixtures, and concrete. 

For use in military construction. The test procedures and terminology will conform to 

the latest methods and specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the Portland Cement Association 

(PCA), with alternate field testing methods and sampling techniques when complete 

lab facilities are unavailable or impractical to use. The Marine Corps and Air Force plan 

to adopt this manual as well.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 3QFY11.

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Engineer Operations 
January-April 2011 Engineer 45

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Doctrine Branch, Engineer Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering (continued)

TM 3-34.65 1/2

(*FM 3-34.465)

Quarry Operations Pending

(Mar 05)

This manual outlines the methods and procedures used in the exploration for and 

operation of pits and quarries. It provides information on equipment required for operating 

pits and quarries and for supplying crushed mineral products, but does not cover the 

operation of the stated types of equipment. This is a collaborative effort with the Navy 

and Air Force and includes the newest technologies and current practices. There will be a 

focused staffing only for this manual.

Status: Preparing Volume II. Initial Draft staffing of both volumes 2QFY11.

This manual is a guide for planning, designing, and drilling wells. It focuses on techniques 

and procedures for installing wells and includes expedient methods for digging shallow 

water wells, such as hand-dug wells. This collaborative effort with the Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps includes the newest technologies, current practices, and revised formulas.

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

TM 3-34.49

(*FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Pending

(Mar 94)

TM 3-34.56 Waste Management New This manual addresses issues not currently integrated into FM 3-34.5, Environmental 

Considerations. The manual will address the role of waste management in support of 

deployed forces, as well as the integration of waste management throughout the operations 

process, including its critical linkage to the composite risk management process. 

Status: Estimated publishing date is 2QFY11.

Notes: Current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the Reimer Digital Library at <http://www

.adtdl.army.mil> or the MSKN Web site at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/500629>. The manuals discussed in this article are currently under development and/or recently published. Drafts may be obtained during the staffing process or by contacting the Engineer Doctrine Branch

at commercial 573-563-0003, DSN 676-0003, or <douglas.merrill@us.army.mil> or contact commercial 573-563-2717, DSN 676-2717, or <brian

.davis6@us.army.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 25 Jan 10.

*Publications shown inside parenthesis with an asterisk beside the number indicate the current published number, but that number will be

superseded by the new number at the beginning of the listing. Multiple manuals in parenthesis will indicate consolidation into one manual.

Due to the doctrine reengineering effort, some field manuals are being realigned as general subject technical manuals (TMs). These manuals 

will be numbered as TMs. Field manuals (FMs) dealing with Army tactics, techniques, and procedures (ATTP) will be renumbered as ATTPs.

U. S. Army Engineer School History Office. This Office maintains a multimedia collection of historical materials on the Engineer 

School and the Engineer Regiment. The collection—which consists 

of more than 17,000 manuals, 21,000 photos, 800 videos and tapes, 

and three million pages of documents on engineer history—includes 

information on units, equipment, organization, and operations that 

can support mission requirements and analysis efforts. The Office 

is seeking to expand its holdings on engineer units and requests 

that a copy of photographs, videos, or documents that are generated 

by units be sent to: History Office, U.S. Army Engineer School, 320 

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 043, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473, 

or to <leon.usaeshistory@conus.army.mil>. The History Office also 

maintains a milBook page at <https://www.kc.army.mil/book

/groups/engineer-historian> and a web page at <http://www.wood

.army.mil/wood_cms/usaes/2332.shtml>.

Any questions should be directed to Dr. Larry Roberts at 573-563-

6109 or Dr. David Ulbrich at 573-563-6365.
46 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

Route clearance missions can range from a few hours 

to many days. It is unlikely you can stay completely 

focused for an entire mission, but you can learn to 

focus for a short duration many times during the task. This 

article provides some tools to help increase your ability to 

manage the moment. The presented method, created by 

Dr. Ken Ravizza, adapts a systematic approach to taking 

one thing at a time. Ravizza’s method follows six steps to 

help you “be where you need to be when you need to be 

there.” This adaptation is about helping you to perform 

well consistently by refocusing for short periods of time. 

Ravizza’s process is known as the Rs.

Your Attitude: Your Decision

Before we get to the Rs, let’s examine attitude. You 

control your attitude. You can either decide to 

commit to the mission and be the best improvised 

explosive device (IED) spotter possible, or you can roll with 

the punches and hope that you find something or that you 

don’t get blown up. It’s your decision. To help with that 

choice, look at your mission. Why are you doing what 

you’re doing? It may be stated in the patrol brief’s mission 

statement. If not, determine the purpose of going out. It may 

be to clear a road in order to move supplies or help another 

unit move safely to an objective. If you ask your leader, ask 

in a way that doesn’t question his or her decisionmaking, 

but rather clarifies your purpose. Ultimately, you use your 

specialized knowledge and equipment to protect others so 

that they can perform their missions.

Responsibility

The fundamental component of the Rs process is 

responsibility. Learn what you can control—then 

take the responsibility to act appropriately. As a 

member of a route clearance team, you have a responsibility 

to yourself, your unit, and those following behind to both 

find IEDs and clear a path. You must maintain your 

personal weapon and protective equipment, night vision 

devices, and first aid kit. You have a responsibility to be on 

time and ready—which includes being mentally prepared—

for each mission. Taking responsibility for your mental 

readiness means choosing a proactive method to control 

yourself so that you can consistently search effectively for 

IEDs. You may not find every IED, but wouldn’t it be great 

if you found just one more?

Imagine yourself as a spotter searching for IEDs 

during a standard route clearance mission. Use the

photo on page 49 to help you visualize a typical street.

What distractions could be present? What thoughts can get 

in the way? What could keep you from focusing on the one 

task of finding an IED? Take a minute to write out a list of 

distractions. On this list, there are things you can control 

and things you can’t. Cross off those things you cannot 

control, and focus on what you can control. Don’t waste time 

and energy on things beyond your control. You probably 

notice that the only thing you can consistently control is 

yourself. You can control your behaviors, your thoughts, 

your emotions, and your attitude—and you must learn to be 

in control of yourself for high-level performance. In sports, 

self-control leads to body control, which leads to skill

control (Figure 1, page 47). Think of the basketball player 

who turns the ball over and immediately reaches in and 

fouls the opponent. This is an example of someone who 

lost self-control and then couldn’t maintain body or skill 

control. For those clearing a route, your skill is your ability 

to focus. Start by taking a slow, deep breath. The breath is 

a good indicator of whether or not you are in control. If you 

can breathe, you give yourself a chance to perform with a 

clear, calm, and focused mind.

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

Photo by U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Mark Burrell
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 47

Simplifying the Rs Process

The Rs process is built around three components 

of self-control, plan, and trust (Figure 2):

■ Gain or maintain self-control by recognizing where you

are mentally and emotionally and where you need to be.

Release any negative thoughts or tension and regroup. 

■ Transition to the plan step as you refocus on the task at

hand and what is important right now. 

■ Trust in your ability to find IEDs by ensuring that

you are ready and by responding as you search for IED

indicators. 

These three components are a simplified version of the 

Rs process, and you can substitute words of your own to help 

you remember it. West Point’s football team, for example, 

uses the terms “clear-load-target” to help them remember 

to take one play at a time. For them, clear represents 

releasing the last play. They load the upcoming play and 

focus on it. Target is their word for executing the play by 

trusting their ability and responding with 

what they have.

The Six-Step Rs Process

Recognize

Learn to recognize where you are 

mentally and where you need to be. How 

do you recognize when you are not focused 

on searching for IEDs? Figure 3, page 48 

lists some examples of physical, cognitive 

(thoughts), behavioral, and emotional indicators. Think back to playing a sport. 

Did you ever tense up? What happened to your heart rate, 

focus, muscular tension, or thoughts? Did you play better 

or worse? If you can learn to be more aware of where you 

are and make adjustments to get you to where you need 

to be, you can learn to perform more consistently. Think 

about searching for IEDs. Do you simply look for a big 

box or artillery shell in the middle of the road? It isn’t 

that obvious. You do, however, look for the indicators that 

an IED is present: a thin copper wire shimmering in the 

distance, disturbed dirt on the side of the road, an empty 

marketplace, or rubble piled up to create a choke point. In a 

similar way, you must become aware of the indicators that 

let you know when you are not in control of yourself. Once 

you’ve recognized where you are and where you need to be, 

you have two choices: refocus or release.

 You can think about your ability to recognize your level 

of readiness as a traffic light (Figure 4, page 48). When 

the light is green, you go right on through with no reason 

to slow down. You do the same when you are performing 

well—you keep going with little thought or conscious effort. 

However, when the light turns yellow, you can speed up 

or slow down to stop. Many athletes 

speed up when they arrive at yellow 

light situations rather than gaining 

control by slowing down. Finally, when 

the light is red, you stop—or you could 

crash. Think of your performance in 

these terms. When do you have green, 

yellow, or red lights? What indicates 

that you have yellow or red lights? If 

you have a green light, keep on going! 

If you have yellow or red lights, you 

need to release the stress or negative 

thoughts and get control of yourself.

This process is ongoing. You must 

learn to check in regularly throughout 

the mission. For instance, you might 

consciously check in with yourself 

when you reach a checkpoint. You 

might do so every time your vehicle 

stops to interrogate a possible IED. 

You should always do so after an IED 

detonation or enemy attack. Where 

will you check in, and what is the first 

step in checking in? Can you breathe?

Figure 1. Progression of Control

Self Control - Body Control Skill Control

Respond

Ready

Refocus Regroup

Release

Recognize

Trust

Plan

SelfResponsibility Control

Figure 2. The Rs Process

of self-control, plan, and trust (Figure 2):
48 Engineer January-April 2011

Release

To manage the moment, you have to let go of past events 

that may distract you from the present. Many athletes 

have found physical cues or actions helpful in releasing

their last play. After baseball players miss a swing, they 

might step out of the batter’s box, undo and redo their 

gloves, and then step back in. For them, it’s about playing 

pitch to pitch. For you, it’s about searching for IEDs, 

checkpoint to checkpoint. Here are some ideas to help 

release distractions:

■ Squeeze the event into the ball of your fist as tightly as

possible. When you are ready, let it go. 

■ Take a deep breath, and blow it out. Take a few more

breaths, and feel tension disappear as you exhale.

■ Take off your gloves. Don’t put them on until you are

ready to focus again.

■ Talk to those around you. Silence can indicate that a

person has become internally focused; speaking to

people near you can help.

This list is not all-inclusive, but it may give you some 

ideas. Do not keep stress inside as you search for and clear 

IEDs. Part of what the hitter does in baseball is try to see 

the ball clearly at the release point. You aren’t attempting 

to see a ball going 90+ miles per hour, but rather to spot 

anything that indicates an IED.

Regroup

Once you release, you need to regroup. To do this, 

simultaneously take a slow, deep breath and pull your head 

and chest up. Lengthen your spine, and let your shoulders 

lower. (We tend to pull our shoulders to our ears when we 

are stressed.) Let your feet feel loose. Try it now to see 

how it feels; regrouping is a way of changing your body 

to a more confident posture and preparing for whatever 

comes next. When you act confident, you feel confident, and 

confidence is important when searching for IEDs as well as 

playing sports. Watch the quarterbacks who have a bad set 

of downs. Inspect their body language: The less-confident 

ones may hang their heads down. If they maintain that 

posture, they probably won’t do well on their next outing.

Along with changing your posture, using positive self-talk 

can help you regroup. We all talk to ourselves throughout 

the day, and positive self-talk helps us concentrate in 

a purposeful way. Here are some examples of positive 

language to help you regroup:

■

■

■

■

Another tool to help you regroup is 

to use a focal point—a visual trigger 

that reminds you to be confident. Some 

baseball players use the tip of the foul 

pole to remind them to breathe, to get 

their head up and chest out, and to 

play with confidence. Several pitchers have written in their 

hats certain words that they read after a bad pitch, when 

they need to regroup. You might use a small dot on your 

watch or words you’ve written on the inside of the vehicle. 

Figure 3. Examples of Physical, Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Indicators

Figure 4. Levels of Readiness

Green - Locked in, everything is good

Yellow - Tense, distracted, trouble focusing

Red - No focus, waiting for mission to end

■ Increased heart rate

■ Increased respiration

■ Increased body temperature

■ Sweaty hands and feet

■ Frequent urination

■ Decreased saliva (cottonmouth)

■ Internal

■ Negative

■ Critical of others

■ Forgetful

■ Anxious

■ Angry

■ Walking faster

■ Depressed

■ Yawning/tired

■ Accident prone

Physical Indicators Cognitive Indicators Behavioral and Emotional 

Indicators

Let’s go!

I’ve got this!

I will find you!

Bring it on!

This list is not all-inclusive, but it may give you some 

ideas. Do not keep stress inside as you search for and clear 

IEDs. Part of what the hitter does in baseball is try to see 

the ball clearly at the release point. You aren’t attempting
is present. It may be your first combat mission, and you’re 

unsure; but you must speak up—even if you cannot explain 

why you think there is an IED. Do not second-guess your 

ability; lives depend on your speaking up.

Summary

Now that you have learned a method to help you 

better manage the moment, you must practice this 

process during training and throughout missions, 

since it requires repetition to become effective. Be patient, 

and remember that reacting to a weapons malfunction or 

becoming proficient at a battle drill was not immediately 

easy but took practice and determination. Practice!

Major Tilman is an instructor at the United States 

Military Academy Center for Enhanced Performance. He 

commanded Echo Company, 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry 

Regiment, during Operation Iraqi Freedom 06–08 in 

Baqubah, Iraq. He is a graduate of the United States 

Military Academy and holds a master’s from California 

State University, Fullerton.

Dr. Ravizza is a professor of kinesiology at California 

State University, Fullerton. He is coauthor of the book 

Heads-Up Baseball and a sport psychology consultant for 

the Tampa Bay Rays and USA Volleyball. He has consulted 

with numerous collegiate, Olympic, and professional teams 

and athletes for the past 30 years. 

Dr. Statler is a professor of applied sport psychology at 

California State University, Fullerton, and is a consultant 

to a variety of collegiate, Olympic, professional, and individual athletes.

January-April 2011 Engineer 49

Refocus

 Now it is time to focus on the next part of the mission. 

What do you have to do right now, and what is the plan? 

The football team focuses on the next play call—but in 

looking for IEDs, you must refocus on the road ahead. What 

do you know about the next portion of the road? Is it dirt, 

gravel, asphalt, urban, or other—and how does that change 

where you need to look? Do you need to scan the horizon 

for possible enemy forces? Once again, this is a proactive 

approach to managing the moment and becoming more 

effective at searching for IEDs. 

Ready

How do you know that you are ready? Quickly scan your 

body, and ask yourself if you can breathe. If the answer 

is yes, you are ready. If not, start the process over, and 

make yourself ready. You don’t have the choice to step 

off the mound or take yourself out of the game, but you 

have some tools to help make yourself more ready. A slow, 

steady breath is a good indicator that you’re in control. If 

you’re in control of yourself, there is a good chance that 

you can control your performance and are ready to search 

for IEDs. 

Respond

As stated before, the Rs process helps to get you in the 

right mindset for taking one thing at a time. .Part of the 

process is learning to trust your ability to execute a task. 

You trust that you’re properly prepared and will respond

accordingly. You are in control of you, and now you just 

search—with the one responsibility to speak up when you 

spot a possible IED or when you have the sense that one 

A street scene suggesting potential distractions
50 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

I

n his “Chairman’s Vision” on 15 July 2009, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff remarked, “Today, 

the United States enjoys an overwhelming qualitative 

advantage not only in our fielded capabilities, but in our 

cognitive approach to our duties; sustaining and increasing this advantage will require a transformation achieved 

by combining technology, intellect, and cultural changes 

across the joint community.”1

 The Joint Engineer Operations Course (JEOC) continues to be an important element 

of the joint engineer cognitive framework. During the 2010 

training year, the JEOC program educated 293 Service engineers in preparation for current or future joint engineer 

staff assignments.2

 The JEOC program continues to focus 

on developing the operational engineering capabilities of 

Service engineer officers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and Department of Defense civilian leaders 

preparing to join combined joint task forces in support of 

combat operations around the world.

The JEOC program consists of two phases: 

■ Phase I is an eight-module online distributed learning

course focused on building joint engineer knowledge

and comprehension necessary for a firm joint engineering foundation.3

■ Phase II is a five-day resident educational event that is

focused on the application and analysis of the joint engineer operational environment through large-group

lectures and small-group practical exercises and

discussion.4

Phase I online learning and Phase II resident discussion 

enhance the development and effectiveness of the joint engineer staff officer upon assignment to a joint staff. 

The JEOC program continues to build capacity and meet 

the current educational needs of our Service engineers by 

refining the curriculum to enhance the understanding of 

our current interagency, intergovernmental organization, 

and nongovernmental organization coordination environment.5

 To improve the learning opportunities for Service 

and multinational engineer students, the program has adjusted the course information; Phase I (online) and Phase II 

(resident) are now open to multinational engineers, whose 

resident seats are coordinated through a sponsoring combatant command—each of which is allocated one seat per 

year. A goal of the JEOC program is to seat two multinational engineer officers per resident class. During the 2010 

training year, the JEOC program educated four multinational engineers. We encourage multinational engineers to 

register and complete Phase I and then attain a seat for 

Phase II through their sponsoring combatant command.

Recently, the JEOC program was modified to directly 

support combatant command engineers deployed outside 

the continental United States (OCONUS).6

 In September 

2010, the United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) 

hosted a JEOC class at the Navy Education Center, Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii, to improve the abilities of their joint staff 

engineers. The class successfully trained and educated 

joint and Service engineers from USPACOM’s area of responsibility. In March 2011, the United States European 

Command (USEUCOM) hosted a JEOC class to improve 

their joint staff engineers and multinational staff engineers. The class was conducted at the Military Engineering 

Center of Excellence (MILENG COE) in Ingolstadt, Germany, and successfully trained and educated joint, Service, 

and multinational engineers from USEUCOM’s area of 

responsibility. 

By Lieutenant Colonel Shawn P. Howley (Retired) and Major Charles R. McGinnis (Retired)

“The JEOC program continues to build capacity and meet the current educational needs of our Service engineers by refining the curriculum to enhance 

the understanding of our current interagency, intergovernmental organization, and nongovernmental organization coordination environment.”
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 51

Currently, the JEOC program is scheduled to conduct 

four core resident classes in training years 2011 and 2012. 

The program started with a successful JEOC offering at 

the United States Marine Corps University in November 

2010 and is on schedule for the remaining classes for this 

training year. 

The course is a United States Joint Forces Command 

(USJFCOM) Joint Training Directorate/Joint Warfighting 

Center (J-7) joint professional military education (JPME)-

certified course, which is on the Army Training Requirements and Resource System (ATRRS) under course number 4A-F16/030-F20. To enroll, students must first have an 

active Army Knowledge Online (AKO) or Defense Knowledge Online (DKO) account. Once an AKO/DKO account 

is established, students should contact their respective 

course administrators or Mr. Dwayne Boeres, (573) 563-

7065 or <dwayne.boeres@us.army.mil>, to process their enrollment. JEOC Service representatives may be contacted 

through the Joint Knowledge Online network at <https://

www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/index.jsp;jsessionid=141B

46CC25D62C3BE4D1592E2CA4197A.appd02_3>.

Future objectives for the program for training year 2011 

are to continue to update the course material with relevant 

information from current operations and lessons learned 

provided by combatant commands and combined joint task 

forces operating around the world. Additional enabling objectives to support the JEOC program this training year 

are—

■ Establishing a training partnership with the

MILENG COE. 

■ Updating the Joint Forces Command Engineer

Battlebook. 

1–5

Nov

United States Marine Corps 

University—

Quantico, Virginia

31 Oct–

4 Nov

United States Marine Corps 

University—

Quantico, Virginia

13–17

June

United States Air Force

Institute of Technology—

Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio

18–22

June

United States Air Force

Institute of Technology—

Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, Ohio

Fiscal 

Year

 2011

Location Fiscal

Year

2012

Location

11–15

 April

United States Army Engineer 

School—

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

9–13

April

United States Army Engineer 

School—

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

15–19

Aug

United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps Officer School—

Port Hueneme, California

23–27

July

United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps Officer School—

Port Hueneme, California

JEOC Rotational Course Schedule

■ Conducting the annual course review. 

■ Being prepared to support OCONUS combatant command staff engineer training. 

Lieutenant Colonel Howley (Retired) is the JEOC program and course manager. He has served in leadership positions and has assisted Army units in organizational development for more than 24 years.

Major McGinnis (Retired) is a JEOC training specialist. He has worked in leadership and organizational development of Army units for more than

20 years.

Endnotes

1

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

(CJCSI) 1800.01D, Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP), 15 July 2009, <www.dtic.mil/cjcs

_directives/cdata/unlimit/1800_01.pdf>, accessed 20 December 2010. 

2

“Joint Engineer Operations Course,” Engineer, Vol. 

40, January–April 2010, pp. 34-35.

3

Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives, 

Pearson Education, Boston, 1956.

4

Ibid. 

5

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson, “Clear the Way,” 

Engineer, Vol. 40, May–August 2010, pp. 2 and 10.

6

CJCSI 3500.01F, Joint Training Policy and Guidance for 

the Armed Forces of the United States, 19 November 2010, 

<www.dtic.mil/doctrine/training/cjcsi3500_01f.pdf>,

accessed 20 December 2010.
52 Engineer 36 Engineer January-April 2011 May-August 2010

I

n a combined arms battalion tactical operations center 

in Mosul, Iraq, two engineer captains discussed their 

duties as task force engineers. One captain told the 

other, “Man, you’re like a real engineer!” 

“No,” replied the second captain, pointing to a nearby 

second lieutenant. “He’s the real engineer.” The second lieutenant, an earthmoving construction platoon leader, was 

responsible for improving force protection measures at the 

task force checkpoints. He was planning a 100-mile movement of equipment and personnel across northern Iraq to 

the next jobsite. He also denied being the real engineer, 

arguing that his responsibilities merely included planning 

and overseeing the filling of HESCO Bastion Concertainer®

barriers and grading gravel parking lots. These were nothing near the kind of calculations and analyses he expected 

real engineers to do. 

These three officers represent many characteristics typically associated with United States Army engineers. Two 

held civil engineering degrees, two had conducted route 

clearance missions as platoon leaders on previous deployments, one had completed force protection and drainage 

improvement missions in northern Iraq, and one had a 

By First Lieutenant Claude E. Barron

Early on in the 

mission, a D7G 

bulldozer operator 

completes a rough 

leveling of the 

ground.
May-August 2010 January-April 2011 Engineer 37 Engineer 53

Sapper tab. Despite these qualifications, none of them felt 

they deserved the title of real engineer. If they don’t deserve the title, who does?

Finding Commonality

Field Manual 3-34, Engineer Operations, states the 

Engineer Regiment’s mission-essential task list 

(METL) as—

■ Shape the security environment.

■ Respond promptly to crisis.

■ Mobilize engineer forces.

■ Support forcible entry operations.

■ Support assured mobility to dominate land operations.

■ Provide support to civil authorities.

■ Provide quality, responsive engineering services to the

nation. 

This broad scope requires the Regiment to distribute 

various aspects of its mission among its many diverse types 

of units and personnel, all with their own focused tasks and 

purposes. This inherent diversity creates a challenge when 

trying to find commonality among all the units in the Regiment. Despite the varying qualifications and characteristics 

of the engineers in the Regiment—like the three described 

above—it is likely that many would deny being the real engineers. If a diver, a heavy equipment operator, and a geodetic surveyor discussed their roles, they would probably 

have the same difficulty in connecting their diverse skills 

to explain why they all wear the same engineer castle. The 

Regiment’s METL—the what—is so broad that many engineers find it hard to relate to all of the tasks collectively. However, if engineers look at how they carry out those 

tasks, they will find it is possible to define who they are. 

Real engineers, no matter their role, professionally execute 

the Regiment’s METL with problem solving as the core attribute. Real engineers are professional problem solvers.

The Professional

In his book, The Future of the Army Profession, Don M. 

Snider proposes three attributes of a profession: expertise, 

jurisdiction, and legitimacy. Applying this model to the individual professional, we can see there are specific obligations that engineers have to fulfill. They must—

■ Demonstrate expert knowledge within their field and 

engage in lifelong learning to constantly update and

maintain their expertise as the world changes.

■ Take ownership of their assigned tasks—their

jurisdiction.

■ Maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the customer they 

serve. 

To swiftly construct a protective perimeter wall, an operator uses a hydraulic excavator to fill HESCO Bastion barriers.
54 Engineer January-April 2011

These three obligations must be supported by a solid 

foundation defined by strong character, living the Army 

values, maintaining and enforcing the standards of the 

profession, self policing, and developing and growing other 

professionals within the engineer profession. The professional behavior demonstrated by real engineers forms the 

foundation of how they carry out their mission. However, 

engineers must possess another attribute that uniquely defines them—the technical knowledge and operational proficiency to serve as the Army’s problem solver.

The Problem Solver

Army engineers solve problems. They are not asked to 

simply analyze and report but to analyze, plan, organize, 

build, and deliver solutions using the materials, people, 

and equipment available. To do this, engineers must not 

only demonstrate professional attributes but also be able 

to solve hard problems. Engineers must understand and

employ a problem-solving method, whether it is one prescribed in introductory engineering textbooks; the military decisionmaking process (MDMP); John Boyd’s

observation–orientation–decision–action loop; or a combination of multiple processes. They must be able to clearly 

define problems, accurately identify the facts, intelligently make assumptions, apply principles and theories 

as necessary, use their ingenuity and resourcefulness 

to solve the problems, and organize and implement the 

available resources so that the end product satisfies the 

requirements of the customer. Technical knowledge and 

proficiency in solving hard problems uniquely defines 

them as the real engineers.

Creating More Real Engineers

Understanding the attributes that define the real engineer can help develop more of them and improve 

the Regiment’s ability to accomplish its METL. 

To develop the professional, engineers must continue to 

maintain and improve their expert knowledge, encourage 

ownership of their jurisdiction, and continue to improve 

their legitimacy. To develop the problem solver, the Regiment must continue to maintain and improve its search for 

problem-solving individuals and conduct training that forces 

creative thought and the use of a problem-solving method.

Improving Expert Knowledge

Expert knowledge comes from the United States Army 

Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; other 

military and civilian schools; personal development; and 

the training planned by Army leaders and conducted by 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The Regiment must 

maintain its schoolhouse training, but should continue to 

improve its training techniques to ensure that the best 

teaching methods are used. These improvements evolve 

from conducting after action reviews and implementing the 

lessons learned, leveraging effective methods from other 

successful institutions, and studying the human capacity for growth and development. Along with schoolhouse 

courses, there must be opportunities for engineers to attend other military and civilian schools and seek engineerspecific professional development. Once these professionally trained and educated engineers are developed, they must 

be retained in the Army through financial compensation, 

assignment preference, promotion, or other incentives. 

Twin D9 bulldozers work side by side to push an earthen berm during a base expansion mission.
January-April 2011 Engineer 55

Most important, there must be an emphasis on training 

at all unit levels. All too often, great training is planned but 

not conducted due to more pressing matters. Despite these 

pressing matters, “Maintenance Monday” always takes 

place because it has high command emphasis. Commanders at brigade and battalion levels need to put as much emphasis on training as they do on maintenance. When training takes a back seat to maintenance, equipment is getting 

a higher priority than the Regiment’s most important asset—its people. Training gives leaders the opportunity to 

practice their expert knowledge of leadership, planning, 

teaching, and supervising. It also provides repetition to ensure that expert knowledge is maintained and that junior 

enlisted Soldiers gain the expert knowledge they do not get 

at advanced individual training (AIT).

Taking Ownership of Jurisdiction

The Regiment’s jurisdiction comes from its METL, and 

ownership of these tasks must be instilled to maintain that 

jurisdiction. One way to instill ownership is through training. By creating competent engineers, training also creates 

confident engineers who want to carry out their assigned 

tasks. Another way to maintain jurisdiction is to keep 

engineers engaged in their tasks. The current operations 

tempo addresses this issue reasonably well, but the one- to 

two-year periods between deployments typically are nonproductive in terms of producing real-world results. That is 

time when Soldiers—and the Regiment—did not have the 

opportunity to own their jurisdiction. Engineers must find 

ways to build real deliverables for real customers operating 

out of their home bases; they could support the needs of 

other community and government activities, such as other 

Army units, local communities, state agencies, national 

parks, other military Service branches, or other national 

agencies like the Department of Homeland Security. By 

keeping engineers engaged, the Regiment will maintain 

their skills, achieve real-world results, demonstrate to the 

world that engineers take ownership of their field of work, 

and build pride in the Regiment itself. 

Another way to instill ownership of assigned tasks is to 

put engineers in the positions they want and are qualified 

to fill. The pilot “Green Pages” program does exactly this. 

Engineers who are motivated because they are doing what 

they are passionate about will take ownership of their assigned tasks.

Improving Legitimacy

The Regiment’s engineering legitimacy ultimately comes 

from the assessment of its performance by those it serves. 

As long as the Regiment maintains its clients’ faith and 

trust, it will continue to be home to a legitimate profession. 

To improve trust in its ability to accomplish its tasks, the 

Regiment must continue to deliver the products requested 

and must maintain, develop, and enforce its character, values, and standards. It should continue to teach and develop 

A Soldier excavates an area with a hydraulic excavator for the placement of a new culvert.
the Army values at the various commissioning sources, 

through the NCO Education System, and Army basic and 

AIT. In addition, it should institute a program modeled on 

the United States Military Academy’s Cadet Leader Development Program that works to develop cadets into leaders 

of character during their four years at West Point. Constant discussions and refreshers about character and the 

Army values all the way down to the squad level would 

also be beneficial. To maintain and improve legitimacy, the 

Regiment must continue to maintain its standards. Poor 

engineer work always has a way of making itself known, 

and it generally does so in a dramatic way. No other single 

event can damage legitimacy more than an ignored standard that results in electrocution, fire, structural collapse, 

failed force protection measure, or any other engineering 

project failure.

Developing the Problem Solver

Given the difficulty of altering a person’s mindset and 

thought processes, the easiest way to increase the number of critical problem solvers in the Regiment involves 

recruiting people who already possess the skill. Through 

its engagements with universities, the Regiment’s effort 

to seek out candidates with engineering and technical degrees seems to be doing well. A second method to develop 

problem solvers is through training. Leaders at all levels 

must conduct training that forces the use of the problem 

solving thought process. Some methods include demanding the written 

use of troop-leading procedures, the 

MDMP, or other problem-solving 

method; providing only vague instructions (such as supplying only 

the commander’s intent); and developing scenarios without stark blackand-white solutions. Such training 

not only develops problem solvers 

and real engineers, it instills the 

confidence necessary for Soldiers to 

take the initiative when they see an 

advantage, which is the foundation 

of mission command and the heart of 

how our Army operates.

Conclusion

The three officers in Mosul, despite their qualifications, felt 

they didn’t deserve the title of 

real engineer and did not know how 

to define such a person. The confusion 

about which of the units wearing the 

castle best represents the real engineer is likely shared throughout the 

Regiment because of its broad METL. 

However, by examining how engineers 

carry out their missions, it is possible 

to define who they are. The real engineer is a professional problem solver. 

When the Regiment focuses its efforts on improving the 

ability to solve problems at all levels, it can and will develop more real engineers. That will improve the Regiment’s 

ability to achieve its METL, meet its customers’ needs, and 

serve the nation.

First Lieutenant Barron is a platoon leader in the 617th 

Engineer Support Company, 864th Engineer Battalion, 

Fort Lewis, Washington. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from the United States Military Academy at West 

Point, New York.

Endnotes

1

Field Manual 3-34, Engineer Operations, 2 January 

2004.

2

Don M. Snider and Gayle L. Watkins, The Future of the 

Army Profession, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2005, p. 43.

3

Grant T. Hammond, The Mind of War: John Boyd and 

American Security, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C., 2001.

4

<https://www.greenpages.army.mil>, accessed 26 November 2010.

5

<http://www.usma.edu/opa/clds/index.html>, accessed

 26 November 2010.

56 Engineer January-April 2011

An engineer surveys a grade to ensure that it meets specifications.
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 57

With this commander’s intent to guide them, the 

noncommissioned officer (NCO) leaders of the 

841st Engineer Battalion launched into the Iron 

Castle Junior Leader Education and Development (IC–

JLEAD) program in September 2010 at its headquarters in 

Miami, Florida. While still the “beta” version, this was the 

culminating event of an effort that had been more than a 

year in the making. 

Transition to Operational Army Reserve

From observation of unit training and operations, 

the brigade commander had, shortly after assuming command, identified an apparent gap in the 

Army’s junior NCO education system and began working 

with his command sergeant major (CSM) on the concept for 

a corrective program within the 926th Engineer Brigade. 

This shortfall was in the basic NCO leadership skills, tools, 

and understanding of the history, traditions, and authorities of the NCO Corps. While there was no single cause for 

this lack of NCO capabilities in the brigade, the command 

team believed it had developed over time for a variety of 

reasons—high individual operational tempo (OPTEMPO), 

in-theater promotion policies, delayed Noncommissioned 

Officer Educational System (NCOES) attendance, and the 

necessary focus on warfighting skills at the expense of a 

more balanced education—that were all part of the requirement to become an operational rather than strategic Army 

Reserve. 

This transition to an operational reserve has vastly increased requirements for individual involvement and time 

commitment from NCOs at the unit level, including—

■ Additional individual training (such as Composite Risk

Management [CRM] and the Army Accident Avoidance

Course [AAAC]).

■ Additional individual readiness requirements (such as

Periodic Health Assessment [PHA], online and medical

visits, dental exams and follow-on treatment, and everchanging immunizations).

■ Frequent "to-be-done-immediately" Department of the

Army or Department of Defense individual briefings or

online requirements (such as suicide prevention and

the Global Assessment Tool [GAT]) that have been

added to the Army Reserve’s unit training equation, but

without additional inactive duty training (IDT) time

beyond the traditional total of 196 hours annually

(two days per month for twelve months).

The typical response by the company- and battalionlevel commanders to meeting these new operational requirements has been to sacrifice traditional individual and 

collective training in favor of mass administrative events or 

individual Soldier time on computers at the Reserve Center. Within the brigade, this diversion of available time had 

particularly manifested itself in shortfalls of Army Force 

Generation (ARFORGEN)-related readiness goals, as well 

as specific training benchmarks. 

“With IC–JLEAD, I intend to provide the NCOs of the Iron Castle Brigade with the training, tools, and mission to 

revitalize the Army Reserve’s NCO Corps as the backbone of the force and be the key effort in completing the transition of 

the Iron Castle Brigade to a trained and ready operational command capable of rapidly mobilizing and deploying for any 

OCONUS [outside the continental United States] or CONUS [continental United States] mission.”1

 —Commanding General, 926th Engineer Brigade

By Brigadier General Bud R. Jameson Jr. and Command Sergeant Major Steven M. Hatchell
May-August 2010 58 Engineer January-April 2011 Engineer 37

Technical Competence

vs. Leadership Skills

When the 926th Engineer Brigade staff analyzed 

the various Army Reserve/ARFORGEN readiness metrics, they found that more than twothirds were "Soldier issues" that should have been handled 

by the NCOs of the brigade in their everyday business of 

taking care of Soldiers. Yet, they weren't. The question 

was—Why? It didn't take long to discover that the NCOs 

of the brigade had largely matured under the past policies 

of focusing available IDT training time on technical competence at the cost of basic NCO leadership skills. These 

NCOs were great engineer technicians who were being paid 

more—via their promotions—for their greater knowledge 

and experience, but without the NCO skills necessary to be 

the military leaders for their Soldiers. And now, under ARFORGEN and the concept of an operational Army Reserve, 

even more was being expected of them.

A Matter of Timing

I

n addition to the basic lack of NCO knowledge, 

there was also the matter of ARFORGENappropriate timing for the routine Army 

NCOES courses. In the case of the Warrior Leader 

Course (WLC)—the traditional “introduction-tobeing-an-NCO” course for the Army—there could be 

up to a three-year delay between Soldiers’ promotion 

to NCO rank and their ability to attend WLC due to 

ARFORGEN. 

In the Army Reserve, ARFORGEN is a five-year 

cyclical process (see table above). Within this five-year 

cycle of increasing individual and unit readiness, individual training is only permitted—or funded—during 

Year 1 (and, selectively, Year 2). In the latter years, 

the shift of emphasis to committing available time and 

funding for collective training and unit readiness generally precludes continued individual education. 

Yet, each year the promotion system continues 

to create new NCOs. While this is certainly necessary and proper, it nonetheless creates the conditions under which new NCOs could conceivably be 

promoted for up to three years before ARFORGEN 

permits them to attend NCOES to “learn how to be 

an NCO”! The Reserve Components cannot maintain 

their readiness levels according to their operational 

reserve requirements if the NCOES isn’t better synchronized with NCO promotions and ARFORGEN 

expectations. While the brigade leadership continued 

its analysis, ongoing feedback from both theaters 

of conflict (as well as comments from the Inspector 

General of the Army) only confirmed the need for an 

education program—separate from the Army’s institutional education system—to give junior NCOs the 

tools to succeed. 

A student poses a question for the group during the JLEAD 

seminar at the 841st Engineer Battalion in Miami, Florida, 

proving the wisdom of opting for seminar discussion rather 

than straight lecture-style training.

Reserve Component ARFORGEN Model

Unit Status Train/Ready 1 Train/Ready 3 Available

Training

Focus

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Collective

Training

Squad Level

Collective

Training

Company Level

Deployed

Reset

Individual

Training/School

Train/Ready 2

Collective

Training

Platoon Level

Photo by Brigadier General Bud R. Jameson Jr.
January-April 2011 Engineer 59

Front and Center: NCO Leadership Skills

Before he retired, Lieutenant General R.S. Whitcomb, the Inspector General of the Army, cautioned 

the general officer leadership: 

“As I leave the Army, my number-one concern is the leadership skills of the young sergeants and officers—they are 

without peer in the world at warfighting, but in my opinion, 

some of those leader skills have not been taught by us by 

coaching and mentoring or have atrophied. This is not all 

attributable to the pace of operations. We are experts at talking ‘to’ and ‘at’ the troops, but how good are we at talking 

‘with’ troopers? How good are we in understanding that fear 

and concern don’t stop when the mission is ended? Part of 

that is the ‘stuff’ of garrison life but really transcends to the 

‘stuff’ of Army life.... This is going to get harder, but nothing 

will be more important to the ‘life and breath’ of our Army, 

and you all are the ones [who] set the example....”2

The CSM of the 926th was reassigned, and for five 

months the brigade operations sergeant major continued 

the staff development process until a new top NCO arrived 

at the brigade. One of his first priorities was to take the 

commanding general’s intent and translate it into reality 

as quickly as possible. The challenge was to distill all the 

varied input—from individuals who earnestly felt their 

topics were absolutely necessary for first-line leaders to be 

successful—into something applicable across the variety of 

engineer companies of the brigade. 

Decentralizing Instruction 

Additionally, the CSM decided that the best target 

audience—the closest to the individual Soldiers—

.would be those selected for promotion to sergeant/

E-5 or those who had been already promoted to sergeant/E-5 

but had yet to attend WLC. The command team opted to 

centrally develop the program of instruction (POI) for standardization of the content, but to decentralize execution by 

tasking it out to the six battalion CSMs to conduct at their 

various locations. Not only would this reduce the costs and 

ensure that the battalion-level CSMs were stakeholders in 

the whole effort, but it would also enable the senior NCOs 

of the respective battalions to absorb the IC–JLEAD curriculum through “learning by teaching.” 

Two-Day IDT

While a three-day POI would have been preferable, the 

uncertainty of additional training funding for the program 

drove the final topic list to only those subjects that could 

reasonably be fit into a two-day IDT weekend. This constraint also ruled out the field-craft and theater-specific 

topics that the students would learn at WLC and/or at their 

mobilization station before deployment.

Course Content

For the initial presentation, the brigade command team 

settled on a course content that included the following:

■ History of the Army and Federal Reserve History and

Heritage of the NCO Corps

■ Duties, Responsibilities, and Authorities of the NCO

■ Sergeant’s Time Expectations

■ Junior Promotion Process Update

■ First-Line Leader Responsibilities: Sponsorship of

Soldiers; Counseling of Soldiers; and Purpose and Use 

of Leader Books

■ Required Online Training and Soldier Readiness

Students prepare to role-play during the resiliency training phase.
60 Engineer January-April 2011

■ Understanding the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)

■ Reserve Retirement System

■ First-Line Leader’s Role in Comprehensive Soldier

Fitness—also known as “Resiliency Training”

Small-Group Discussion

Additionally, the brigade CSM agreed with the commanding general that the need to get as much of this information successfully absorbed by the students in the time 

available precluded any traditional “platform instruction” 

lecture or “death by PowerPoint®” techniques, opting instead for small-group, guided discussion as the appropriate 

mode of training.

Army Values and Soldier Fitness

The final requirement was that all such group discussion would be facilitated through the dual lenses of Army 

Values and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness—all vignettes, 

all examples, all discussions—would thus inculcate these 

basic Army tenets in the future junior NCOs from the start. 

Beta Test Session

The next step was for the brigade CSM to select which 

of the six battalion CSMs would conduct the “beta 

test” and coordinate its execution. Because of its advanced placement in the ARFORGEN cycle—thus entitling 

it to command focus at all levels to set it up for a successful 

deployment—he decided on the 841st Engineer Battalion 

in Miami, Florida. In addition to being a beta test of the 

curriculum and mode of instruction, this session would also 

be for observation by, and demonstration for, the CSMs and 

senior trainers for the remaining five battalions.

With all this planning and coordination to guide them, 

the CSM and senior NCOs of the 841st Engineer Battalion 

successfully executed the mission with a class of seventeen. 

This first training session wrapped up with a student-led 

after action review (AAR). The prevailing student consensus throughout the AAR was appreciation for the opportunity to hone their junior leader skills and network with the 

senior leaders facilitating. Additionally, the AAR produced 

some good feedback that was used to further adapt the 

POI for the next session at the next battalion. Specifically, 

the command team approved adding a session—to be held 

before the actual first day of classroom instruction—that 

would familiarize the student NCOs with the new physical 

readiness training (PRT) program, according to Training 

Circular 3-22.20, Army Physical Readiness Training, and 

how to conduct a training session. With the fielding of the 

new Army Service Uniform, there will be a demonstration 

block added on the wear and inspection of both the Army 

Class A and Service Uniforms (likely with an instructor 

with intentional uniform violations). 

The JLEAD session concluded with the formal presentation of the brigade’s version of the NCO Creed, 841st 

Engineer Battalion’s JLEAD completion certificate, and a 

follow-on brainstorming session on the way ahead with the 

gathered CSMs and trainers from all six battalions, led by 

the brigade CSM and commanding general.

Investment in Future NCO Leaders

This junior NCO education program is a work-inprogress. The content and presentation will continue to be refined through successive iterations across 

the brigade, so as to keep them current. For example, the 

next iteration will address the new structured self-development requirement to familiarize the new NCOs with the 

concept and expectations. The leadership of the 926th Engineer Brigade is committed to investing in the development of the future NCO leaders of the Army Reserve.

Brigadier General Jameson commands the 926th Engineer Brigade in Montgomery, Alabama. In 2003, he served 

as the acting Warrior Brigade commander at Fort Polk, 

Louisiana, and deployed to Iraq in 2007 as deputy team 

leader of an embedded provincial reconstruction team. He 

holds a bachelor’s from Gonzaga University in Spokane, 

Washington, and a master’s from the United States Army 

War College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Command Sergeant Major Hatchell is the command

sergeant major of the 926th Engineer Brigade in Montgomery, Alabama. His deployments include Desert Storm and

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tallil, Iraq. He holds a bachelor’s 

from Excelsior College of New York State.

Endnotes

1

Brigadier General Bud R. Jameson Jr., PowerPoint presentation at the Iron Castle–Junior Leader and Development Beta Version in Miami, Florida, 11 September 2010.

2

Lieutenant General R. Steven Whitcomb, quoted by 

General George William Casey Jr. at <http://www.army

.mil/-speeches/2010/08/17/43850-august-13-2010---lt

-gen-whitcomb-retirement/>, 17 August 2010.

“In addition to being a beta test of the curriculum and mode 

of instruction, this session would also be for observation by, 

and demonstration for, the CSMs and senior trainers for the 

remaining five battalions.”
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 61

Capacity development has increasingly gained worldwide recognition as fundamental to effective governance, capability enhancement, ownership commitment, and successful program and project operation and 

sustainability. The U.S. government’s experience in reconstruction of infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan—and 

the response and recovery actions from natural disasters in 

the United States, Haiti, and elsewhere—have helped raise 

the issue of capacity development to the forefront of our 

government’s policy. Both U.S. civilian and military agencies are revising their methods and approaches to include 

capacity development as an integral part of their planning 

for programs and projects. 

According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “The 

capabilities of the United States’ allies and partners may 

be as important as its own, and building their capacity is 

arguably as important as, if not more so than, the fighting 

the United States does itself.”2

There are many complex issues that can affect the

success of programs and projects. Capacity development 

allows us to influence the outcomes by focusing on areas 

where we have some degree of control. Solutions to capacity development range from simple to complex, from short 

duration to long duration, and from low-dollar investment 

to very expensive. Responsible planning for each program 

or project requires increasing the likelihood of success in 

our operating environment. Effective capacity development 

requires forethought, planning, coordination, and commitment of all parties involved, with the common objective of 

achieving sustainable results.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

has employed capacity development methods for decades, 

often as a means of preparing and equipping owners of

infrastructure and other engineering products and services 

to manage, operate, and maintain them in a sustainable 

manner. USACE uses various training, teaching, and mentoring programs aimed at strengthening public and private 

sector management, engineering, and technical capabilities to support the self-reliance of host nations. 

USACE Role

With more than 34,000 civilians and Soldiers, 

USACE has delivered management, engineering, 

and technical services to customers in more than 

100 countries on a reimbursable basis. The mission areas 

are managed under three primary directorates: military 

programs, civil works, and contingency operations. Work 

is conducted by staff at headquarters, divisions, districts, 

laboratories, and centers.

Services include all engineering disciplines, construction, integrated water resources management and flood protection, hydropower generation, environmental protection, 

emergency response and recovery, and research and development. Some USACE partners on international programs 

“Capacity development is the building of human, institutional, and infrastructure capacity to help societies develop 

secure, stable, and sustainable economies, governments, and other institutions through mentoring, training, education, 

and physical projects; the infusion of financial and other resources; and most important, the motivation and inspiration of 

people to improve their lives.”1

Lieutenant General Henry J. Hatch (Retired)
May-August 2010 62 Engineer January-April 2011 Engineer 37

and projects are the unified combatant commands, Army 

Service component commands, and United States Agency 

for International Development. Capacity development is 

important since it increases the likelihood that the program 

or project will be sustained—and the intended positive impacts realized. This has the following benefits:

■ Conditions are improved for people in the host nation.

■ The host nation is better able to manage its affairs

without relying on external support.

■ The program or project is more likely to be successful 

over the long term, so the investment made by the U.S.

government is better protected. 

Building Partner Capacity

The Army has a broader role than that of the warfighter. Responsibilities include all areas of full 

spectrum operations, as outlined in Field Manual 

3-0, Operations. This document, along with other directives, requires the Army to strengthen important capabilities that can be deployed in a variety of circumstances in 

support of our National Security Strategy. The Army Posture Statement for 2008 states, “Operations in the future 

will be executed in complex environments and will range 

from peace engagement to counterinsurgency to major combat operations. This era of persistent conflict will result in 

high demand for Army forces and capabilities.”3

 The Army 

Campaign Plan for 2010 specifically addresses the need to 

focus on building partner capacity through security cooperation as a means to shape and prevent future conflict and 

strengthen U.S. partners abroad.

USACE is aligned with this broader mission and is accustomed to working as an enabler in any environment in 

full spectrum operations. USACE is well positioned to support the U.S. government with a structured, yet flexible, 

approach to capacity development that can be of benefit under any conditions, from stable peace to general war. 

Whole-of-Government Approach

President Obama signed the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development in September 2010. 

This directive requires U.S. government organizations to— 

■ Adhere to a policy that is focused on development outcomes for host nations.

■ Increase the government’s effectiveness as a partner

nation.

■ Promote development and “harness development capabilities spread across government in support of common objectives.”4

The whole-of-government approach requires U.S. government organizations to coordinate their efforts when 

assisting host nations. Achieving the right balance of “Defense, Diplomacy, and Development”—the keystones of the 

whole-of-government strategy5

—for a situation requires a 

coordinated effort between military and civilian agencies. 

Each organization has expertise that can be leveraged to 

optimize the results. This means that a specific mission 

must be addressed as a system, with each organization contributing the right expertise at the right time. The ability 

to view the context of an entire issue through the knowledge and perspectives of multiple players provides the best 

potential for an optimal solution.

Building on Lessons Learned

The valuable lessons learned on missions and specific 

projects over the years have taught USACE that the 

appropriate level of capacity development must be 

planned into the process; it does not “just happen.” This 

planning not only involves defining the right level and approach for capacity development (scope) but also providing 

sufficient time and funding (schedule and budget) to conduct the capacity development activities at the program 

and project levels, to track performance, and to measure 

the outcomes over time. 

The following themes stand out when lessons learned 

are reviewed in programs and projects that have applied 

capacity development:

■ The host nation must be an advocate for the program

or project as a whole and fully support the specific

capacity development actions developed by the

stakeholders.

■ Capacity development must often be applied through

the efforts of an integrated, multidisciplinary team with

combined skills to match the situation. The stakeholder

group must include representatives from the host nation but may also be composed of those from the

United States, other national governments, multilateral organizations, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the private sector. 

■ Consistent, effective capacity development takes place

only when it is planned and budgeted in a program or 

project. This integration begins in the early planning 

phases to ensure that capacity development is not added later as an “unfunded mandate.”

Framework and Process

USACE determined that a more formalized process 

for the planning and implementation of capacity 

development was needed to ensure that it is consistently addressed on its international programs and projects. The approach was designed to be compatible with the 

processes of other organizations involved in capacity development worldwide. This includes a framework with three 

levels, as shown in Figure 1, page 63: 

■ Enabling Environment Level—Provides the structure

of laws, regulations, policies, and guidance to support 

the organizations.

■ Organizational Level—Provides management requirements and guidelines for the organization and an environment in which individuals excel at their assigned

tasks.
January-April 2011 Engineer 63

■ Individual Level—Works in an established organizational framework to maximize performance through

continuous improvements, while increasing experience,

knowledge, and technical skills.

The framework clarifies the structure under which capacity development takes place. These levels are not intended to operate independently, but rather as a system 

with each level complementing the others. Capacity development activities are interdependent in and between levels, 

and program or project success is unlikely unless capacity 

development is integrated across all three levels. USACE 

typically works in the organizational and individual levels 

on its programs and projects, but may be in a position to 

influence decisions made at the enabling environment level 

in certain cases, such as through its role as a leader in integrated water resource management. 

USACE developed a five-step process to be used with all 

international programs and projects. The formality of this 

process is intended to drive consideration of capacity development needs; it does not mean that “one size fits all.” The 

process must be flexible and tailored to fit the planning and 

implementation needs of each program and project. The five 

steps shown in Figure 2 are integrated into the normal program or project planning and implementation processes. 

Implementation

The USACE business practice has been working to build a strong foundation for the adoption 

of a formalized capacity development planning 

Figure 1. USACE Capacity Development Framework

Figure 2. USACE Capacity Development Process
64 Engineer January-April 2011

and implementation process, including policy and guidance documents, directives, and a series of online training sessions for its staff. The following initiatives are 

some of the capacity development activities presently 

underway on the USACE international programs and 

projects:

■ Africa—USACE is building civil affairs capacity in the 

Kenyan army engineers to increase their appreciation

for, knowledge of, and ability to build shared visions 

among populations affected by disasters and development efforts, thus enhancing the engineers’ ability to

create a sense of stability and security for local communities in affected areas.

■ Europe—The Civil-Military Emergency Preparedness

(CMEP) mission is to build all-hazard national and regional consequence management capacity. CMEP personnel have conducted 76 events in 28 countries since 

1998, including Warsaw Initiative countries, Swaziland, and Guyana. The CMEP mission has now expanded worldwide.

■ Central and Southeast Asia—The Afghan Engineer

District–North (AED–N) is building the capacity of 

Afghan military engineers through its ongoing internship and outreach efforts with the National Military 

Academy of Afghanistan (NMAA). Internships are of

fered to graduates of NMAA at the lieutenant level for 

a period of 21 weeks. At the completion of the internship, the lieutenants return to NMAA to teach civil engineering classes. In addition, the District participates 

in bimonthly NMAA faculty seminars and provides 

training on topics such as engineering, construction, 

safety, project scheduling, and leadership.

■ Middle East—The Gulf Region District is working to

support Iraq’s ability to operate and maintain infrastructure through the following programs: training 

Baghdad’s city workers on proper operations and maintenance of public water, sewage, solid waste, and transportation infrastructure; updating curriculum at Al 

Anbar University’s Engineer College to meet current 

accreditation standards; and providing on-the-job train

ing for 45 Iraqi associates who serve as construction 

and quality assurance representatives, public affairs officers, and program managers.

■ Central and South America—The International Center 

for Integrated Water Resources Management, in collaboration with the National Water Authority—Autoridad 

Nacional del Agua (ANA)—of Peru and the World Bank, 

held a four-day workshop in Arequipa, Peru, with Chili 

River basin stakeholders focusing on building the capacity of the ANA planning staff to lead the implementation of Shared Vision Planning workshops in four other Peruvian basins. Follow-on workshops are being 

held to train local ANA staff on developing the hydrological modeling and decision support tools for

collaborative water planning with stakeholders in

the local basins.

Summary

Capacity development is now part of the normal 

planning process for the USACE international programs and projects. Successful results can generally be tied back to early planning, integration, and advocacy for capacity development. USACE will continue to be 

strong advocates and leaders in capacity development in 

support of sustainable outcomes for host nations.

Ms. Lewis is the USACE national program manager 

for capacity development and has overall responsibility for 

the capacity development business practice, which includes 

direction and guidance, policy development, oversight and 

monitoring, and training. She also serves as the USACE 

Interagency and International Services representative 

and coordinates with interagency customers and partners 

to support USACE missions in the United States Central 

Command area of responsibility, including Iraq and Afghanistan. She previously served as director of capacity development and strategic policy for the Army’s Iraq Project 

and Contracting Office in Washington, D.C., and served 

with the Coalition Provisional Authority both in Washington, D.C., as the private sector development assistant, and 

in Baghdad, Iraq, as the governance office assistant. She 

holds a master’s in international commerce and policy from 

George Mason University.

Endnotes

1

Engineer Regulation (ER) 5-1-16, USACE Capacity 

Development–International, 30 June 2009, p. 2.

2

Robert Gates, “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming 

the Pentagon for a New Age,” Foreign Affairs, January/

February 2009, Volume 88, Number 1. <http://www

.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63717/robert-m-gates/a

-balanced-strategy>, accessed 12 January 2011.

3

Pete Geren and George W. Casey, A Campaign Quality Army with Joint and Expeditionary Capabilities: Army 

Posture Statement, Fiscal Year 2008. Posture Statement 

presented to the 110th Congress, 2d session, Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Army, 2008, p. 2.

4

Fact Sheet: U.S. Global Development Policy, <http://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/fact

-sheet-us-global-development-policy>, accessed 20 January 

2011.

5

Jim Garamone, “New National Strategy Takes ‘Wholeof-Government’ Approach,” U.S. Department of Defense—

News, Washington, D.C., May 27, 2010. <http://www.defense

.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59377>, accessed 19 January 2010.
January-April 2011 36 Engineer May-August 2010 Engineer 65

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Kansas City District, recently completed a $30 million state-of-the-art school and handed it over to 

the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) in a ribboncutting ceremony at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 22 

November 2010. The facility will house the United States 

Army Prime Power School, which moved from Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia, under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 

program. The building is a unique school for a unique unit. 

The 249th is the only prime power production unit in the 

Army and the only active duty unit assigned to USACE. 

The battalion generates commercial-grade electricity from 

600 volts to 69,000 volts at up to 3.2 megawatts and provides this electricity to military installations and federal 

relief organizations during operations ranging from training to disasters to war.

The battalion’s Soldiers hold the military occupation 

specialty (MOS) 12P, prime power production specialist, 

and the Prime Power School is the only school that trains 

this MOS.

The 77,000-square-foot facility replaces three World 

War II-era warehouses at Fort Belvoir that had been converted for the Prime Power School. The new school houses 

administrative offices, conference rooms, classrooms, instruction laboratories, an auditorium, equipment training 

areas, and outdoor equipment testing for the 12P Soldiers.

Administrative staff had already begun to occupy 

the building when the first class of Soldiers in the new

facility began in January. According to the USACE command sergeant major, since the Engineer School is already 

at Fort Leonard Wood, it only makes sense—and is part 

of the natural progression—to bring the Prime Power

School here. 

The USACE District used the early contractor involvement (ECI) delivery method with this project due to tight 

budget constraints. The District has been a champion of 

the ECI method, because it provides flexibility and allows 

incorporation of lessons learned throughout the duration of 

the project.

Even though initially there wasn’t money to fund the 

project, ECI enabled the District to make changes in the 

design to get the project under budget.

Construction on the project began in February 2009 with 

the contractor performing under tight constrictions, keeping the project on schedule, and maintaining high-quality 

work. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) 

gave the Prime Power School a Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification, and 

ninety-two percent of the construction waste was recycled. 

The facility uses a number of high-tech systems to conserve 

energy. For example, it has highly reflective roofing material that minimizes heat infiltration. Sensors in the rooms 

detect both motion and natural light and conserve energy 

by automatically adjusting the amount of artificial light—

depending on whether the room is occupied and how much 

natural light is present. 

Major General David Quantock, commanding general of the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence and Fort Leonard Wood, officially accepted the new 

Prime Power School as he cut the ribbon 

on “a state-of-the-art prime power facility.” Even though it is certified LEED 

Silver, initial feedback from the USGBC indicates that the facility should be 

LEED Gold, since the training facility 

has set a new standard for environmental stewardship. According to the deputy 

commander of USACE, it is on track to 

be the first certified LEED Gold facility 

ever built at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Ms. Phillips is a public affairs specialist with the USACE Kansas City 

District.

Ms. McCoy is a public affairs specialist with the USACE Kansas City 

District.

By Ms. Amy Phillips and Ms. Diana McCoy

The new 77,000-square-foot United States Army Prime Power School, constructed by the USACE Kansas City District at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 

is on track for LEED Gold certification.

Photo by Robert “Brandon” Tobias

Prime Power School Opens at Fort Leonard Wood

Prime Power School Opens at Fort Leonard Wood