United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG Randal R. Castro

563-6116

<randal.castro@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL(P) Todd T. Semonite

563-6192

<todd.semonite@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Clinton J. Pearson

563-8060

<clinton.pearson@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Lou L. Marich

563-8080

<lou.marich@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Gerald Lago

563-8045

<gerald.lago@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Dennis V. Smith

563-8046

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

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Anthony C. Funkhouser

563-7116

<anthony.funkhouser@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER – ASSURED MOBILITY

COL Robert Nicholson

563-4081

<robert.nicholson@us.army.mil>

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE–TERRAIN DATA

COL Thomas Crabtree

329-1908

<thomas.crabtree@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Mike Iverson

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<bjarne.iverson@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Paul W. Kelly

563-4093

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

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Dr. Rebecca Johnson

563-4129

<rebecca.johnson1@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF FUTURES CENTER–ENGINEER

COL Richard M. Hornack

563-7955

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

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

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Kent D. Savre

593-4085

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared quarterly

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

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

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to United

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

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

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

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone:

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

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

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

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

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

Views expressed are those of the authors and not

those of the Department of Defense or its elements.

The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S.

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

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy

nor product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right

to edit material submitted for publication.

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

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

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for

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

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-7954.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions

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

Washington, D.C. 20402.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army 0604403
ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEER

January-March 2006 Engineer 1

COMMANDANT

Major General

Randal R. Castro

FEATURES

04 Heros With Bulldozers

 By Mr. Ralph Peters

05 Fusion Cell

 By Sergeant First Class Christopher T. Sanson

07 Building an Airplane While It’s Flying – Interim Lessons Learned on Activating

a Battalion Already Slated to Deploy

 By Lieutenant Colonel Courtney W. Paul and Major Jason S. Denney

11 Combat Support Brigade (Maneuver Enhancement)

By Mr. Klaude A. “Tony” Miller and Mr. David L. Draker

13 One Team – One Fight

By Captain Lee Edmonds, Captain Brian Stone, First Lieutenant Carlos Restrepo,

and First Lieutenant Charles Heaton

14 Developing and Maintaining the Warrior Ethos in Engineer Units

By Colonel Christopher W. Martin

17 Joint Engineer Officer Course

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland, Jr.

19 Train As We Fight

By Captain Khang Ho

21 Brigade Route Tracking at JRTC

By Major Ted D. Yates

25 Troop-Leading Procedures Planning Process

By Captain Brian LaMarca

29 Engineer Doctrine Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Edward R. Lefler and Mr. Les R. Hell

35 IED Awareness Training: Are We Preparing Our Junior Leaders for Success?

By Captain Therese L. Obidinski

37 AISI Maintenance: Check the Batteries

By Mr. Danny A. Carter

38 Training Joint Engineers for Deployment

By Lieutenant Colonel John C. McClellan

41 BuckEye Continues to Spiral to New Heights

By Ms. Karen Roberts

42 Templating an Adaptive Threat – Spatial Forecasting in Operations Enduring

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom

By Lieutenant Colonel Stephen R. Riese

44 Mapmakers Scope Out Iraqi Terrain

By Sergeant Mitchell J. Armbruster

45 Environmental Awareness Is for the Birds...and Everyone Else!

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

47 Clearing the Way for Waterfront Development

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

49 Environmental Compliance Officers in Iraq

By Major Kenneth D. Kozak

51 Constructing the First TUAV Landing Zone on Fort Bragg

By Captain Stephen C. Amato

January-March 2006 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 36 PB 5-06-1

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

Front Cover: Cover

illustration by Alan Speer –

Multimedia Visual Information Service Center

Back Cover: United States

Army Values

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General

Randal R. Castro

03 Lead the Way

By Command

Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

06 The Engineer Castle

18 Dedication

50 The Engineer Writer’s

Guide

53 Engineer Update

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Penny Moats

Kathy Webber

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Cheryl Green
2 Engineer January-March 2006

Clear The Way

By Major General Randal R. Castro

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Welcome to our Spring issue of Engineer. The focus is One Engineer Regiment—Transforming and

Assuring Mobility While at War, the same theme

planned for ENFORCE from 1-5 May 2006. If

you make no other plans this year, you need to

take advantage of this opportunity for a week

filled with dynamic speakers who will share their

recent experiences on what engineers are accomplishing in the AOR, at USACE, and in industry. The week will begin in St. Louis and culminate at Fort Leonard Wood with the Regimental

Review and Ball. In addition, we will celebrate

the successes of engineers throughout the year,

to include honoring participants in the Best

Sapper Competition.

Our priority remains supporting the Global War on Terrorism

and developing innovative solutions to capability gaps, especially

with respect to IED defeat. Although there is no silver bullet for

eliminating the IED threat, I believe there is a “Silver Path.” This

path consists of multiple solution sets that, when integrated, can

enable our forces to successfully predict, detect, exploit, and neutralize IEDs, while mitigating IED effects and protecting our forces.

The IED-defeat ICDT, located at Fort Leonard Wood, is prepared

to assist deploying BCTs and sappers with the requisite skills

and tools to conduct mission-focused training in preparation for

OIF/OEF.

In March, the 3/2 SBCT completed its mission rehearsal exercise at NTC, integrating the available skills and tools currently on

the Silver Path. Prior to the rotation, 3/2 SBCT received contingency training, including IED-defeat T3, advanced search, route

reconnaissance and clearance, robotics, UAV operations, counterRCIED (remote-controlled improvised explosive device) electronic

warfare (CREW), and battle command. Many of the tools used for

training that accompanied 3/2 SBCT to NTC will follow into

theater...including advanced search kits, explosive detection kits,

and robotics platforms. As continued materiel capabilities and TTP

develop, our team is working to better enable BCTs and deploying

units to “train as you fight” prior to deployment.

A key to our success in theater has been our Counter Explosive

Hazards Center (CEHC)—our Regiment’s “Center of Excellence”

for countering explosive hazards—which is fully engaged in the

effort to defeat IEDs. CEHC is your resource for lessons learned,

countermeasures, intelligence, materiel solutions, and training. When

a new training requirement is identified, CEHC can rapidly develop contingency training to close the gap and prepare sappers

for combat. In the past few months, CEHC has trained many

Army and Marine units in IED-defeat awareness, route

reconnaissance and clearance, advanced search,

area clearance, equipment maintenance, and integration of the latest lessons learned from the

CENTCOM AOR.

CEHC led several initiatives to increase the

capabilities of route reconnaissance and clearance teams, including operational testing of

the GYROCAM, prototype integration and

testing for the CROWS, and prototype testing for the Buffalo RPG cage. We are working

to provide route clearance teams and sapper

companies with an enhanced capability to investigate potential IEDs using cameras and a

mechanical arm to sort through roadside debris. All this has helped reduce engineer casualties in theater. We will continue our efforts!

No one is surprised when I say that the Regiment is multitasking

as we deploy, transform, and restation units throughout the force.

Our young company commanders and first sergeants are making things

happen at the lower level, while battalion commanders and command

sergeants major work the higher-level challenges. A success story is

the recent activations of the 19th and 20th Engineer Battalions, at

Fort Knox and Fort Hood respectively. With the help of DA,

FORSCOM, USACE, and the Engineer School, these units have overcome many challenges and are slowly building combat power in preparation for future operations. Great job! In October, we will stand up

four more engineer battalions...yes, four more!

I want to thank our Regiment’s leaders for submitting their

Itschner, Van Autreve, Sturgis, and Grizzly award nominations. The

books are being reviewed, and the winners will be announced at the

Regimental Ball. The books this year were all exceptional and represented the Essayons spirit across our Regiment.

I appreciate our commanders and command sergeants major who

supported this year’s Best Sapper Competition. It is a tremendous

opportunity for our junior leaders to represent their units and the

force. We will recognize all these Soldiers and present the Lieutenant

General Robert B. Flowers bust to the winners.

Lastly, and most importantly, I want to extend a special thanks to

all the great engineer officers, NCOs, and Soldiers across the force.

Remember that your contribution to the war is not measured by your

proximity to direct fire but by what you provide to the success of

our Soldiers, our Army, and our Nation in this time of war. Whether

you are the Buffalo operator on a route clearance mission in theater,

or the instructor teaching clearance operations to deploying Soldiers

at Fort Leonard Wood, you are all contributing to the fight, and we

are indebted to you for all you do. Be safe, and see you next issue!

Carry On!
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

January-March 2006 Engineer 3

Greetings to all from Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri, home of the engineers,

where training, transformation, and taking care of our leaders and Soldiers are our top

priorities! There are extraordinary events taking

place in our Regiment every day, and one of the

most important of the year is quickly approaching—ENFORCE 2006.

The beginning of ENFORCE 2006 will take

place in St. Louis, from 1-3 May 2006, and the

conclusion will be at Fort Leonard Wood, from

4-5 May 2006. The theme for the activities will

be One Engineer Regiment—Transforming and

Assuring Mobility While at War. I am looking

forward to seeing many of you at this year’s

events. We have a great week planned, starting

with the Council of Colonels/Command Sergeants Major. We need

your input and experience as we discuss the issues our Regiment is

currently facing while we transform and assure mobility in the Global War on Terrorism.

A great lineup of guest speakers is scheduled this year, to include

representatives from the Assistant Chief of Staff, Personnel (G1);

the Human Resources Command (HRC); the Gulf Region Division

(GRD); the National Training Center (NTC); and the United States

Army Engineer School. One of the subjects we’ll discuss is the

issues facing embedded engineers in the Heavy Brigade Combat

Teams (HBCTs). Our sister services will also speak and provide

updates that will bridge the gap between engineer capabilities in all

services as our armed forces move into a new era of joint operations.

Keeping with tradition, we’ll have the Army Engineer Association

Presidential Dinner, the Regimental Ball, the Engineer Memorial

Dedication Service, and the Regimental Review. The second annual

Best Sapper Competition will take place, coinciding with ENFORCE

for the first time. So select and train your best teams for this extraordinary competition! Finally, the Regiment’s leaders will host a dedication ceremony in honor of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, an

engineer who was posthumously awarded the first Medal of Honor

for actions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To sum it up,

ENFORCE 2006 will undoubtedly instill in each of us an immense

pride in our Regiment.

I also felt a tremendous sense of pride at two recent activation

ceremonies for the 19th Engineer Battalion at Fort Knox, Kentucky,

and the 20th Engineer Battalion at Fort Hood, Texas. These ceremonies are a testament that the modular engineer force is taking shape.

In March 2006, the 1st Engineer Battalion from Fort Riley, Kansas,

converted to a modular engineer battalion headquarters. The 70th

Engineer Battalion, at Fort Carson, Colorado; the 864th and the

14th Engineer Battalions at Fort Lewis, Washington; and the

5th Engineer Battalion, at Fort Leonard Wood,

will convert in the near future.

Many units will relocate in the upcoming

months as well. As you may already know, the

50th Multirole Bridge Company (MRBC)

moved to Fort Leonard Wood in 2005. On the

horizon, the 94th Engineer Battalion will relocate to Fort Leonard Wood; and as part of a

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decision, the 36th Engineer Group, now at Fort

Benning, Georgia, will relocate to Fort Hood

this summer and transform to a modular engineer brigade.

One of the major concerns of transformation is training the embedded engineers in the

HBCT. We must provide them with the necessary skills and tools to enable the combatant commander to ensure

mobility in concert with maneuver. To assist us in this process, the

Engineer School has implemented several functional courses, including the Military Search Operations Course, the Route Reconnaissance/Clearance Operations Course (R2C2), the Route Reconnaissance/Clearance Operations Course – Sapper (R2C2-S), the Route

Clearance Equipment (RCE) Maintainer Course, the Area Clearance

Course, the Improvised Explosive Device Defeat – Train the Trainer

(IEDD-T3) Course, and the Improvised Explosive Device Defeat –

Train the Trainer (IEDD-T3) Mobile Training Team (MTT) Course.

Currently, these courses are all non-Army Training Requirements

and Resources System (ATRRS), contingency-based training. For

more information on these courses, visit the Counter Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC) Web site at <http://www.wood.army.mil/cehc>.

Two other courses that remain significantly important are the

joint Urban Mobility Breaching Course (UMBC) at Camp LeJeune,

North Carolina, which has greatly improved the sapper’s ability to

fight and win in an urban environment; and the Explosive Ordnance

Clearance Agent (EOCA) Course, at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama,

which provides the basic skills and knowledge required to perform

as explosive ordnance clearance agents.

All of these courses are relevant to the current and future fight;

however, I ask that the leadership continue to support the Basic

Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) and the Advanced

Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). Both courses are extremely important to the career progression of noncommissioned

officers and greatly enhance their ability to perform their wartime

mission.

In closing, I’d like to welcome back those Soldiers who have

recently returned from a deployment. And to those who have recently departed, I wish a safe and speedy return home. God bless the

fallen comrades and their families. We will never forget you.
4 Engineer January-March 2006

America’s soldiers are always good for a surprise: The

enthusiasm the Army’s combat engineers show for

our mission in Iraq would dumbfound even our

military’s most fervent supporters.

Privileged to speak with officers and NCOs from the Army’s

Maneuver Support Center in Missouri last week, I came away

proud to have worn the same uniform as those men and women.

Every one of them had served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now

they were briefly back home, working hard to incorporate

combat lessons-learned into doctrine and training the young

soldiers they’ll lead during their next Mideast tours.

All that nonsense about a “broken Army”? What I heard

was the conviction that we’re not only doing the right thing in

Iraq, but doing it far better than the media tell the American

people.

Along with those combat engineers, the audience consisted

of infantry, military police and chemical corps leaders—

veterans all. Not one was discouraged by the political tempests

blowing in Washington (where the hot air is a prime cause of

global warming). The best word for what our soldiers displayed

is zeal.

I only wish my fellow citizens were given an honest view of

our troops, their morale and their accomplishments—along

with a fuller sense of our military’s complexity. Yes, the infantry

leads the way, along with the other combat arms. But who

hears about the combat engineers? Even though they often

lead the infantry?

Well, here’s to the heroes who clear the minefields, defuse the

improvised explosive devices (IEDs), blow open the doors, dig

the trenches, build the defensive barriers, renovate the schools

and clinics, plunge into the tangle of wires that passes for an

electrical grid—and fight as infantrymen when the need arises.

When you see those dramatic photographs of infantry teams

taking down an urban target, the soldiers up front are often combat

engineers, opening a path for the grunts to go in.

Every branch of our Army makes its own unsung contributions,

but a glimpse at the combat engineers offers a sense of how

complex the Iraq mission really is—and how bravely those in

uniform have faced up to the challenges. So here are a few

anecdotes from the officers and NCOs I met last week:

 All a soldier has to do to make headlines is to whine to a

reporter. But we don’t hear about the NCO lying in a

stateside hospital ward who, after losing an eye defusing

an IED, begged his visiting commander to help him get

back to his unit in Iraq.

 In the past, active-duty leaders often dismissed the National

Guard as “weekend warriors.” Not anymore. The highest

praise I heard was for a “dump-truck” outfit, the 1457th

Engineer Battalion from the Utah National Guard, that

served in Baghdad and central Iraq. A colonel described

them as remarkably brave and resourceful. Operating at as

low as 65 percent of their authorized strength, those

mountain lions from the Rockies never ducked a high-risk

mission—whether they’d been trained for it or not.

 When the highly paid contractors failed to show up with

the bullets flying, combat engineers often were thrown in

to get the electricity working out in the boonies. And they

did. But all we heard about were the problems in Baghdad

— where the contractors were responsible.

 Having just returned from Iraq, one officer said, “I’d give

up my promotion to go back.” Even allowing for the

moment’s enthusiasm, that family man believed that his

sacrifices made a vital difference. Why don’t men like him

make the evening news?

 Even during an occupation, the Army has to train for its

full range of missions. At a division commander’s request,

our engineers built a tank-gunnery range with 64 miles of

protective berms to keep the main-gun rounds from going

astray. One example among many—all in a day’s work for

the bulldozer boys.

 That day’s work includes some of the most dangerous

missions in Iraq—defusing IEDs. The equipment and

techniques have gotten better, but it remains a nervewracking challenge. Combat engineers volunteer to do it.

 As in the Army’s better-known units, our combat engineers

see impressive re-enlistment rates. Soldiers sign up

knowing they’ll be sent back to Iraq. Tough as it is, they

love what they do. As one command sergeant major put it,

“This is what they signed up for, this is what it’s all about.”

Of course, no list of this sort can begin to capture the

courage of these soldiers. They have families they love and

the prospect of long lives in the greatest country on earth.

Yet, they continue to risk death or mutilation because they will

not quit on America—or Iraq—in the middle of a war.

At a time when we’re bombarded with so much doom-andgloom nonsense from those who’d like to abandon the world to

terrorists, it’s a shame we don’t hear more about the men and

women who stay in uniform, who do our nation’s toughest work

and receive so little credit from the know-it-alls safe at home.

Harvard and Yale? Keep ‘em. The finest Americans are those

who have gone through the School of the Soldier. A “broken

military”? Nope. Anyway, if it was broken, the combat engineers

would fix it. Under fire.

Mr. Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, has published and

lectured extensively on military and international concerns. His latest

book is “New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy.”

This article is a reprint from the January 20, 2006, New York

Post.

By Mr. Ralph Peters

With Bulldozers With Bulldozers
January-March 2006 Engineer 5

By Sergeant First Class Christopher T. Sanson

The Fusion Cell is the United States Army Engineer

School answer to the requirement for a central

coordination cell to bring together the people who can

answer the multitude of questions so often heard throughout

the Engineer Regiment in these fast-moving times. “When are

we doing our base realignment and closure (BRAC) move?”

“When are we deploying to support Operation Iraqi

Freedom?” “When are we transforming to the Future

Engineer Force modular design?” “Which modular design

are we transforming to?” “Where do we send our equipment?”

“How are we getting our new equipment?” These and

hundreds of other questions need to be answered, and often

the answers are not readily apparent or even finalized.

Purpose

The Fusion Cell’s mission is to gather and present data

on the current state of engineer transformation,

restationing, and support to the Global War on

Terrorism (GWOT). It is not, in itself, responsible for correcting

problems and issues; its role is to assist in issue identification,

facilitate communication, and assist in issue resolution.

The Fusion Cell was born from the need to synchronize

the Regiment’s actions as it sails ahead, with three major

waves (significant actions) surging together like the proverbial

“perfect storm” and threatening to sink the ship of progress:

 Global repositioning and BRAC.

 Deployment in support of the GWOT.

 Transformation to the modular Regiment.

In September 2005, the Cell was formed as a means of

synchronizing and deconflicting these potentially

counteracting requirements. It is possible to have a situation

where an engineer unit is identified to relocate to the

continental United States (CONUS) as part of global

repositioning, transform into the modular force or stand up as

a new unit, and deploy in support of GWOT within the same

calendar year. However, it is not feasible to expect a unit to

undergo such significant change within the same year, so one

of the most critical functions of the Fusion Cell has been to

work with the Department of the Army (DA) to modify the

timing of basings, force structure changes, or GWOT rotations.

The senior engineer leaders are aggressively engaging the

DA staff to synchronize challenges and maximize the abilities

of units to manage the rate of change in a given year. Ensuring

that this happens is a massive undertaking, and to accomplish

it requires communication with numerous organizations,

including the installation, the United States Army Forces

Command (FORSCOM), DA, and others.

Challenges

Working primarily with Active Army FEF units outside

the brigade combat teams, many challenges and

recurring issues arise. The biggest challenge is

getting the personnel and equipment to the unit with sufficient

time remaining to conduct the required training in preparation

for a GWOT deployment. Time is the biggest hurdle since

many tasks are being done concurrently.

Activating a unit from scratch is a very challenging task,

especially for the unit’s commander and staff. Once the United

States Army Human Resources Command (HRC) identifies the

personnel for the unit, the key personnel must hit the ground

running and set the foundation for the rest of the unit to arrive.

A key issue is that HRC assigns personnel to the installations.

Units that will be next in line on their installation to deploy

must work with their installation to ensure that they receive

the inbound personnel who have the required military

occupational specialties (MOSs), particularly if there are other

engineer units on that installation.

The task of securing the motor pools, barracks, and orderly

rooms may or may not be an easy one, depending on the

facilities available on the installation. Lessons learned show

that an early and thorough scrub of the end-state modified

table of organization and equipment (MTOE) is key to ensuring
6 Engineer January-March 2006

unit identification code (UIC) allows the unit to receive

personnel, equipment, and funding from their major command.

However, no funding solely intended for transformation is

being issued to units. Newly activated units are given

operational funds like every other unit in the Army, and no

more.

An engineer higher headquarters will not necessarily reside

on the same installation to provide support to the activating

unit. A key event is assigning a parent unit to facilitate the

unit’s activation. In the future, parent units will provide

guidance from the experiences of units that have already

activated or transformed into the same type of unit. The goal

should be that the personnel arrive at the activating unit in

time to operate and maintain the equipment as it arrives. Often,

many of the items needed are on another installation and require

coordination for movement.

A converting unit may have some of the same issues but

normally will have an easier time if it remains on the same

installation, because some of the personnel and equipment

are retained when the unit transforms. Again, completing an

early scrub of the MTOE is a key factor in doing this

successfully. Based on the master plan for the installation and

the transformation of its units, individual units may have to

move somewhere else on the installation, but the support

structure will remain intact. Any excess equipment will be

identified and sent where it is needed.

Summary

These are only some of the most prevalent issues

discussed in Fusion Cell sessions. These

sessions will continue for an indefinite time into the

future. The hard work of the Office of the Chief of Engineers

(OCE); HRC; FORSCOM; United States Army TankAutomotive and Armaments Command (TACOM); DA

Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations and Plans (G-3) and

Assistant Chief of Staff, Finance (G-8) staffs; and many

others—as participants in Cell sessions and members of the

team—have provided an outstanding forum in which to solve

problems and conflicts. Many engineer units will ride at least

one of the waves of the perfect storm in the same year, but will

be able to have a helping hand along the way.

Units are encouraged to use the weekly session to help

prepare their plans, using the lessons learned and issues

discussed by other units that are activating, converting, or

rebasing. Useful information has been posted to an Army

Knowledge Online (AKO) site. Contact the Fusion Cell

noncommissioned officer in charge at <Christopher.

sanson@us.army.mil> or the link provided on the USAES home

page for any questions or for access to the files.

Sergeant First Class Sanson is the noncommissioned officer

in charge of the United States Army Engineer School Fusion

Cell.

The appropriateness of the turreted castle as

a symbol of the Army Corps of Engineers is

readily apparent. The medieval castle is

inseparably connected with fortifications and

architecture. In heraldry, the castle and the tower are

often used on coats of arms or given as charges in

the shield of individuals who overcame walled

fortifications, were the first to mount their walls, or

successfully defended them. In this country, the term

“castle” has been applied to the strongest of our early

fortifications, such as Castle Pickney in Charleston,

South Carolina, and Castle Williams and Clinton in

New York Harbor.

The castle is a highly stylized form without

decoration or embellishment. The Army officially

adopted the castle to appear on the Corps of Engineers

epaulets and belt plate in 1840. Soon afterward, the

cadets at West Point—all of whom were part of the

Corps of Engineers until the Military Academy left the

charge of the Chief of Engineers and came under the

charge of the Army at Large in 1866—also wore the

castle on their cap beginning in 1841. Subsequently,

the castle appeared on the shoulder knot, on the saddle

cloth, as a collar device, and on the buttons. Although

its design has changed many times since its inception,

the castle has remained the distinctive symbol of the

Corps of Engineers.

The Engineer Castle
January-March 2006 Engineer 7

A popular advertisement of Electronic Data Systems

Corporation refers to the challenges of “building an

airplane while it’s flying.” Standing up an engineer

battalion from scratch, that is on a planning deployment

document the day it activates, can be as difficult a challenge.

What follows is one version of what faces a commander and

his staff when starting a unit and building it from the ground

up, as well as some suggestions on a plan of action and issues

to be aware of. Department of the Army (DA), major commands,

and installation staff officers may read this article and see

where their actions can impact and influence future activations

of the Engineer Regiment in a positive manner.

Standing Up the Battalion

So you’ve just gotten the telephone call and are a bit

incredulous that a few individuals and a couple of

borrowed computers setting on Defense Reutilization

and Marketing Office furniture in a transient office building

are all that exist of the proud battalion depicted in your modified

table of organization and equipment (MTOE). What next? The

following steps will help you get started in the right direction:

Assess Your Situation

As you activate, find out when and where you are to deploy.

Old standards of having up to a year of protected C-5

reporting status on the unit status report (USR) are gone, and

you will have to continually explain that fact to individuals in

agencies you deal with. The following validated assumptions

will help you assess the picture:

 The priority on personnel, equipment, and funding is

directly proportional to the amount of time before

deployment. And if you find yourself with 20 months

available before deployment rather than less than a year,

many of these concerns will still be valid.

 Know when DA and the United States Army Forces

Command (FORSCOM) will be building your force structure

for your deployment, and make sure you can convey the

complete story when it is ready to be heard and acted

upon.

 Personnel fill will be from the top and the bottom, which

means you’ll have a couple of field grade officers and senior

noncommissioned officers and a graduating class of

advanced individual training (AIT) students.

 Equipment fill is a laborious process. Assess getting

training sets from a variety of sources, and then accept

that drawing equipment in theater is a likely consequence.

 The standard resourcing model is to give you your

operations and maintenance allotment for the year. This is

not enough to stand up the unit, but everything else will

have to be treated like an unfinanced requirement (UFR)

request.

Meet People

Identify all of the organizations you may have to deal with

and who can make things happen for you. Depending on your

command and control arrangement, your higher headquarters

staff may suffice. In some cases it won’t, particularly if your

command and control arrangement is based on geography

and not mission and your unit and your higher headquarters

have widely divergent missions. The garrison/installation staff

will likely have a wide and compartmentalized staff. You will

need to personally meet with them to impress the urgency of

standing up the unit and to give them a face for who needs

help.

Develop a Training Plan

After assessing where your unit stands, develop a training

plan that takes into consideration your personnel gains and

your equipment training set availability. Accept that the unit

will not be able to do much training until you get the right mix

of key personnel and about 20 to 25 percent strength on the

ground. With less than a year to deploy, the 19th Engineer

Battalion used a plan that focused first on establishing

battalion systems, and then in the second quarter used a

“warrior phase” that focused on the warrior tasks, medical

training, individual schools, and squad situational training

exercises. Only in the third quarter was the unit able to focus

on engineer-specific and collective tasks above platoon level.

As you establish this plan, you will continually have to

assess your training plan against the personnel gains.

Building an Airplane While It’s Flying

Interim Lessons Learned on Activating

a Battalion Already Slated to Deploy

By Lieutenant Colonel Courtney W. Paul and Major Jason S. Denney
8 Engineer January-March 2006

Unfortunately, the gains roster proves to be only an approximation of who is coming in and really doesn’t become accurate

until about 2 to 3 months out. Figure 1 shows an example of

what that initial training plan might look like. A comparison to

Figure 2 shows the difficulty of using the gains roster as a

forecasting tool.

Reassess and Report

Continually assess your unit based on its go-to-war

standard. Report your status through vehicles like the weekly

commander’s situational report and USR. Work through your

higher headquarters to establish a series of in-progress review

meetings to get visibility on your situation and to facilitate

vertical and horizontal synchronization among the higherechelon staffs.

Accept that the Army and FORSCOM staffs’ center of

gravity is focused on the transformation of brigade combat

teams (BCTs), so your reports will have to address the level of

urgency that otherwise gets lost in the background noise.

The United States Army Engineer School Fusion Cell video

teleconferences (VTCs) (see article on page 5) were another

great forum for reporting status. While not an official function

of the Engineer School, this weekly VTC proved to be the best

location to raise issues and simultaneously see the

coordination between staffs and functional areas. As this goes

on, continue to fight for resources as you train. Use your

training plan to trigger “redlines” (key dates where you have

to have certain resources or a readiness shortfall occurs) and

report them through every vehicle you get.

Be Ready

Be ready to react to all sorts of unforeseen issues with

standing up; this airplane you are building is not on autopilot.

Challenges

Following are some of the challenges the 19th Engineer

Battalion encountered. They are shared in the interest

of allowing new units to avoid them or equipping staffs

with some insights of what may lay ahead.

School Training

Scheduling classes and filling with the right military

occupational specialty (MOS)-qualified Soldiers is a challenge.

Availability of the basic courses needed to operate a battalion

may be an issue based on location (see location, location,

location on page 10).

Many mobile training teams (MTTs) will not travel to

locations that cannot generate a BCT’s worth of training slots.

It is not that they are unwilling; it is that generally they are

Figure 1

Legend:

Bn - battalion

C2 - command and control

CFLCC - Coalition Forces Land

 Component Command

CPX - command post exercise

FOBEX - forward operating base exercise

LFX - live-fire exercise

MRX - mission rehearsal exercise

Plt - platoon

T/O - table of organization

TPE - theater-provided equipment

Initial Training Plan w/Projected Personnel Strength

(Command Assumption + 15 days)

Note: The percentages in circles are the forecasted strength per the unit gains roster.
January-March 2006 Engineer 9

unable to due to their schedule and the number of instructors

available. This results in a heavy reliance on piggybacking

MTTs at other installations, tapping into the Reserve

Component schools, and other creative solutions.

School costs consume a large portion of the budget. The

school requirements list should be developed early, for both

Military Training Specific Allotment (MTSA) and non-MTSA

funding, to prioritize and to provide the Resource Management

Office an awareness of the scope of the funding requirement.

The commander must decide where to take risk in the

training plan based on the perceived downrange mission,

projected troops and time available, and estimated equipment

available. Depending on the location, this finely tuned plan

can be easily aggravated by training resources that may have

been locked in by program of instruction (POI) requirements

prior to the unit even activating.

Ammunition

Be aware of long lead times, and request your Standards

and Training Commission (STRAC) allocation as soon as

possible. Even then, the unit will likely have to borrow

ammunition for its early individual qualification ranges, so

establish those points of contact at your installation.

Materiel

It is absolutely essential that all Class VII items be placed

on order as soon as possible. This briefs well, but is hard to

accomplish without the proper personnel and Standard Army

Management Information System (STAMIS) equipment on

hand to execute.

Prioritize MTOE into minimal essential sets. These initial

sets should include a basic Soldier set and training equipment

sets. The basic Soldier set should consist of the minimal

equipment necessary to train basic warrior skills and should

be the first to arrive, along with initial troops and leaders. The

training equipment sets are the minimal equipment required to

conduct essential MOS-specific individual tasks and selected

collective tasks. These training equipment sets need to arrive,

fully mission capable, in time to support the commander’s

training timeline.

In a perfect world, equipment transfer directives would be

issued as soon as the MTOE was approved and would be

waiting in holding yards for the unit to pick up on its effective

date (E-date). Reality is a different story. This equipment

transfer process is even more of a challenge when the unit has

no corps headquarters to assist in the process. A corps will

Figure 2

Matured Training Plan w/ Projected Personnel Strength

(Command Assumption + 75 days)

Note: The percentages in circles are the forecasted strength per the unit gains roster.
10 Engineer January-March 2006

ensure that all its shortages are filled within, prior to transferring

excess equipment to a direct-reporting FORSCOM unit.

FORSCOM must exhaust internal excess—through

equipment transfer directives—prior to the DA Assistant Chief

of Staff, Finance (G-8), contacting the item managers to request

a release of equipment. This process needs to be a

synchronized effort between the FORSCOM Assistant Chief

of Staff, Logistics (G-4); the DA G-8; the United States Army

Materiel Command; and item managers.

Personnel

Installation Assistant Chief of Staff, Personnel (G-1)/

Adjutant General, must submit a request to add the battalion

to the command section list early to get a commander on board.

Early fill of leadership and key positions is essential

(commander, command sergeants major, executive officer,

S-3s, company commanders, first sergeants, personnel

specialists, property book officers, supply sergeants). Get the

leadership core on the ground prior to the influx of initialentry training (IET) Soldiers.

Ensure that the installation strength manager works closely

with the United States Army Human Resources Command

(HRC), Distribution Division Branch, to validate personnel

requirements and generate valid, open, unfilled (VOU)

requirements for all open MTOE positions. Use the Enlisted

Distribution and Assignment System (EDAS) and Total Officer

Personnel Management Information System (TOPMIS) II to

validate requisitions focusing on nonengineer MOSs, because

these will slip through the cracks.

Facilities

Short-term activation requires the redrawing of unit

footprints to integrate new organizations, but installations are

accustomed to the long-term timeline of military construction.

Work with the installation to develop an interim move plan

that has the flexibility to meet the maturing requirements of

the unit.

Funding

There is no such thing as modularity funding for echelonabove-brigade (EAB) units. Everything is a UFR.

Identify UFRs early, and submit them to FORSCOM to

validate the requirements. In addition to the normal operation

and maintenance cost, the unit must be funded for initial

purchase of all stock-funded MTOE items, organizational

clothing and individual equipment (OCIE), automated data

processing equipment, and establishment of basic loads of all

classes of supply.

The model used to project operation and maintenance

requirements doesn’t take into account all the activation costs

associated with standing up a new unit. The establishment of

unit basic loads and temporary duty cost associated with the

school’s requirement alone can burn much of the operational

budget. The mass inflow of equipment transfer that is not

quite at 10/20 standards can easily exhaust the remaining funds.

The unit will likely activate at the beginning of the fiscal

year for various reasons, such as the chance of the federal

government operating under a Continued Resolution Authority

at the beginning of the fiscal year. This is fine for units that

had a budget the previous year, but compounds the problems

of a newly formed unit.

Additional Issues

While you may not have any control over it, begin the

process early. Strive for as much time as possible between the

establishment of the carrier unit identification code (UIC) and

the E-date of the unit. To have only 13 days between the

E-date of the carrier unit and the activation of the unit is not

optimum.

Location, location, location. While in theory all Army

installations now are Installation Management Agency

installations (meaning there are no TRADOC or FORSCOM

installations), the truth is that some installations are better

suited for the multitude of tasks associated with activating a

battalion. The facts are that an installation staff without an

associated corps or division headquarters is rather thin. Distinct

advantages can be observed between activating a unit at a

location with corps staff present and a location that has not

had a FORSCOM unit larger than a company on it since the

mid-90s.

While an activating BCT will have an assigned Modular

Force Coordination Cell, a Materiel Management Center, and

the direct oversight of Headquarters, Department of the Army

(HQDA), an EAB unit will seem like it is on its own. The

Engineer School’s Fusion Cell is the keystone to bringing

together all the key players needed to assist the unit going

through activation or Future Engineer Force conversion. The

Fusion Cell is a direct conduit and voice amplifier for an EAB

unit to communicate its questions, concerns, and issues to

FORSCOM, HRC, and HQDA.

Conclusion

We acknowledge that our airplane is far from complete, and

a lot of work lies ahead before we can land the plane in theater.

However, as things continue to change in today’s dynamic

environment, hopefully others who also find themselves

“building an airplane in the air” can benefit from our first

experiences.

Lieutenant Colonel Paul is the commander of the 19th

Engineer Battalion. His previous assignments include

commander of the 3-410 Engineer Training Support

Battalion and executive officer for the 1st Infantry Division

Engineer Brigade during Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

Major Denney is the executive officer of the 19th Engineer

Battalion. His previous assignments include brigade

engineer for the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab and

observer-controller at the Combat Maneuver Training Center.
January-March 2006 Engineer 11

The Army Transformation Plan (ATP) Roadmap of 2003

laid the blueprint for a radically different Army structure

to be in place by 2014. The ATP marks the beginning of

the end for the fixed-organization structure within the division

and corps. In its place, a modular structure will be the hallmark

of the future Army.

Transformation Plan

The Army will consist of new corps and division

headquarters designed for joint force operations and

for command and control of a tailored mix of forces

capable of supporting full-spectrum operations. The traditional

combat brigades will be restructured into modular forces called

Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) with improved force mixes,

sustainability, and command and control supporting fullspectrum operations. While there will be different types of

BCTs (Heavy, Stryker, and Infantry), they will be based on

standard configurations, eventually evolving into the Future

Combat Systems Brigade.

Along with the restructured BCT, some of the supporting

structures of the traditional corps and division will be

remodeled. There will be five new brigade-sized units designed

to support the deployment and sustainment of the new BCTs.

The first four new brigades are the Aviation Brigade, the Fires

Brigade, the Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, and the

Sustainment Brigade. All of these brigades are now under

development as their concepts and organizational structures

are shaped to support the modularity designs of the future

Army. The last brigade element, the Combat Support Brigade

(CSB) (Maneuver Enhancement [ME]), is the subject of this

article.

CSB (ME) Development

While each of the other support brigades can draw

its lineage from previous organizations, the CSB

(ME) has no direct precedent. It is a new

headquarters structured to provide a single command-andcontrol element for multiple functions. Formerly, these multiple

functions required individual command-and-control elements

and force structures. The CSB (ME) combines disparate

functional units such as engineer, military police (MP),

chemical, signal, rear-area operations, and (when assigned) a

tactical combat force (TCF) into the new organization structure.

Requirements

The new modularity concepts of the Army require a force

structure that is responsive, flexible, manpower-efficient, and

multifunctional. Additionally, the force requires capabilities in

both joint- and single-component deployments and operations.

Further, the force needs to accommodate new ideas in force

packaging and deployment processes and be able to deploy

as a self-contained unit in a nonlinear, noncontiguous

operational environment. The CSB (ME) has been designed

with all of these principles in mind.

The CSB (ME) was previously designated as the Maneuver

Enhancement Brigade. The recent Army-level name change

Combat Support Brigade

(Maneuver Enhancement)

By Mr. Klaude A. “Tony” Miller and Mr. David L. Draker

CSB (ME) Organization
12 Engineer January-March 2006

has not lessened the basic tenet of the unit’s mission: Provide

critical maneuver support to the supported force commander,

normally at division level.

In addition to maneuver support, the CSB (ME) addresses

the need to provide multiple-proponent functions throughout

the theater of operations without creating the large overhead

associated with a division or corps rear command post. The

new brigade has two major missions:

 Maneuver support—the integrated application of assured

mobility and protection capabilities.

 Terrain management—within an assigned area of

operations.

The CSB (ME) provides maneuver support through the

provision of several major tasks: assured mobility, protection,

terrain management, infrastructure development, and rear-area

operations. These tasks are performed throughout an area of

operations to ensure freedom of maneuver and preserve combat

power. Previously, the division headquarters performed the

functions of terrain management, infrastructure development,

and rear-area operations—all of which have now devolved to

the CSB (ME) within its area of operations.

 Assured mobility encompasses actions designed to

guarantee the force commander the ability to move and

maneuver where and when he desires, without interruption

or delay, to achieve his intent.

 Protection covers actions intended to protect the integrity

of the individual, the organization, and the force—both

individually and collectively.

 Terrain management operations are actions that preserve

the ability to operate and occupy the areas between the

BCTs and the corps.

 Infrastructure development is restoration activities that

support the return of stability and security in an occupied

area and prepare the way for nation building and the return

of internal national control.

 Rear-area operations enable the use of terrain and urban

areas by forces not directly engaged in combat operations

and allow the continuous provision of supplies and services

to the committed forces.

Design Features

The CSB (ME) has several features to enable the support

of full-spectrum operations. The design of the headquarters

incorporates the ideas of modularity and multifunctional

control. It will be robust and capable of operations in a

noncontiguous, nonlinear environment. The only permanent

structure of the CSB (ME) is the headquarters element with

communications and logistics support.

The CSB (ME) force structure will be a tailored force based

on the requirements of mission, enemy, terrain and weather,

troops and support available, time available, and civil

considerations (METT-TC). Generally, the brigade will consist

of three to eight battalions of engineer, chemical, and military

police units and will be specifically tailored with the addition

of unique-capability units, such as explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) and civil affairs (CA), as needed.

The brigade headquarters has the necessary staffing to

provide command and control for these combined functions.

Each function is represented within the brigade staff through

a planning and operations cell providing functional

recommendations and decision-making information to the S-3

and the command group. Additional capability for

multifunctional command and control is provided through a

robust liaison cell.

While designed to control multifunctional forces, the

brigade can also coordinate with a functional brigade to

provide support to the division or corps. Based on the mission,

the CSB (ME) may even detach a functional battalion to the

functional brigade.

Initially, divisional BCTs will receive task-organized forces

from the Army force pool based on METT-TC. When required

by the division, the CSB (ME) may provide task forces to

support BCT requirements for assured mobility and functional

capabilities that go beyond the BCT’s organic capabilities.

The brigade can organize a task force, provide support and

reachback capability, and then on return, refit the task force

when the mission is completed.

Because of the nonlinear and noncontiguous nature of the

future battlefield, the CSB (ME) was designed to operate in

multiple areas. The brigade headquarters can deploy both a

main and a tactical command post (CP) with the ability to

compose and deploy an additional CP to support short-term

or limited-objective missions such as sensitive-site

exploitations. The CSB (ME) will have a dedicated organic

brigade support battalion (BSB) to provide supply and

transportation functions to the deployed units of the brigade.

A last major design feature is the addition of a section

within the S-3 to provide the terrain management and rear-area

functions. In the division area of operations, the CSB (ME)

will perform missions such as coordination of stationing, base

defense, protection of lines of communication, and area and

local security.

The individual unit and base cluster retain defense

responsibilities of the unit or base. However, when the threat

level exceeds the capability of the organization, the CSB (ME)

will provide for additional defensive support through the use

of the assigned military police or tactical combat force. This

assigned force will provide a needed tactical capability short

of assigning a BCT with the protection mission.

Transition

While the exact stationing of the new CSB (ME)

headquarters organizations has not been decided, the number

of units will extend across the entire Army force structure. A

limited number of organizations will be placed in the Active

(Continued on page 24)
January-March 2006 Engineer 13

T.

ask Force 91st Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat

Team, 1st Cavalry Division, was assigned an area of

operations in northwestern Baghdad from February

2004 to February 2005. Stability operations within the area

established an around-the-clock operations tempo for the task

force. Alpha Company, Task Force 91st Engineer Battalion,

maintained operational control of 3d Platoon, Charlie Company,

458th Engineer Battalion (Wheeled), United States Army

Reserve (USAR), which became known as 4th Platoon, Alpha

Company, Task Force 91st Engineer Battalion. As with other

Reserve units, the Soldiers held a variety of civilian jobs—

students, teachers, local and state police officers, mechanics,

and accountants. The true asset of this platoon was its

manpower and combat engineer training.

Integration of 4th Platoon

During the mobilization time in Kuwait, 4th Platoon had

no idea what its mission would be, so the Soldiers

focused on individual combat engineering tasks and

platoon collective tasks. Realizing that the ability to effectively

execute its squad and platoon tasks would require them to

have a foundation or basis of knowledge, the platoon set about

achieving this knowledge. It did not focus on engineer annexes

or engineer-specific tasks but rather on understanding basic

troop-leading procedures, especially the operation order

(OPORD). The platoon members trained on the simple fiveparagraph OPORD, which became the known standard within

the platoon.

As the leadership received warning orders (WARNOs) and

OPORDs, the Soldiers knew that a mission was about to be

executed and their preparation was key to the success of that

mission. The ability to parallel plan and prepare proved to be

critical for all units. The leadership consistently mentioned

and relied on basic troop-leading procedures when it came to

not only combat missions but also base camp tasks.

Alpha Company’s mission was to conduct stability

operations in the area of operations, which was composed

primarily of Iraqi Sunnis. The 4th Platoon received training on

cultural awareness, as well as convoy procedures, closequarters combat techniques, first aid, and specific tasks

associated with its mission.

The company master driver immediately began driver’s

training and licensing of the platoon members on the

company’s primary combat vehicles. The training was

intensive, and on completion, the 4th Platoon became the

wheeled platoon for Alpha Company.

The platoon zeroed and qualified its weapons, conducted

numerous close-quarters combat ranges, and refined its

standing operating procedures for urban operations. In

2 weeks time, 4th Platoon was virtually identical to the other

three platoons in the company, with regard to training

competency.

The driver’s training, arming, and equipping of 4th Platoon

was the least difficult part of integrating the platoon into the

company. The challenge facing the platoon was to quickly

understand the tactics, techniques, and procedures the

company established within sector.

To facilitate the integration of 4th Platoon to the company’s

stability mission, a squad from 2d Platoon was task-organized

under the command and control of 4th Platoon and a squad

from 4th Platoon was task-organized under 2d Platoon. The

squad from 4th Platoon observed and noted the tactics,

techniques, and procedures of 2d Platoon and brought this

knowledge and strength back to 4th Platoon.

4th Platoon Joins the Fight

The stability missions in the company sector were

movement to contact, cordon and search, route

security, and route clearance. The first mission given

to 4th Platoon was a cordon and search for possible weapons

and the questioning of a particular individual.

The platoon developed an initial plan of conducting an

area reconnaissance in the neighborhood of the target as part

of its patrol cycle. Each squad was given certain information

requirements to observe and attain during its reconnaissance.

As the platoon collected and analyzed the intelligence, it

finalized the plan and issued an OPORD. The rehearsals were

focused on a quick and thorough search inside the target and

the actions of the squads and vehicles outside of the target.

The platoon sergeant was to supervise the outside squads

and vehicles, while the platoon leader supervised the search

of the target. The level of detail disseminated throughout the

One Team – One Fight

By Captain Lee Edmonds, Captain Brian Stone, First Lieutenant Carlos Restrepo, and

First Lieutenant Charles Heaton

(Continued on page 40)
14 Engineer January-March 2006

T.

his article is aimed at helping company commanders

and platoon leaders develop the Warrior Ethos in their

units. It is based on things that worked for the 91st

Engineer Battalion and ultimately led to the successful

completion of a 14-month deployment in support of Operation

Iraqi Freedom. Because of the way the battalion trained and

the level of training reached, the brigade combat team

commander had the confidence to let the unit fight as a task

force in Baghdad. None of this happened overnight though;

development of the Warrior Ethos began early and continued

throughout the deployment.

As an Army, we talk about the “Warrior Ethos” or “Warrior

Spirit” and how important it is for Soldiers and units to have

this mindset to make them successful in combat. The Warrior

Spirit takes on particular importance as units prepare to deploy

and focus their training on the missions they anticipate once

deployed. Units that don’t make the development of a Warrior

Spirit their priority are less likely to be successful in combat.

Development of this ethos comes from discipline and training

and is a continuous process, even when deployed. Units that

develop and sustain a warrior mentality will find that their

Soldiers are much more prepared mentally, physically, and

emotionally to handle the rigors of continuous combat.

Training Warriors

I

t is our job as leaders to train and lead warriors. We must

ensure that our units are ready to deploy at any time or

anywhere and accomplish any mission. Even when a

mission is not from a trained skill set, the mission must still be

accomplished. Good units are able to accomplish any mission

because they are disciplined, physically ready, and able to

execute basic fundamental skills (blocking and tackling drills).

They have leaders who have developed trust and confidence

through hard, aggressive training.

Training is continuous, but ultimately begins and ends with

noncommissioned officers (NCOs). In combat, NCOs must

have the confidence to make decisions quickly; the ability

and confidence is instilled during training. The commander’s

function is to guide NCOs and leaders in the unit to conduct

the right training, under the right conditions, and according to

standards. The commander (battalion, company, and platoon)

is responsible for ensuring that NCOs know the standard and

train to meet that standard. The commander arms his NCOs

with the most valuable resource—adequate time to train. This

is done by focusing on the tasks the unit will train on and

determining what tasks will not be trained.

By Colonel Christopher W. Martin

Developing anD Maintaining

the Warrior ethos

in engineer Units

Photo by Sherlynn Borkgren
January-March 2006 Engineer 15

Tasks

Commanders determine the skills and tasks Soldiers will

train on—refinement of the mission-essential task list (METL)

and battle tasks accomplish this. Engineers typically have more

“perceived” tasks and responsibilities than can possibly be

trained and must determine what tasks should be trained. For

instance, the likelihood of constructing an abatis or destroying

a bridge is low, and therefore the 91st did not train on those

tasks. They got more out of their training by focusing their

squads and platoons on the most likely demolition missions

they would receive: breach a lane through a minefield using

hand-emplaced explosives, breach a lane through a wire

obstacle, and breach a door or wall in a building. All demolitions

training focused on performance of these tasks. Once

deployment orders were received for Operation Iraqi Freedom,

the unit’s METL was changed to include the tasks most likely

to be executed in Iraq; those that were not anticipated were

deleted.

Live-Fire Exercises

Probably the most important training conducted involved

live-fire exercises (LFXs). Several LFXs were conducted at the

squad and platoon levels, independent of the maneuver task

forces, to give the Soldiers confidence in their weapon-handling

abilities and their leaders confidence in coordinating and

directing fires. LFXs also provide a valuable opportunity to

train communication skills at the leader level. The 91st required

the company commander to be present at the range and running

the exercise for a squad-level LFX, and a field grade officer

was required for all platoon-level LFXs. This allowed platoon

leaders to communicate with squad leaders at squad-level LFXs

and company commanders to work with platoon leaders at

platoon-level LFXs.

LFX scenarios were based on combat, initially for the

invasion into Iraq and later for the actual mission. Because

the unit built the scenarios themselves, they had to understand

Army Regulation 385-63, Policies and Procedures for Firing

Ammunition for Training, Target Practice, and Combat. The

principles outlined in this regulation carry over into combat

and ensure that officers and NCOs have a good understanding

of surface danger zones (SDZs) and weapons orientation.

The ability to clear a room and building is a task every

combat engineer unit should have. It is a task that the 91st

performed almost daily and often multiple times in a day. It is

also a task that must be retrained constantly. Field Manual

3-06.11, Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain,

explains how to do it properly, and commanders should

coordinate with infantry units to help train leaders on this

important battle drill. Every patrol and every Soldier that rolls

off the forward operating base in Iraq, regardless of their

military occupational specialty, stands the chance of making

contact with the enemy and must be prepared to defeat the

enemy through aggressive actions. Quite often, this will

include clearing a building to kill or capture the enemy initiating

the attack.

Weapons Training

The importance of weapons marksmanship and reflexivefire training cannot be overemphasized. The confidence
16 Engineer January-March 2005

Soldiers develop in their weapon systems from constant

shooting will be manifested when they are in a firefight.

Likewise, training on crew-served weapons and squad

automatic weapons (SAWs) is vital, and proficiency on these

weapons must be attained. There are other extremely useful

means to train; for example, the Engagement Skills Trainer,

which allows leaders to exercise rules of engagement (ROE)

training is a great resource, if available.

Commanders should look for other unique capabilities their

unit may require and find ways to train Soldiers on those tasks.

A capability that builds confidence in units and in individual

Soldiers is advanced marksmanship courses and sniper

training. Snipers and excellent marksmen are invaluable in the

urban environment and play an important role in many

missions. The 91st trained snipers in each company down to

platoon level. They were able to field an M14 sniper rifle in

each line company, but had already purchased scopes for

M16A2 rifles to develop platoon snipers. Even if it is not

possible to field sniper rifles, the best shooters should be

identified and sent to advanced marksmanship courses.

Combat Lifesaver Course

Another morale builder is the combat lifesaver (CLS) course.

The battalion’s standard for combat lifesavers is that every

Soldier must be CLS-trained. The 91st held CLS courses weekly,

even in Iraq, and Soldiers were recertified while deployed.

Soldiers knew that if they were wounded while on a mission,

their friends could take care of them. In Iraq, CLS-trained

Soldiers were vital to saving lives because they provided initial

aid until the wounded Soldiers were medically evacuated to

Level II care.

Equipment

Part of developing the Warrior Spirit is making Soldiers feel

like warriors. One way to achieve this is to get the special

equipment they need to conduct the mission. The Rapid

Fielding Initiative goes a long way toward fulfilling that goal,

but other pieces of equipment were recommended by Soldiers,

such as door breaching kits, sniper scopes, spotlights and

spotting scopes (for identification of improvised explosive

devices [IEDs]), and collapsible ladders. Training on this

equipment at Fort Hood, Texas, instilled confidence at the

Soldier level prior to deployment. No matter how much

equipment a unit buys, if Soldiers aren’t trained on it, it doesn’t

matter. Mount M68s on weapons and train Soldiers to shoot

with them. Learn how to use AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon

Sights (TWS) before deployment. Enforce mounting all optics

on weapons for every training event. The advantage over the

enemy in Iraq using these weapon systems—fully-mounted

with all optics—cannot be overstated.

Civilian Training

Get Soldiers the training they need to be successful, even

if it is not available in the military. The 91st contracted with a

civilian specialty school to ensure that their NCOs learned the

correct standards and techniques for explosive breaching of a

building. School personnel came to Fort Hood for a training

session and trained 91st Soldiers using condemned apartments

in a nearby community, and later the 91st sent several NCOs

to attend the course at a civilian site. The morale of the NCOs

who attended the course rose, and the battalion became expert

at explosive breaching.

Training During Deployment

Good units continue to train even after they are deployed.

Training should be focused on tactics, techniques, and

procedures (TTP); lessons learned; and the fundamental skills

needed for the unit to continue to be successful. Commanders

should use this training to refine the lessons learned, develop

methods to counteract the enemy’s actions, and retrain areas

identified as weaknesses in the unit. Again, continuous training

improves Soldier morale and confidence.

Leaders should read and discuss after-action reviews and

lessons-learned documents for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan

and incorporate that information into training. It makes the

training more relevant and gives Soldiers a sense of why they

are doing the training. This is a baseline only, and things

change.

Attitude

Not every aspect of developing the Warrior Spirit

involves training. There is a psychological element

also. If commanders constantly tell their Soldiers how

good they are and how good their unit is, soon they will live

up to that billing—if they are not already. Soldiers will have

pride in their unit, and NCOs will develop a mindset that they

can overcome any problem they face. Confidence developed

in their capabilities will be manifested in their everyday attitude

and actions. Soldiers cannot be trained for every contingency,

but commanders can develop a Warrior Spirit in Soldiers that

allows them to adapt to the situation and prevail.

Conclusion

As a commander, you should evaluate your unit and

see where you are in establishing the Warrior Spirit in

your Soldiers. If it is not at the level you want, begin

to instill it now. Be creative in your approach to training, and

emphasize to your Soldiers why they are training a particular

way. Try to build flexibility and an attitude that the unit can do

anything, and you will not be disappointed.

Colonel Martin is currently a student at the United States

Army War College. His previous assignments include

Commander of the 91st Engineer Battalion for 36 months, as

well as assignments in the United States Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Southern European Task

Force (SETAF), 1st Infantry Division, and the 101st Airborne

Division.
January-March 2006 Engineer 17

Engineer Capabilities Study

T.

he final report of The Engineer Capabilities Study:

A Path to the Future, 30 September 2002, identified

that joint task force (JTF) engineer staffs are comprised

of several 0-4 through 0-6 officers who may or may not have

been exposed to joint professional military education (PME)

and many 0-3s who have not. It further identified that most

joint PME has little or no engineer content. Consequently,

most officers assigned to JTF engineer staffs have little or no

understanding of engineer capabilities outside of their own

service and experience a steep learning curve before they are

able to function effectively in a joint engineer environment.

The report recommended that a 3- to 4-hour joint engineer

orientation be presented at service engineer advanced courses

(for senior 0-3s), followed by a Web-based, self-paced instruction program.

Proposal

The Joint Operational Engineering Board (JOEB) is the

premier advisory group and proponent for operational

engineering issues. Its charter is to oversee efforts to

enhance joint engineer processes and capabilities to meet

combatant commander’s requirements. In an effort to address

the JTF staff officer education issue, the board proposed a

more formal joint officer education for the targeted engineer

population. Joint education for officers already exists in limited

amounts at engineer officer service schools, but there is no

room for additional schooling without deleting other required

subjects. The board’s recommended solution was to establish

a stand-alone course that would be more rigorous in its joint

education and would better focus and prepare officers for

assignment to a joint engineer staff. The proposed course is

titled the Joint Engineer Officer Course (JEOC).

Course Development

T.

he JOEB assigned the JEOC development task to its

Doctrine and Training Working Group. After extensive

coordination and months of hard work, the working

group and other key engineer personnel from all the services

met at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for a Training Developers

Conference in the fall of 2005. At the conference, the combined

efforts of the engineers resulted in a refined concept and course

outline for the first JEOC pilot course that will be executed as

a two-phase course in the spring and summer of 2006 at Fort

Leonard Wood.

Distance Learning Phase

The 48-hour distance learning (DL) phase, which begins in

March 2006, consists of eight modules with associated lessons

that introduce students to—

 National security strategy development.

 Joint operations planning.

 Joint engineer capabilities.

 JTF engineer operations and planning.

 Engineer staff organizations and staff responsibilities

within a combatant command.

Joint Engineer Officer

Course

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland, Jr.

“We continue to improve joint professional military education to provide more joint experiences, education and training

to warfighters—junior and senior officers and noncommissioned officers. At the senior officer level, a modified capstone

course will increase the emphasis on jointness while preparing senior officers to lead joint task forces and other joint

operations. For junior officers and noncommissioned officers, incorporating joint education and training early in their

careers ensures future leaders will more effectively integrate tactical operations with interagency and multinational

components.” (The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004. A Strategy for Today; A Vision for

Tomorrow)

“Early planning efforts within the C-7 (engineer section) were hampered by a lack of knowledge of capabilities,

requirements, and limitations of other service and coalition engineer forces, particularly among junior members of the staff.

Action officers are often junior field grade or company grade officers who do not have sufficient joint engineer education or

experience to be effective at the beginning of their assignment.” (An after-action review comment from Operation Iraqi

Freedom, Engineer, January-March 2004, “Joint Engineer Training, Joint Officer Education of the Future,” pp: 19.)
18 Engineer January-March 2006

Resident Phase

The 32-hour resident phase, scheduled for 19 – 23 June

2006, consists of eight seminars aligned with six practical

exercises (PEs) (27 hours). The PEs are built around JTF

scenarios that require students to develop and demonstrate

an understanding of different service engineer capabilities and

the common functions and responsibilities of a JTF engineer

staff officer at the senior 0-3 and junior 0-4 grades. In addition,

other PEs include—

 Task organizing engineer forces.

 Understanding the development and expectations of the

engineer support plan.

 Understanding the Joint Engineer Planning and Execution

System (JEPES).

 Understanding the JTF boards that an engineer staff officer

is a member of.

 Understanding the functions and processes involved in

financing, contracting, base camp development, and

coordination with host nation and nongovernment

organizations.

Upon completion of the JEOC, the student will be able to—

 Describe joint operations, joint warfare, and the joint

planning system.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer doctrine.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer planning

(to include the JEPES) by using scenarios, historical

examples, case studies, and PEs.

 Describe and comprehend service engineer capabilities and

support requirements, to include operating as part of a

coalition.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply the strengths, effects,

and basic doctrinal employment concepts of service

engineers.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply employment principles

for using service engineer capabilities in support of jointand service-engineer requirements.

Goal

The JEOC is designed as a joint operations introductory

course for junior leaders at the senior 0-3 and junior

0-4 levels, as well as for specified noncommissioned

officers at the rank of senior E-7 through E-9 and others

associated with joint engineer operations. The goal of the

JEOC is to provide selected engineer officers with a basic

understanding of the capabilities and organization of engineer

forces of the U.S. military to better prepare them for duty on a

staff in support of the JTF engineer and joint force commander.

The course will provide enough grounding for students to

understand the responsibilities of a staff officer assigned to

the joint engineer staff section of a JTF. The major focus of the

course is to introduce students to joint doctrine, planning and

operations (specifically engineer operations), and the type of

engineer staff positions and associated products engineers

are required to develop.

Summary

The JEOC is a course designed by engineers for

engineers.The pilot course will bring together

engineers from all the services, who will test the lessons

and materials for applicability in the current operational

environment, as well as for future application to meet the

challenges faced by engineer forces of the U.S. military in the

21st century. All engineers are strongly encouraged to monitor

the progress of the JEOC as it develops and provide insight

based on their personal experiences while working as a joint

engineer staff officer.

Questions or comments pertaining to the JOEC can be

addressed to the Training Integration Office, United States

Army Engineer School. The point of contact is <robert.

mcfarland@wood.army.mil>, (573)-563-5402.

Mr. McFarland is a contractor working for C2 Technologies, Incorporated©, in the Training Integration Office

of the United States Army Engineer School. He is the project

manager for developing the Joint Engineer Officer Course

concept, along with other ongoing joint efforts.

First Lieutenant Simon T. Cox, Jr. 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment Fort Hood, Texas

Specialist Dustin L. Kendall 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment Fort Carson, Colorado

Sergeant Monta S. Ruth 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment Fort Benning, Georgia

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

Staff Sergeant Michael J. McMullen 243d Engineer Company Baltimore, Maryland

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

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

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

Dedication

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

inadvertently omitted from a previous list. We dedicate this issue to them.
January-March 2006 Engineer 19

The Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC) at

Hohenfels, Germany, underwent a transformation last

year in an effort to better support the Global War on

Terrorism. Now known as the Joint Multinational Readiness

Center (JMRC), it welcomes the task of integrating our European

allies in training exercises with U.S. forces. In an effort to

improve its abilities as an expeditionary training center, it

deployed observer-controller (OC) teams to Bulgaria and

Romania to train their forces in side-by-side exercises with

U.S. forces, hosted Czech and Polish forces in exercises at

JMRC and various outlying German installations to conduct

training with U.S. forces, and continues to provide quality

multinational training geared to winning the war on terrorism.

Winning on the battlefield is what we do. As a company

OC at JMRC, I have observed many sapper units going through

training for deployment downrange. Sappers are trained and

equipped with unique skills that support mobility,

countermobility, survivability, and sustainment engineering

missions. They are prepared to execute combat operations

with traditional engineer tasks in an urban environment. When

called on to fight as infantry, however, engineers must still be

a force a commander can expect to augment with fire support.

In view of the many activities being executed on today’s

asymmetric battlefield, we need to ensure that engineers aren’t

losing sight of the basic infantry skills that they have been

called on to use in the past.

The operating environment engineers face today is an

enemy employing classic insurgent tactics: ambushing troops

on the roads with improvised explosive devices (IEDs),

intimidating Iraqi security forces, assassinating Iraqi

government officials, and terrorizing the population with

random car bombings. Fighting these insurgents is, by its

nature, small-unit engagements. Most sapper squads will

engage in at least one random close-quarters firefight with

suicidal fanatics armed with grenades and automatic weapons.

Sappers have no problem performing the engineer battle

drills; however, they must be proficient in basic infantry skills

as well. Whether it is IEDs, indirect fire, or direct-fire contact,

sappers must know the basic battle drills so they can quickly

and decisively fight through these engagements regardless

of mission type.

While engineers contribute extensively toward achieving

national goals as civic-action units, during combat operations

engineers can be used in a secondary role as infantry. When a

threat arises, engineers can be used as infantry on operational

bases when all tactical units are committed or as reserves when

the threat has caused the commitment of all available reserves.

By Captain Khang Ho

Engineers conduct operations in an urban environment at

the JMRC in preparation for their upcoming deployment.
20 Engineer January-March 2006

For the most part, engineers are going to be fighting as a

motorized infantry company downrange. Engineer companies

can be expected to conduct urban combat operations such as

cordon and searches, raids, combat patrols, and establishing

traffic control point missions. These missions are complex and

require dedicated planning and focused mission rehearsals

before execution. Maneuver companies are often given

opportunities to plan, rehearse, and execute these missions at

JMRC when conducting an Operation Iraqi Freedom or

Operation Enduring Freedom scenario, and it should be no

different for an engineer company.

The task force must free itself from traditional, unit-specific

jurisdictions and understand that engineer units require the

same training if they are to fight as infantry. Cordon and search

operations require detailed planning and rehearsals, using

available forces and assets properly. Engineer leaders must be

ready to plan and conduct these missions and must be able to

convey to the task force commander what capabilities

engineers bring to the fight. Engineers need the same training

as the maneuver unit on stack drills, entering and clearing a

building, and proper search and detainee handling procedures.

Infantry and armor task forces would rather use their maneuver

companies to perform the more difficult tasks rather than train

the sappers to their fullest capabilities.

JMRC is effectively training units on the tactics, techniques,

and procedures (TTP) that are being employed downrange in

regard to IEDs. A state-of-the-art IED lane was built to give

units the scenarios of IEDs employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Engineers control most of the equipment in the Army for

combating IEDs. The Buffalo is a great asset when it is used to

confirm or deny suspected IEDs. As we have seen, IEDs have

been, and will continue to be, the most dangerous and effective

killer of coalition forces.

Task force commanders have to start looking at their sappers

as one of their lethal forces on the battlefield and train them as

such by giving them missions that will challenge their skills

not only as engineers but also as a fighting force capable of

locating and destroying the enemy. The doctrine and TTP

that are being trained and honed at JMRC do work in combating

IEDs and insurgent tactics and must be used correctly on the

battlefield.

Engineer leaders must remind maneuver commanders of

the need to increase security so we can do our missions. Much

of the engineers’ time is spent interfacing with the populace

during civil action projects or conducting route reconnaissance

to defeat IEDs. Although engineers can provide security, the

full capabilities of engineers cannot be used if they are

conducting security. Maneuver commanders should assign

this mission to infantry or military police.

As engineer leaders, we must be able to sell to maneuver

commanders what our capabilities are and how engineers can

help the task force in winning the fight. We can conduct

demolition, route reconnaissance, and route clearance; develop

protective positions; and build field fortifications. Engineers

can also assist the task force with basic environment

infrastructure—sewage, water, electricity, academics, and trash

(SWEAT) assessments. And last, but not least, engineers can

fight as infantry.

Captain Ho is an observer-controller at the Joint

Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany.

Previous assignments include commander of an engineer

company in Korea. He is a graduate of the Engineer Captain’s

Career Course.

Engineers use the

“stack” technique at a

door before entering

and clearing a

building.
January-March 2006 Engineer 21

The safe, reliable, and secure operation of a surface

transportation system within a brigade combat team’s

(BCT’s) area of operations (AO) depends on collaboration and coordination across organizational boundaries.

Units within or transiting across the BCT’s AO need

information to plan safe and predictable movement in terms of

travel time while considering a host of variables that influence

a route’s condition.

Route tracking is a tool to help commanders and staffs plan

movement times, route selection, adjustment of force

protection measures, and prioritization of route reconnaissance

and clearance efforts. The procedures for route tracking

outlined in this article are not currently addressed in doctrine

and portray a method of managing route information based on

rotational unit practices at the Joint Readiness Training Center

(JRTC) and unit products from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Effective route tracking is a result of a nested process

between units transiting the BCT’s operational environment

and the battalion and BCT staffs. The analytical capability of

the staff at the BCT level can provide a regularly updated,

single-source product to subordinate units and units traveling

through the BCT’s AO. Examples of unit and staff input are

listed in Table 1. The “landowning” battalion task forces

provide routine (time-driven) and event-driven reports to the

BCT on the route status criteria concerning route capability,

threat incidents, civil activities, and friendly activity within

the battalion task force’s AO to develop an accurate common

operational picture of the brigade route status.

Route-tracking collection systems must provide timely,

reliable, accurate, and relevant information, and they must be

disseminated properly to be effective. Credibility is an extremely

important consideration in properly implementing a routetracking system. Regardless of how well a unit designs a tool,

units will eventually distrust the system if it is not updated to

reflect current conditions. Each time the information displayed

is disproved, the credibility of the system decreases. Figure 1,

page 22, shows a method of information flow of incidents and

subsequent actions, and Table 2, page 22, shows a method of

route-status distribution.

If possible, classify routes with the color-coded standard

(Green, Amber, and Red) from checkpoint to checkpoint based

on associated route status criteria. Additional reasons for route

status (ongoing friendly operations, weather effects,

construction, congestion, and threat incidents) can be

displayed on the graphics with pertinent data such as rerouting

criteria and related date-time groups.

Brigade Route Tracking at JRTC

By Major Ted D. Yates

Table 1. Unit and Staff Input Into Route Tracking

Element Input

Units

Brigade S-2

Brigade S-3

Brigade Engineer

Brigade S-4

Brigade Civil Affairs

Ongoing/future operations – patrols, cordon and searches, neighborhood engagement/

development, traffic control points (TCPs), route capability, threat incidents, congestion due to

random events (threat incidents, accidents, or breakdowns), impacts of recurring congestion

due to daily/weekly cycle of events (work/market/religious) or religious/national observances,

frequency of congestion (time periods, volume of traffic, and speeds of traffic along routes).

Threat incidents, predictive analysis/event template, and intelligence preparation of the battlefield.

Authority for raising and lowering route status and associated force protection measures,

rerouting authority, monitoring units transiting through the BCT’s AO, monitoring BCT asset

movements, route clearance efforts, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) operations.

Overall staff proponent for route status tracking (a way); weather and terrain impacts; route

capabilities; and monitoring planned construction, work zones, and closures.

Monitoring ongoing/future combat logistic patrol movements and requirements, monitoring

contracted movements and coordinates, and monitoring echelon-above-brigade logistic

movements within the BCT’s AO.

Population traffic patterns and congested areas – market areas/times, anticipated

demonstrations/rallies, displaced civilian patterns, pilgrimages, holidays or observances,

school congestion times, nongovernmental organization movements.
22 Engineer January-March 2006

Figure 1. Sample Route-Tracking Information Flow Chart

Table 2. Methods of Route Status Distribution

In Figure 2, page 23, the route status criteria is limited to

four areas (weather/congestion/trafficability, threat, obstacles,

and protection measures) and addresses restrictions,

constraints, and limitations of the routes and the units

transiting them. It also prescribes how a unit can raise a route

status through proactive measures; for example, conducting

clearance operations or confirming a clear route.

This article reflects the practices of units training at JRTC

and should not necessarily be construed as Army policy or

doctrine. The intent is to provide commanders and staffs with

Prior to Movement During Movement

Blue Force Tracker/ Force XXI Battle Command

Brigade and Below (FBCB2)

Blue Force Tracker/FBCB2

Convoy brief by staff

Maneuver Control System-Light (MCS-L)

Frequency modulation (FM) (sheriff network [NET]) FM (sheriff NET)

Telephone answering-machine message Telephone answering-machine message

Message board at compound exit gate

Web-based page

Legend:

BCT – brigade combat team

TCPs – traffic control points

QRF – quick reaction force
January-March 2006 Engineer 23

Figure 2. Sample Route Tracker, Brigade Level

Legend:AR – armorASR – alternate supply routeCP – check point

FBCB2 – Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and BelowFLA - field litter ambulanceHEMTT – heavy expanded-mobility tactical truck

HET – heavy equipment transporterIA/IP - Iraqi army/Iraqi policeID – infantry divisionIED – improvised explosive device

IN – infantryMEDEVAC – medical evacuationMSR – main supply routePH - phone

TM Clear - route clearance teamUXO – unexploded ordnanceVBIED – vehicle-borne improvised explosive device
24 Engineer January-March 2006

a tool to examine an existing route-tracking system or initiate a

new system. There are numerous methods, techniques, and

criteria that can be employed to evaluate and disseminate route

status. If you have “best practices” concerning route tracking

or any other aspects of assured mobility that would prove

valuable for units preparing for deployment, please contact

the JRTC Brigade Command and Control Engineer Team at

<ted.yates@polk.army.mil>.

Major Yates is a brigade engineer observer-controller at

the Joint Readiness Training Center. Previous assignments

include assistant engineer plans officer for Combined Joint

Task Force (CJTF)-76 in Afghanistan. He holds a bachelor’s

in history from Georgia Southern University.

Figure 2 is an example of a single-source product

which graphically portrays the BCT’s AO route status

common operational picture. The information allows

the unit to—

 Determine main supply routes (MSRs) and

alternate supply routes (ASRs), with check

points, using the map with an overlay.

 Identify (ID) boundaries for landowners and checkin point for cross boundary movement.

 ID telephone numbers, command frequency,

and administrative and logistics frequencies with

command post call signs for landowners.

 ID recent threat incidents (within 30 days) with

possible analysis—for example, indicators of

increased threat and possible route alternatives

(timing, dispersion, alternate routes). Often this

will use callouts with images for better resolution.

 ID locations of compounds/forward operating

bases (FOBs), police stations, host nation or

coalition military compounds, and other significant

friendly organizations with security capabilities.

 ID locations of coalition medical facilities/aid

stations (generally on compounds/FOBs).

 ID aerial medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)

capabilities (frequency, call sign, and general

response time).

 ID friendly quick-reaction force (QRF) and

maintenance recovery capabilities (generally, type

of unit, base camp, and size).

 ID guard or sheriff frequency.

 ID if there is a route security element—for

example, a military police unit or artillery unit—

in addition to a landowner (should be identified

with frequency and call sign).

Army, while the remainder will be spread throughout the Army

National Guard and United States Army Reserves. The first

four units will be activated in fiscal year 2006.

The formulation of this new unit will require two major

adjustments in the philosophy of training. The first is in the

development of the senior leadership through progressive

education and experience. The ability to command and control

a multifunctional unit demands the development of new skills

to coordinate multiple functions into an integrated execution

plan. The second is the development of the collective skills

within the headquarters to produce a coordinated and integrated understanding of the multiple functions on the tactical

and operational environment of the future.

The United States Army Maneuver Support Center

(MANSCEN) is currently designing the training plans and

materiel to support the formulation of the new headquarters.

Summary

The deployment of the newly created CSB (ME) will

provide a valuable and capable element to the Future

Force. The brigade will provide support to the

committed BCTs; perform missions in its own area of

operations to support the offense, the defense, or stability

operations; and support the division and corps rear areas with

essential control functions.

Mr. Miller is the director of Fort Leonard Wood operations

for TecMasters, Inc. A retired lieutenant colonel, he holds a

bachelor’s in business administration and a master’s in

management from California Polytechnic University, Pomona.

Mr. Draker is a combat experimentation analyst with the

MANSCEN Futures Center, Maneuver Support Integration

Division, and is engaged in the development of concepts,

organization, and doctrine for the CSB (ME). A retired

lieutenant colonel, he holds a master’s in logistics management and a master’s in business administration from Florida

Institute of Technology.

(“Combat Support Brigade,” continued from page 12)
January-March 2006 Engineer 25

This situation happened to me in my third month of

command and—for the first time—tested the planning

process I used to develop effective and expedient

troop-leading procedures. As a battalion planner and company

commander, I saw three approaches used to tackle the planning

process:

 Centralized planning—dictating information down to

assigning individual vehicle positions and sectors of fire.

 Cooperative planning—gathering the platoon leaders

together and deciding, as a unit, how the company would

fight.

 Framework planning—issuing a clear intent and the task

and purpose for each element and relying on platoon-level

planning to round out the plan.

Centralized Planning

Advantages

With centralized planning, the commander lays out his intent

with specific instructions—down to squad and vehicle level—

for items such as movement order, positions on the objective,

and sectors of fire. The clarity of this method leaves very little

room for platoon leaders to question or determine how they

will maneuver and makes maximum use of the commander’s

experience in employing his assets.

Disadvantages

One of the disadvantages of centralized planning is the

amount of time required for the company to develop its very

detailed operation order (OPORD) and graphics. Any delay in

Troop-Leading Procedures

Planning Process

By Captain Brian LaMarca

Upon returning to the base camp after patrolling in western Baghdad, the company commander is directed to report

immediately to the task force tactical operations center (TOC), where he is briefed that he will be executing a company raid

with an attached Special Forces team at an unknown address in less than 6 hours. By the time the commander departs the

TOC, he has about 5 hours to plan, coordinate, and execute this mission based on very vague intelligence.

A Soldier updates the

commander after completing

a mission.
26 Engineer January-March 2006

the completion of the OPORD quickly devours the time

available for the platoons to conduct their troop-leading

procedures. This becomes a serious concern when operating

on a compressed timeline.

Another disadvantage is that the commander has the sole

responsibility for providing this information, and the planning

process comes to a halt if he is unable to dedicate time to

completing the OPORD. In continuous operations, frequent

distractions (such as enemy contact in sector) demand the

commander’s attention. While platoon leaders could attempt

to develop their own maneuver plans—based on the

commander’s intent—their planning process would take much

longer due to their lack of experience.

This method takes too long and takes too much flexibility

from the platoons, which seriously hinders executing shortnotice missions.

Cooperative Planning

Advantages

Cooperative planning consists of the commander and

platoon leaders, beginning at the receipt of the mission,

collectively deciding on the best way for the company to fight.

This provides the benefit of many eyes looking at the same

problem and coming up with a variety of plans. Since the

platoon leaders are being asked to conduct higher-level

planning (which can be a positive development experience for

them), each plan is scrutinized for its validity.

Another advantage is that using this method often results

in the platoon leaders’ ownership of the mission plan

immediately, as the completed OPORD has their input

incorporated.

Disadvantages

The disadvantage of cooperative planning is that

producing the company OPORD takes longer since it is

developed by a committee. As with centralized planning, it

impacts by decreasing the time allowed for platoon troopleading procedures. The process requires platoon leaders to

be present for both company and platoon OPORD

development, meaning that the platoon leaders are not

available to respond to continuous operations demands

encountered once company-level planning has begun.

This method proved the least effective of the three because

it required so much leadership time—company and platoon—

that it seriously limited the company’s flexibility to work several

missions at once. Just as with centralized planning,

commanders can use other tools to receive platoon leader

input instead of this time-consuming method.

Framework Planning

Advantages

With this planning method, the commander focuses on

ensuring that the company OPORD includes a clear intent and

the task and purpose for each platoon. He then relies on

platoon leaders to develop major portions of their maneuver

within the OPORD. The commander uses checks during the

remainder of the preparation time to ensure that the intent is

met. A major advantage of this method is that it enables platoon

leaders to learn how to quickly and effectively plan their

missions. This leads to improved overall planning—from

company-level operations to daily combat patrols—because

the platoon leaders learn what details must be considered for

successful operations. Framework planning allows platoon

leaders to provide their input, giving them a major role in the

planning process.

Also, with this method, it takes less time to produce a

company OPORD. The commander provides the necessary

details for platoon planning and issues it to the platoon leaders

for refinement. This allows platoon leaders a greater amount

Effective planning ensured the success of any type of mission, even this route

security mission in western Baghdad.
January-March 2006 Engineer 27

of time for their troop-leading procedures and allows the

commander time for additional contingency planning on any

issues the company could face during execution.

Disadvantages

Framework planning, however, does initially take some time.

If the platoon leaders are not accustomed to maneuver

planning, the commander checks may take longer. Fortunately,

this is an issue that can be dealt with through training, allowing

the platoon leaders to gain the experience to make this second

nature.

 Key Elements of Framework Planning

One consideration when using this method is that it

requires commanders to pay special attention to key

elements of the troop-leading procedures, such as

issuing a clear OPORD, requiring effective backbriefs, ensuring

quality rehearsals, and conducting after-action reviews

(AARs).

OPORD

For framework planning to work, commanders must focus

specifically on a few aspects of the company OPORD. The

first of these is the commander’s intent. As a lieutenant,

typically the intent statements received included generic key

tasks, such as “reporting,” “sensitive-items accountability,”

or “information operations.” My company found that in order

to make the intent useful to platoon leaders, more specific key

tasks, such as “silent dismounted approach to reduce enemy

reaction time” or “rapid exfiltration off the objective to reduce

the mortar threat” were essential to make it clear how the

commander wanted to fight.

When issuing tasks to subordinate units, using doctrinal

terms proved essential in clearly conveying what missions

the platoon leaders need to address. While this may require

some training for the new platoon leaders, sticking to the

doctrinal terms made the planning process faster by preventing

confusion.

While platoon leaders have an important role in determining

their platoon’s maneuver, the commander must still include

important coordinating instructions, such as restricted fire

lines, recognition markers, movement techniques, and any

other mission-specific instructions. This helps prevent

fratricide and ensures that platoon leaders keep their plans

within the commander’s guidelines.

Finally, the commander provides the essential maps and

graphics to conduct their planning. Typically, we included a

FalconViewTM satellite photo with graphics and a sketch. While

the platoon leaders have an important part in the planning

process, the company still owes some details to ensure that

platoons have everything they need to complete their planning.

Backbriefs

After issuing the OPORD, the commander must conduct

checks with the platoon leaders to ensure that they are on the

right track. The most helpful check for me was the platoon

backbriefs, where we ensured that the company had a solid,

refined plan. Prior to the backbrief, the platoon leaders will

have already issued their first warning order (WARNO) and

completed their OPORD planning. During the backbrief,

platoons talk through the details of their actions throughout

the operation and add their platoon graphics to the company

sketch.

For raiding a building, they discussed details such as

specific vehicle positions, combat power dedicated to clearing

each floor, sectors of fire and task organization of each element,

and platoon timelines. While the commander will already have

an idea of how he would fight each platoon, a platoon leader

may provide a slightly different outlook on how to complete

the mission. The commander can use his intent, as well as his

Soldiers prepare a terrain

model for an upcoming

platoon OPORD.
28 Engineer January-March 2006

experience, to determine whether the platoon leader’s plan is

valid. This is an excellent training opportunity, even during a

deployment, for platoon leaders to understand why certain

tactics are preferred in a given situation.

Additionally, the backbrief presents an opportunity for

platoon leaders to propose changes to the company OPORD.

This gives the commander the luxury of having more than one

person find potential solutions to the same problem and leads

to a more solid plan. Even if the commander denies a change, it

forces him to validate the logic behind each aspect of his plan

as he explains his decision to the platoon leader. With the

platoon leaders hearing each other’s plans, it helps them

understand everyone’s part in the execution of the mission

and how their platoon’s fight must tie into the other platoons’

maneuver.

Finally, by adding each platoon’s graphics to the company

sketch, it ensures that each platoon has common graphics

before leaving. Our company found that a solid backbrief

validates the company OPORD and prevents major issues from

arising in the company rehearsals.

Rehearsals

Traditional rehearsals serve as the next check. For platoon

level and below, walk-through rehearsals proved to be the most

effective method. At company level, however, we found that a

walk-through rehearsal often made it difficult for squad leaders

to see and/or hear the plans of the other platoons’ squads. A

map rehearsal for squad leaders and above allows the company

commander to ensure that the squad leaders’ understanding

of their squad and platoon missions parallel his own

understanding. And it allows for additional input from the

squad level on any improvements to specific details within the

plan.

At the rehearsal, the company provides a copy of the

completed sketch from the backbrief to each squad leader, and

then has each squad leader explain his part in the execution of

each phase. The sketch and explanations ensure that every

company leader—down to squad leader level—has a common

understanding of the upcoming mission. Quality platoon and

company rehearsals definitely paid off in ensuring a smooth

execution.

AARs

The last key element to framework planning is to conduct

an AAR, which will ensure that future mission plans are

conducted faster and executed smoother. Initially, I only

required leaders from the platoons involved in the mission to

attend; however, we learned through experience that platoons

without representatives at the AAR would repeat the mistakes

that had been addressed at the previous AAR. I then required

each platoon to have a representative at every company AAR,

regardless of whether they participated in the mission or not.

This allowed platoons to learn from each other’s mistakes and

successes.

Additionally, the AAR allowed leaders at all levels to bring

up details that had not been addressed prior to executing the

mission. This identified—to the platoon leaders and myself—

what else should be addressed in the OPORDs to prevent

confusion on future missions. The company’s ability to

honestly evaluate its own performance and identify areas for

improvement allowed it to improve both its planning and

execution on following missions.

Summary

Centralized planning ensures that the commander’s

intent is met, but it presents problems when faced with

a compressed timeline. Cooperative planning develops

a unified plan, but requires a great amount of leader time.

Framework planning provides the mission intent with a task

and purpose for each element and relies on platoon-level

planning, which proved to be the most effective method for

this company commander and company.

When presented with the mission of conducting a raid with

Special Forces in a few hours, I was able to quickly provide

the OPORD to the platoon leaders. As they conducted their

platoon planning, I finalized coordination with external assets

and received a thorough backbrief with 4 of the 5 hours still

available for rehearsals and final preparations.

This short-notice operation captured terrorists and a cache

of weapons, explosives, and ammunition. It also provided

intelligence that led to additional related targets, which we

executed in the coming weeks. Preparing for this mission was

demanding; however, framework planning provided us time to

effectively plan, coordinate, and execute the mission with

confidence.

Captain LaMarca’s assignments include battalion planner

for the 91st Engineer Battalion and company commander for

Charlie Company, 91st Engineer Battalion, and Echo

Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry. In Iraq, his company

executed raids, as well as constructed protective obstacles

around polling centers prior to the Iraq election. Upon

returning to the United States, he was deployed to New

Orleans to assist with the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

“Framework planning allows platoon leaders to provide their

input, giving them a major role in the planning process.”
January-March 2006 Engineer 29

This article provides an update to the Engineer Regiment

on doctrinal publications. Significant content changes

due to lessons learned from recent operations, the

transition to a modular force, and changes in joint and Army

capstone and keystone manuals are being worked. The old

5-series manuals will be modified to a new 3-34.xyz system

that complements the Army and joint hierarchies.

Value of Doctrine

Doctrine touches all aspects of the Army. It links theory,

history, experimentation, and practice. It provides an

authoritative statement about how military forces do

business, insights and wisdom gained from collective

experience with warfare, and a common language to describe

it. It is a guide to action, not “hard-and-fast” rules. Doctrine

provides the intellectual tools leaders use to solve military

problems quickly and effectively. By establishing common

ways of accomplishing military tasks, it helps standardize

operations and enhance readiness. Doctrine facilitates clear

thinking and assists a commander in determining the proper

course of action during the decision-making process. It

facilitates communication among Soldiers and contributes to

a shared professional culture. It forms the basis for curricula

in the Army education system.

Effective doctrine for all levels explains how Soldiers and

leaders expect to fight and operate. It is based on experience—

an estimate of what lies ahead. Doctrine provides fundamental

principles by which military forces and their elements guide

their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative, but requires judgment in application.

Principles, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

Doctrine includes fundamental principles, tactics,

techniques, and procedures. Principles form the basis that

guide the actions of Army forces in support of national

objectives. They provide the foundation for initiatives

designed to help leaders be adaptive, creative problem solvers.

Tactics address the employment of units in combat. The actual

application of tactics is highly circumstantial; it is both art and

science. Tactics vary constantly with the situation. Techniques

are the general and detailed methods used by troops and

commanders to perform assigned missions and functions,

specifically the methods of using equipment and personnel.

Procedures are standard and detailed courses of action that

describe how to perform a task. Techniques and procedures

are the lowest level of doctrine. They are specific to particular

types of units based on organization, equipment, and

environment.

Capstone Field Manuals

The Army has two capstone field manuals (FMs)—FM 1,

The Army, and FM 3-0, Operations—that form the apex of the

Army’s doctrine hierarchy. Together, they establish the

framework for a range of supporting doctrine. Army keystone

doctrine is organized around foundations established in

FM 3-0. Supporting manuals provide additional detail for

keystone manuals.

FM 3-0 establishes the Army’s fundamental principles for

applying land power as part of an interdependent joint force.

It provides a framework for action and decision making at all

levels. It is not meant to be, and must not be, a substitute for

thought. The aim is to establish guidelines for leaders to direct

operations while allowing enough freedom for bold, creative

initiative in any situation.

Engineer Doctrine

T.

he Engineer Regiment has 59 field manuals in its library

(the second largest number of any proponent

organization in the Army). Of these, 4 are current; 35

require assessment for relevancy, accuracy, and content; and

the remaining 20 are under revision or require revision. Our

keystone manual that supports the Army’s hierarchy is FM

3-34, Engineer Operations. The remaining 58 engineer field

manuals are subordinate to FM 3-34.

As the Army embraces more technology in its units, there

must be ways to make rapid changes in doctrine that will

accommodate changes in hardware, software, and procedures.

The process of developing Army doctrine is a decentralized

operation that involves the collective and cooperative effort

of a large number of proponent schools and centers and targeted

Engineer Doctrine

Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Edward R. Lefler and Mr. Les R. Hell
30 Engineer January-March 2006

subject matter experts (SMEs). Our objective is to achieve

total integration of engineer doctrine with Army proponent

schools and centers, as well as with multiservice, joint, and

allied doctrine. We strive to ensure that our doctrine has

credibility and legitimacy because it is developed with the

“user” in the “field Army” in mind. This is achieved through

extensive staffing, targeted SMEs, Army schools and centers,

and joint partners.

Key Developmental Issues

For doctrine to be effective, it must be consistent and

applicable at all levels and in all environments. Engineer

doctrinal revisions address and incorporate all applicable new

or revised joint and Army capstone and keystone publications,

the current operational environment, new technology, new

materiel, new organizations, lessons learned, and validated

concepts. There have been many emerging and key

developmental issues to address in engineer doctrine.

Following are some primary ones of immediate concern:

 Defining the Future Engineer Force (FEF) capabilities and

organizations. Augmentation at brigade combat team level

for engineer support (engineer battalion headquarters,

mobility operations) and maneuver support is needed.

 Updating existing improvised explosive device (IED)

doctrine with rapidly changing tactics, techniques, and

procedures, and incorporating the right lessons learned,

new materiel, and training.

 Transitioning the Army away from the battlefield operating

systems to the more joint-aligned warfighting functions

(WFF). Mobility and countermobility universal tasks are

proposed with movement and maneuver WFF. Survivability

universal tasks are aligned with the protection WFF.

General engineering is a subtask of the sustainment and

logistics WFF. Geospatial engineering is aligned with the

intelligence WFF.

 Defining maneuver support and integrating it in Army

keystone and capstone doctrine.

 Defining and embedding infrastructure reconnaissance

throughout engineer and Army doctrine.

 Defining base camp standards and coming to an agreement

between all services on one standard.

 Reintegrating the five functional areas (conduct combined

arms breaching, conduct clearing, conduct gap crossing,

construct, and maintain combat roads and trails) of mobility

operations back into doctrine.

 Defining the types of gap crossings (deliberate, hasty, and

covert) and establishing the linkage between gap crossing

and mobility operations.

 Revising our approach to engineer reconnaissance to a

more combined arms approach with better resolution on

the differences between the tactical and technical

reconnaissance, discussing engineer reconnaissance

teams, explaining and highlighting reachback and other

technical augmentation, reintroducing a discussion on

tunnel reconnaissance, and adding infrastructure and

environmental reconnaissance (assessment and survey)

into publications.

 Redefining essential mobility and survivability tasks to

essential maneuver support tasks to synchronize and

integrate morethan just mobility and survivability

operations.

 Defining and detailing clearing operations (route and area)

in doctrine.

 Defining and detailing search operations in doctrine.

 Assessing and updating current information on urban

explosive breaching and bringing our procedures in line

with the United States Marine Corps.

 Redefining and establishing a consistent obstacle

numbering system. If done correctly, the relationship

between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);

American, British, Canadian, and Australian (ABCA); and

U. S. standards can be complementary.

Numbering and Hierarchy

Figure 1 shows the basic hierarchy of engineer manuals

with the revised numbering system. FM 3-34 and its eight

subordinate manuals directly relate to and support engineer

battlespace functions (combat engineering [mobility, countermobility, and survivability], general engineering, and geospatial

engineering), coupled with the organizational and supporting

reference manuals.

In August 1997, the United States Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) initiated a program to revise

the Army doctrine hierarchy to link it by function and number

to the joint publication system. This resulted in a tiered

systematic approach that delineates between Army capstone

and keystone doctrine and aligns those manuals with their

corresponding joint manuals. The remaining manuals consist

of proponent and branch-specific doctrine and publications.

While the revised numbering system was approved and is in

place at some levels of the Army, implementation has been a

slow process. The renumbering of older manuals will occur

during the normal revision cycle.

Figure 2, page 32, is an example of the originally planned

transition to the new numbering system—a detailed resolution

for each manual. However, due to the dynamics of the everchanging environment, it was determined that a simplified

version would better serve the Regiment. As manuals are

updated, the FM 3-34.xyz numbering system will be used for

the majority of the manuals, not the example shown in

Figure 2. The 100- to 300-level series manuals will be linked to

combat engineering functions, the 400- to 500-level series

manuals will be linked to general engineering functions, and

the 600-level series manuals will be linked to geospatial

engineering functions. The organizational manuals will be
January-March 2006 Engineer 31

Figure 1
32 Engineer January-March 2006

renumbered to 3-34.xy, and many of our key manuals that

directly relate to combined arms will be renumbered to

FM 3-90.xy (such as FM 3-90.11, Combined Arms Mobility

Operations; FM 3-90.12, Combined Arms Gap Crossing

Operations; and FM 3-90.13, Combined Arms Obstacle

Integration).

Recently published manuals using this new numbering

system are—

 Field Manual Interim (FMI) 3-34.119, IED Defeat,

September 2005.

 FM 3-34.221, Engineer Operations - Stryker Brigade

Combat Team, January 2005.

Ongoing and Near-Term Doctrine Actions

Doctrinally, as you can see, the Regiment and the Army as

a whole have a lot on their plate. Engineer manuals currently

being updated are listed in the following paragraphs, along

with the ongoing integration efforts with Army and joint

publications (JPs).

Currently 14 publications are being revised in support of

the Global War on Terrorism and the modular transformation.

Primary changes relate to the key developmental issues already

mentioned. In Figure 3, those 14 publications are highlighted

in the boxes outlined in red. A full-color copy of Figure 3 is

posted to the United States Army Engineer School, Doctrine

Development Division, Web site at <http://www.wood.

army.mil/DDD>.

Engineer Publications

 FM 3-90.11 (currently FM 3-34.2), Combined Arms Mobility

Operations.

Status: Final draft.

Revision highlights: FEF modularity, mobility (breaching,

clearing, gap crossing, combat roads and trails, forward

aviation combat engineering [FACE]), IEDs, WFF;

maneuver support, urban breaching, and essential

maneuver support tasks.

 FM 3-90.12 (currently FM 90-13), Combined Arms Gap

Crossing Operations.

Status: Adjudicating the comments from the initial draft

staffing to the field.

Revision highlights: FEF modularity, reconnaissance, gap

crossing definitions, WFF, and maneuver support.

 FM 3-90.13 (currently FM 90-7), Combined Arms Obstacle

Integration.

Status: Final draft.

Revision highlights: Obstacle numbering, FEF modularity,

WFF, and maneuver support.

 FM 3-34, Engineer Operations.

Status: Initiating process to revise.

Revision highlights: FEF modularity, WFF, maneuver

support, alignment to capstone doctrine, assured mobility,

and essential maneuver support tasks.

 FM 3-34.22 (currently FM 3-34.221, FM 5-71-2, FM 5-71-3,

and FM 5-7-30), Engineer Operations - Brigade Combat

Team and Below.

Status: Writing the initial draft.

Revision highlights: FEF modularity, WFF, essential

maneuver support tasks, and assured mobility.

 FM 3-34.300 (currently FM 5-103), Survivability.

Status: Final draft.

Revision highlights: Protection, hardening, WFF, and

essential maneuver support tasks.

 FM 3-34.170 (currently FM 5-170), Engineer

Reconnaissance.

Status: Writing the initial draft.

Revision highlights: Infrastructure reconnaissance

(assessment and survey), environmental reconnaissance

(assessment and survey), and engineer reconnaissance

teams and reachback.

 FM 3-34.210 (currently FM 20-32), Explosive Hazards

Operations.

Status: Editing the final approved draft.

Revision highlights: Explosive hazards, explosive ordnance

clearance agents, search operations, IED operations,

clearance operations, landmine policy, and mine dogs.

 FM 3-34.400 (currently FM 5-104), General Engineering.

Status: Final draft.

Revision highlights: Infrastructure reconnaissance, FEF

modularity, homeland support, reachback, and WFF.

 FM 3-34.214 (currently FM 5-250), Explosives and

Demolitions.

Status: All final draft comments are adjudicated; preparing

the final approved draft.

Figure 2

Inital Numbering Convention Example
Figure 3

January-March 2006 Engineer 33
Revision highlights: Urban breaching, neutralization

terminology, and modernized demolition initiators.

 FM 3-34.480 (TM 5-422), Engineer Prime Power

Operations.

Status: All final draft comments are adjudicated; preparing

the final approved draft.

Revision highlights: Equipment and capabilities.

Related Army Publications

 FM 3-0, Operations.

Status: Writing initial draft.

 FMI 5-0.1, The Operations Process.

Status: Completed February 2006 and posted to the Army

 Knowledge Online (AKO) Web site.

 FMI 3-91, Division Operations.

Status: Doctrine review approval group (DRAG) version

currently being staffed with suspense of 6 March 2006;

action officer DRAG adjudication conference,

15-17 March 2006.

Joint Publications

 JP 3-0, Joint Operations.

Status: Final coordination of draft adjudication.

 JP 3-34, Joint Doctrine for Engineer Operations.

Status: Writing revision second draft.

 JP 3-15, Joint Doctrine for Barriers, Obstacles, and Mine

Warfare.

Status: Writing Army engineer input to revision first draft.

 JP 2-03, Geospatial Intelligence Support to Joint

Operations.

Status: Revision second draft in adjudication.

 Joint Forward Operations Base Force Protection

Handbook.

Status: Final draft edition for the quick-reaction test; starting

process to integrate into an Air, Land, Sea Application

(ALSA) multiservice tactics, techniques, and procedures

publication through the Joint Allied Doctrine Division

analysis and approval.

Regiment Involvement

As previously mentioned, keeping a diverse and large

inventory of manuals current requires effort from

across the Regiment to ensure that the engineer library

is maintained, relevant, and pertinent. What good is it to

have a manual on Arctic Construction when it is not used,

current (it was written in 1962), or relevant? Surely there

have been numerous advances in arctic construction in the

last 40 years.

 Maintaining our doctrinal library is critical to the Regiment

because it integrates engineer doctrine, organization, training,

materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF). It is our training base for educating Soldiers and

officers, as well as a ready reference while deployed and

performing missions that might not be routine. Numerous

efforts are ongoing throughout the Regiment. The Engineer

School challenges you to participate in the doctrine

development process to produce relevant and current

doctrine for our Regiment. Drafts are staffed through the

AKO portal (sergeant first class and above and major and

above). If you would like to become involved in the process,

or if you have unique expertise that would make you the

perfect SME candidate, contact the Engineer School

Doctrine Development Division at <http://www.wood.

army.mil/DDD> or call commercial, 573-563-7332/8161; or DSN,

676-7332/8161.

Conclusion

While many initiatives are in the works to change the

way we write, produce, and access Army doctrine,

there is still a need to manage, review, and update

existing manuals to ensure that they are relevant and valuable

to our Regiment. We must continue to integrate current

engineer changes into existing and new manuals. Participation

in the doctrine development process—by targeting SMEs and

working groups drafting these documents with key engineer

and maneuver-supporting perspective—is essential. With

your help, the process will meet the doctrinal needs of the

Regiment and the Future Force by maintaining a relevant,

current, consistent, and integrated library.

Lieutenant Colonel Lefler is the Chief of the Doctrine

Development Division at the United States Army Engineer

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is a registered

professional engineer in Nebraska and a Project Management

Professional.

Mr. Hell is the Deputy Chief of the Doctrine Development

Division at the United States Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

34 Engineer January-March 2006

If you would like to become involved in

the doctrine development process, contact

the Engineer School Doctrine Development

Division at <http://www.wood.army.mil/DDD>

or call commercial, 573-563-7332/8161; or

DSN, 676-7332/8161.
January-March 2006 Engineer 35

By Captain Therese L. Obidinski

Are We Preparing Our Junior Leaders for Success?

As the Senior Engineer Instructor for the Combined

Arms Division, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, I teach Field

Artillery Officer Basic Course (FAOBC) students and

serve as the 30th Field Artillery Regiment’s improvised

explosive device (IED) subject matter expert. My mission is to

advise the commander on the status of IED training and

resources for the Captain’s Career Course (CCC), Officer Basic

Course (OBC), Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC), and

Warrant Officer Course.

After much research on the ever-changing environment of

IEDs, one crucial question was raised: Are we really preparing

our junior leaders for success when they arrive at their unit,

and ultimately, when they deploy? This is a rather broad

question; part of the solution lies in adapting to tactics,

techniques, and procedures (TTP) used by the enemy and

another part on training a brand new second lieutenant—who

already has a rucksack overflowing with mandated basic

branch program of instruction (POI) requirements—on this

prolific subject. To answer this question, we had to consider

another approach that focused on the purpose of FAOBC and

the critical IED information that should be taught at the student

level with available time and resources.

The initial focus started with the purpose and scope of

FAOBC. At first, the answer seemed simple. These students

are not here to be engineer or armor officers. They are here to

be field artillery officers, and their mission is to understand

the role of the fire support officer (FSO) and how that role

relates as a member of the combined arms team. These junior

leaders will learn how to support the maneuver commander.

However, they also will learn that despite their primary

responsibility as an FSO, they could be directed to lead a

security patrol, run a checkpoint, or even provide security in a

convoy.

As these junior leaders participate in these other missions,

they will encounter IEDs. According to a Stars and Stripes

article dated 7 December 2005, as of 26 November 2005, IEDs

caused approximately 39 percent of the 2,100 U.S. fatalities in

Iraq. That’s 821 Soldiers. The same article also stated that

IEDs, along with other explosive devices, were responsible

for about 50 percent of U.S. hostile deaths in Iraq, and

explosive devices accounted for 8,452 of the U.S. troops

wounded in Iraq—about 53 percent of the total number of

hostile-fire wounds.

Unfortunately, the casualty statistics—and the enemy’s

methods—change every day; it is difficult to keep abreast of

every change. If you browse Web sites dedicated to the fallen

in Iraq, not only do you see the list of names but also the large

number of officers and especially junior officers listed among

the fallen. With the 19-week training cycle for OBC and 7-week

training cycle for BOLC II, one may ask: How do we prepare

these junior leaders for the challenges that face them, and

what tasks should we train?

Training

The United States Army Field Artillery School has

focused resources on the new Field Manual Interim

(FMI) 3-34.119, IED Defeat, dated September 2005, and

the new Convoy Survivability Training Support Package (TSP),

which outline IED collective and individual training tasks.

BOLC II training on the Convoy Survivability TSP started in

January 2006 and centers around two tasks: Identify Visual

Indicators of an IED and React to an IED.

There are 14 tasks to train, and each task has its associated

subtask. The challenge of IED training appears daunting at

first. However, it is manageable, and we as leaders must focus

on targeted training. We can’t train everything in a school

environment. These officers will receive more in-depth training

when they transition to BOLC II and unit-specific training

when they arrive at their follow-on assignment. Schoolhouse

instructors can play a larger role in assisting commanders in

the field if we train lieutenants more on basic IED tasks and

provide officers with a more logical, methodological approach

when identifying, assessing, and reacting to IEDs. This involves

communication with leaders on the ground through tools such

as open discussion forums <www.companycommand.com>,

the secret internet protocol router network (SIPRNET), the

Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), and other feedback

mechanisms to determine what leaders expect from lieutenants

when they arrive at their units and, specifically, what level of

IED awareness training we can train here from shared realworld experiences.

Resources

The United States Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri, is the proponent for IED training

and procurement. The primary training support centers

(TSCs) responsible for producing training aids are Fort Gordon,

Georgia; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Knox, Kentucky;

Fort Benning, Georgia; and Fort Lewis, Washington (regional).

The Fort Sill TSC provides resources and training aids to

Oklahoma (all counties), Arkansas (all counties), and Texas

(all counties north of Wichita Falls). Just as the Fort Sill TSC

supports other units outside of its installation, other TSCs

have their area of responsibility. Training aids are assigned on

IED Awareness Training:
TIED2 Kit, Army-Approved

36 Engineer January-March 2006

a priority basis, usually going to units that have upcoming

deployments. Coordination for training aids can be facilitated

through local TSCs. It is there to support training and will do

the necessary requisition or coordination for the training aids

and devices required.

Although there are IED training aids available, many private

contractors bid for Army contracts to develop new training

aids to keep pace with the contemporary operating

environment. The United States Army Program Executive

Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEOSTRI) is responsible for developing and fielding new training

devices and systems.

The figure below shows the new Tactical Improvised

Explosive Device 2 (TIED2) kit, an interim solution that is being

fielded across the force to assist units with realistic training.

The kit simulates the basic components of an IED, with a

remote-controlled device and a radio-frequency transmitter.

The system uses talcum powder to achieve a smoke-like

signature effect. Compressed carbon dioxide (CO2) in tanks—

the same concept as a paintball gun—is used to simulate the

effects of a roadside bomb and other types of IEDs, each with

its own unique signature effects.

Another system developed at Fort Leonard Wood is the

IED Effects Simulation (IEDES) Kit. The United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) validated the

requirement, and the requirements document is being staffed

at Department of the Army for funding in the 08-13 Program

Objective Memorandum. IEDES provides a realistic training

capability using different configurations of small, medium,

large, and extra large munitions effects. The overall intent of

the system is to help Soldiers and leaders plan, prepare, and

react to IED effects.

It is important for all leaders and trainers to have a basic

understanding of the TSC request process and to distinguish

between Army-approved versus non-Army-approved

systems. Trainers need to identify resource requirements early

and submit requests through S-3 channels to consolidate and

track requests. Higher headquarters should coordinate through

local TSCs for requests. If training aids, devices, simulators, and

simulations (TADSS) are purchased using Operations and

Maintenance, Army (OMA) funds, they have to be supported

using OMA funds throughout their life cycle. In other words, if

you purchase items through a vendor directly, you will drain

your own unit funds for restocking those items. If items are not

ordered through the Army system, the Army has no record that

there is a need for specific training aids. Therefore, the Army

will not authorize the unit additional items (they are not on the

property books), restock those items and, most importantly,

units will not be funded by the Army for those items.

Currently PEO-STRI is fielding the TIED 2 (interim solution)

on an Army Training Support Command-approved distribution

plan. TIED 2 was designed to meet a specific need to bridge

the gap in planning, preparing, and reacting to IEDs in a specific

operational theater. At this time, the only validated and

approved TADSS is the IEDES. If units procure any other

devices, it is done at their expense. In addition, using devices

that are not validated and approved is seriously risking the

safety of the Soldiers conducting the training.

Implementation

Currently, the Field Artillery School is involved in

preparing a block of instruction on IED awareness

training across the Regiment. This training will be

MGSS - main gun signature simulator

TOW - tube-launched optically tracked, wire-guided

Legend:

DIFCUE - direct/indirect-fire cue

km - kilometer

m - meter
January-March 2006 Engineer 37

inserted in a field environment where it does not distract from

mandated basic branch requirements. FAOBC students

currently receive IED awareness training that draws upon realworld examples. We are also in the process of developing a

plan to integrate and evaluate this training through situational

training exercises during the FAOBC fires and effects capstone

field training exercises. BOLC II instruction will evaluate IED

training during convoy survivability operations and forward

operating base exercises (FOBEXs).

Conclusion

The integration of IED awareness training—determining

where to insert classes and revising and evaluating

training—is an ongoing process. The enemy’s

determination to use IEDs remains strong, and the methods

are constantly evolving. If we can teach these junior officers

basic methodologies, critical thinking, and the basics of

identifying, assessing, and reacting to the IED threat, then we

are preparing them for success, no matter what the task.

According to the 2005 Army Strategic Planning Guidance,

“Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom

have shown that insurgencies can arise out of regime change

and can hinder follow-on stability operations. The current

enemy has adopted asymmetric strategies and tactics that

enable it to mitigate U.S. strengths. U.S. forces must adapt to

the new strategic environment and develop proficiencies that

counter these tactics.”

It is important to provide junior leaders with the tools to

adapt and to counter these asymmetric strategies and tactics

in a nonthreatening environment, saving valuable training time

when they arrive at their follow-on assignments. The time we

dedicate to IED and leader training here at the Field Artillery

School will help to familiarize junior leaders with the many

challenges they will face in theater and in their military career.

Focusing on leader development and critical thinking skills

will provide the Army and the nation with more adaptive and

responsive leaders at all levels.

Captain Obidinski is assigned to the 1-30th Field Artillery

Regiment, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and is the Senior Engineer

Instructor, Combined Arms Division. Previous assignments

include Commander, D Company, 3d Battalion, 10th Infantry

Regiment, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Commander,

HHC (P), Warrior Brigade, Fort Polk, Louisiana. She holds

a bachelor’s from the United States Military Academy at West

Point and a master’s in geology and geophysics from the

University of Missouri-Rolla.

possible. If you continue to operate the AISI in an INFO 26

condition or with expired batteries, you risk total loss of

the AISI’s memory or AISI failure.

You can’t replace the batteries yourself. An authorized

service center must do it. To get instructions and approval for

AISI battery replacement, contact the CommunicationsElectronics Command at DSN 987-5472 or commercial (732)

427-5472; e-mail <danny.carter@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>;

or DSN 992-9982 or commercial (732) 532-9982, e-mail <hilda.

thomas@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>. They will need the serial

numbers of your AISIs.

AISI Maintenance: Check the Batteries

Some engineer units are finding after they deploy that

their automated integrated surveying instruments

(AISIs) aren’t working right because the batteries need

to be replaced. Don’t let that happen to you! Survey the

batteries on all of your AISIs to see if their internal batteries

have been replaced in the last three years. If not, the batteries

need to be replaced. There are two ways to check:

 Look at the Trimble Battery replacement due date sticker

just below the distance meter head.

 Turn the power on and look for INFO 26 in the display. If it

is, then the batteries need to be replaced as soon as

Look at replacement due date sticker... ...or check for INFO 26 in the display

INFO 26

By Mr. Danny A. Carter
38 Engineer January-March 2006

I

n the past year of the nation’s ongoing Global War on

Terrorism, United States Air Force personnel have been

called on more and more to deploy to overseas billets in

support of United States Army ground forces in Iraq and

Afghanistan. These positions include numerous engineer

specialties such as explosive ordnance disposal (EOD),

engineer design teams, utility teams, and firefighters.

In order to prepare these joint fighters for the complex,

dangerous ground combat environment in both Iraq and

Afghanistan, the 2d Brigade, 91st Division (Training Support)

(2-91st TSB), conducts the Army’s 3-week Combat Skills

Training (CST) course at Fort Carson, Colorado. The

1st Battalion, 361st Engineer Regiment (Task Force Redhawk),

is currently executing its 15th CST rotation, training another

group of deploying Air Force personnel how to shoot, move,

communicate, and save lives.

Task Force Redhawk, the 2-91st TSB’s engineer training

battalion, was originally designed to help train and advise

United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard combat

engineer and bridging units in the brigade’s area of operations.

Following 9/11, the task force observer-controller/trainers

(OC/Ts) initially provided mobilization assistance and collective

training to many of the engineer companies and battalions. In

the 11 months from May 2004 to April 2005, the battalion

deployed with the brigade to Fort Bliss, Texas, to conduct

postmobilization training for two complete brigade combat

teams. While these combined arms teams included organic

engineers, the task force’s role expanded to encompass urban

operations—including dismounted infantry and mounted

patrol operations—for maneuver task forces, supporting

engineers and maintenance formations (see “Urban Operations

Training at the Power Projection Platform ‘Welcome to Al

Wadi,’” Engineer, July-September 2005, pp. 7-10).

 Returning to Fort Carson in April 2005 with a highly

professional and experienced OC/T corps, Task Force Redhawk

assumed primary responsibility for the brigade’s Joint Service

Training Oversight (JSTO) Program, which includes the Air

Force CST course. The mission not only would include

instruction in basic combat skills but also would teach Air

Force personnel to form combat teams capable of executing

Army battle drills and operating while attached to Army ground

forces. The task force completed seven CST rotations, training

more than 1,000 Airmen by the end of 2005.

Feedback from deployed Air Force engineer leaders from

the JSTO-13 class that graduated in December 2005 (shown as

quotations throughout this article) has validated the

importance of team building during the CST course. Typically,

the Airmen filling these joint engineer teams are drawn from

bases all across the world. The CST course is often the first

opportunity officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs)

have to learn the personalities and assess the capabilities of

those they will be with in theater.

“Training together as a team helped us to be ready when

we arrived. We knew our team. If we just showed up in the

area of responsibility from all our different bases, we would

have had to come together as a team. Your training put us

three weeks ahead of where we would have been.”

By Lieutenant Colonel John C. McClellan
January-March 2006 Engineer 39

Another key aspect of the training is the cultural shift for

Air Force personnel who must become quickly immersed in

Army doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP).

Army troop-leading procedures (TLP), precombat inspections

(PCIs) and precombat checks (PCCs), battle drills, and combat

patrol standing operating procedures (SOPs)—ingrained in

Army Soldiers from basic training forward—can be foreign

and confusing to joint service members.

“It taught us how to talk Army. We are far outnumbered by

Army where we work. We replaced an Army National Guard

unit, and it helped to know something about Army culture so

we could hit the ground running. We are working directly for

the Army. It helped me fit in quickly among the Army command

sergeants major at other camps.”

More than just understanding Army acronyms, deploying

Air Force leaders also need to understand Army tactical

mission planning and execution. Therefore, the CST course

includes a daylong seminar on the military decision-making

process, Army TLP, and PCIs. Beyond Army “culture shock,”

deploying Airmen must also understand the culture and

customs of two vastly different Muslim societies. During the

CST course, Air Force personnel receive briefings on customs,

culture, and a threat situation tailored to their theater location.

The Airmen in the current CST class will be stationed

throughout Iraq and Afghanistan in a variety of roles. Some of

these engineers will occupy field offices within Army facilities,

while others—like EOD teams and firefighters—will operate

directly out of Army forward operating bases (FOBs) in areas

of operations where the threat of insurgent attack from

improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is a daily reality. The CST

course is designed to prepare everyone deploying for this

dangerous environment. Expert counter-IED instruction from

Task Force Redhawk’s engineer OC/Ts is the first subject

taught in the CST program. The Airmen are then issued a

“training fleet” of Army M1114 high-mobility multipurpose

wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) and must operate in a simulated

IED-threat environment for the remainder of the training at

Fort Carson.

Airmen in the CST course receive 4 days of intensive Army

Combat Lifesaver (CLS) training. While the Air Force teaches

basic first aid, similar to Army buddy aid, Airmen in CLS learn

advanced first aid techniques. The CLS phase includes

familiarizing Air Force personnel with the Army medical

evacuation (MEDEVAC) process, including the standard

9-line MEDEVAC request.

“We used the 9-line procedure when a bus rolled over just

outside of camp. Training was important because 1 passenger

was killed and 21 were wounded.”

Airmen in the CST course then complete several more days

of basic Army combat skills, including day/night driver’s

training on the HMMWV, Army communication procedures

and equipment, and mounted/dismounted land navigation.

Again, most Airmen are unfamiliar with basic Army small-unit

equipment such as the Single-Channel Ground-to-Air Radio

System (SINCGARS), frequency-modulated (FM) radio, and

Precision Lightweight Global Positioning System (GPS)

receiver (PLGR). Similarly, Air Force officers and NCOs tend to

be more familiar with joint operations graphics than with the

tactical maps used by most Army combat patrols. Task Force

Redhawk’s land navigation training also includes terrain

analysis and the traditional engineer emphasis on

understanding terrain through observation and fields of fire,

avenues of approach, key terrain, obstacles, and cover and

concealment (OAKOC) factors.

Next, JSTO Airmen tackle the lethality phase of the course,

conducting premarksmanship instruction followed by range

qualification for individual and crew-served weapons. Army

rifle marksmanship is always a new experience for Airmen,

The combat patrol live-fire exercise

allows Air Force leaders to plan a

combat mission while Airmen test

their ability to engage enemy targets

in open and urban terrain.
40 Engineer January-March 2006

who routinely qualify on paper targets at only 25 meters, while

Army ranges feature “pop-up” target silhouettes in lanes at

distances of 50 to 300 meters. This tests the Airmen’s ability to

scan, acquire, and engage multiple targets at true distances,

using the full effective range of their weapons for perhaps the

first time in their careers. The Air Force CST includes

familiarization and qualification with the M249 squad automatic

weapon and M240B machine gun, as well as an introduction

to the M2 .50-caliber machine gun and the MK-19 grenade

launcher. JSTO Airmen also conduct familiarization fire on the

Army’s short-range marksmanship course, testing their ability

to fight their individual weapons systems effectively against

enemy forces within 25 meters. The lethality phase concludes

with classroom instruction on the most common threat

weapons systems, including the AK-series automatic rifle and

rocket-propelled grenades.

Air force personnel all appreciate the critical part that

weapons training played in their deployment preparation.

“Weapons familiarization has paid off because we are

armed whenever we travel. Many times Air Force personnel

are lacking in weapons training and the Army team built

great confidence in this area. The Air Force is changing its

approach, and our basic training has been extended to place

more emphasis on it.”

The shoot, move, communicate, and save lives

fundamentals all come into play in the final phase of the CST

program, known as the combat patrol live-fire exercise. After

two full days of practical exercises, rehearsals, and battle drills,

the class is broken into groups of 20 to 25 personnel,

occupying four to five HMMWVs. They are given a tactical

mission requiring a patrol movement from one FOB to another.

The live-fire exercise allows Air Force leaders to plan a combat

mission while Airmen test their ability to engage enemy targets

in open and urban terrain while mounted and moving. During

the exercise, combat patrols encounter mock IEDs, react to

ambushes, hastily recover damaged vehicles, and treat and

then evacuate (simulated) casualties.

The CST course wraps up with an after-action review,

followed by a course graduation and departure ceremony. At

this ceremony, the Deputy Commanding General of Fort Carson

reminds Airmen what is at stake during their upcoming

deployment. “The environment is dangerous and the enemy

is constantly adapting,” he is known to say, “so every one of

you has to be situationally aware and prepared to use the

training you have had here at Fort Carson to save not only

your own life but the lives of your team.” His words are a

fitting send-off for these joint warriors, who are headed into

harm’s way.

Lieutenant Colonel McClellan served with 2-91st TSB for eight

months as the brigade executive officer before assuming command

of the 1-361st Engineer Battalion (Training Support) in June 2004.

Previous assignments include platoon leader, company commander,

and battalion S-3. He has served combat tours in Operations Desert

Shield, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom and has had overseas

experience in Europe, the Balkans, Korea, and Central America.

platoon was astounding, as demonstrated by its flexibility,

speed, and seemingly effortless execution of the mission.

Summary

Soldiers from 4th Platoon demonstrated that engineer

Reserve units are well-trained and well-led; the ability

to effectively conduct troop-leading procedures

contributed to its success. The platoon would continue to

capture terrorists and fight alongside of tanks, Bradleys, and

infantrymen with Alpha Company. Sometimes, Reserve units

do not have the same level of equipment as an Active Army

unit, so cross-leveling of equipment is recommended.

When it came to the Soldiers of 4th Platoon interacting

with other Soldiers in the company, there was never any

question on their competence. It used to be the perception of

some people in the military that USAR and Army National

Guard forces were just a cut below the Active Army forces.

The men of 4th Platoon destroyed that stereotype. Friendships

were instantly formed between platoons with 3d Platoon,

Charlie Company, 458th Engineer Battalion, calling themselves

“fourth platoon” before anyone in the company identified them

as such.

Once demobilized, the Soldiers of 3d Platoon, Charlie

Company, 458th Engineer Battalion, went back to their

premobilization lives. But the assistance of the Soldiers of 4th

Platoon allowed Alpha Company to accomplish its mission

with might and honor.

Captain Edmonds served as commander of Alpha

Company, 91st Engineer Battalion.

Captain Stone served as executive officer of Alpha

Company, 91st Engineer Battalion.

First Lieutenant Restrepo served as the leader of 1st

Platoon, Alpha Company, 91st Engineer Battalion.

First Lieutenant Heaton served as the leader of 2d Platoon,

Alpha Company, 91st Engineer Battalion.

Many post offices will not deliver mail without a street

address. Please contact us to update your mailing

address if the one we are using for you does not include

a street address. Include the old address and your

telephone number, as well as the corrected address, and

e-mail to <engineer@wood.army.mil>.

Attention Units!

(“One Team,” continued from page 13)
January-March 2006 Engineer 41

Born out of the need for a field-expedient change

detection system to aid in spotting improvised

explosive devices (IEDs), the BuckEye system has

rapidly evolved from the initial prototype—based on electrooptical (EO) sensing—to a system using both high-resolution

EO and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) imagery to

produce highly detailed and accurate elevation data for better

visualizing the battlefield.

BuckEye is a rapidly fielded, spiral development program

of the United States Army Corps of Engineers®, Engineer

Research and Development Center-Topographic Engineering

Center (ERDC-TEC). BuckEye provides Soldiers with highquality battlefield information through high-resolution

imagery; geospatial intelligence; elevation data; intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); and detailed maps of

the urban area of interest.

The BuckEye system is fully functional. Platform

independent, the aerial system operates on a variety of

vehicles. The latest application of the BuckEye system is flying

with the newly integrated LIDAR sensor, which creates highresolution digital elevation models. Currently, the images are

quickly compressed, georeferenced, and tied together to form

a mosaic. During post processing, the submeter resolution

color images can be correlated to the LIDAR data to create

exceptionally accurate, high-resolution three-dimensional

maps of cities. These high-resolution maps can be used to

help Soldiers visualize threats on the battlefield, conduct

BuckEye Continues to Spiral

to New Heights

By Ms. Karen Roberts

Sensor Suite

Urban Tactical Planner Image

(Continued on page 46)
42 Engineer January-March 2006

Our adaptive adversaries in Afghanistan and Iraq

continually challenge our ability to forecast future

enemy activity and develop tactical plans. To meet

these challenges, commanders and staffs need new tools that

take advantage of the vast amount of information available to

our troops.

The past decade has seen geographic information systems

(GIS) move into the mainstream of tactical analysis. GIS are

powerful tools that enable Soldiers in the field to collect, store,

and analyze spatial information. Spatial information—where

things are in relation to other things—has been a critical part of

military planning as long as there has been war. And since almost

every aspect of military operations has a spatial component, the

range of potential GIS applications is almost endless.

One activity that GIS are particularly well-suited to help with is

spatial-pattern recognition. Because GIS can make thousands or

millions of distance calculations in minutes, analysts can now

uncover and exploit patterns that might otherwise remain hidden.

As seen in Figure 1, spatial patterns are present in many types of

human behavior regardless of the scale. The unaided human eye

can detect these patterns and groupings, but it usually requires

the power of computers to help the analyst turn those patterns

into tactically useful information.

Threat Mapper

I

n May 2004, the Army asked the United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Analysis

Center (TRAC) to assess the potential that spatial analysis

provides in forecasting the locations of future mortar attacks.

The initial results were quite promising, and TRAC—in

collaboration with the Engineer Research and Development

Center–Topographic Engineering Center (ERDC-TEC)—began

the development of Threat Mapper, a computer program to

help analysts in the field make spatial forecasts in support of

tactical intelligence operations.

Threat Mapper is designed for use at the tactical level,

although it can be used at any echelon. Soldiers can use

Threat Mapper to help with a variety of spatial forecasting

and identification problems such as mortar attacks, weapons

caches, and safe houses. Threat Mapper uses advanced

pattern analysis techniques to measure the spatial similarity

between an area of interest and an observed behavior. The

results of that measurement are presented to the analyst in

a threat map, which helps the staff build a more informed

intelligence estimate and better plan intelligence, surveillance,

and reconnaissance (ISR) and tactical operations (see

Figure 2). Threat Mapper helps analysts recognize and adapt

to changes in adversary behavior, even when that adversary

is actively trying to appear random.

Threat Mapper currently functions as an add-in tool for

ArcGIS, a commercially available GIS. ERDC–TEC’s future

plans for Threat Mapper include a Web-enabled version, as

well as integrating spatial-forecasting methods into current

and planned Army geospatial programs.

Tactical Forecasting

T.

o illustrate how Threat Mapper can be used in the

field, we built a simple threat map for an area that has

had numerous mortar attacks. Figure 3 shows forward

operating bases, roads, rivers, and the attacks that occurred

in the area. These mortar attacks are the behavior of interest,

meaning that the threat map will help us identify other locations

probable for such attacks.

We first selected the features on which to measure spatial

similarity. In reality, there is an almost endless list of spatial

features, such as roads, buildings, and forests. In most cases,

knowing which spatial feature to use is the most important

and challenging task facing the analyst. Threat Mapper has

several tools to help Soldiers determine the best set of features,

but—as usual—experience, knowledge, and hard work are the

best ingredients to build a successful intelligence product.

Using the Threat Mapper tools, and a little trial-and-error, we

will find a set of useful features.

Spatial Forecasting in Operations Enduring Freedom

and Iraqi Freedom

Templating an Adaptive Threat

By Lieutenant Colonel Stephen R. Riese

Figure 1. Patterns at various scales
January-March 2006 Engineer 43

One way to help measure the threat map’s accuracy, is to

see how well the map forecasts future behavior. In real life,

new attacks would tell us if the threat map is a good forecaster

or not. Here, we will use the recent historical attacks to play

the analytic role of new attacks. To do this, Threat Mapper

splits the data, using the early attacks to build or train the

threat map and the recent attacks to check or test the accuracy

of the threat map. After providing Threat Mapper more details

about the data and requirements for the desired map output,

the analyst hits the “go” button and lets the GIS go to work.

The result is the printed map in Figure 1.

The Road Ahead

The Threat Mapper tool is currently developed as a

deployable package in beta form. It has been tested in

a variety of situations by the military, academia, and

government. Recently, a team led by the ERDC Cold Regions

Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) trained Army

geospatial and intelligence analysts on a suite of deployable

tools, including Threat Mapper. The analysts’ training with

these tools will provide valuable feedback to Threat Mapper

developers at ERDC–TEC and CRREL.

Conclusion

A word of caution: There is a great deal of uncertainty

about when and where the next attack, of any kind,

will occur. Threat Mapper can help analysts in the

field build a more informed intelligence estimate, but no tool

can yet predict exactly when and where the next attack will be.

Also, Threat Mapper will not replace Soldier analysts in the

field. What Threat Mapper will do is provide analysts in the

field with a powerful spatial-forecasting tool to help them better

analyze threat activity and thereby gain an information edge

against the adaptive enemy.

Lieutenant Colonel Riese is a combat engineer and

operations research analyst with the United States Strategic

Command at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. He has worked

with maps and spatial analysis in one form or another for

most of his life.

Figure 2. Threat Mapper application from enemy behavior to threat map to tactical plan

Figure 3. History of mortar attacks

Enemy Behavior Threat Map Tactical Plan

Figure 4. Example threat map with scale
44 Engineer January-March 2006

S

oldiers with a terrain analysis detachment in Iraq provide

maps and terrain analysis to the corps support command

(COSCOM) and its subordinate units to help them

accomplish their missions. The detachment, part of an active

duty brigade, is on its first deployment with a COSCOM. The

detachment was chosen after working with the COSCOM on

two field exercises.

The detachment works near the COSCOM headquarters,

making maps or creating overlays that give information on soil

type, vegetation, and hydrology that are in a specific area.

Soldiers can use this information to understand the types of

roads, rivers, or canals they might be dealing with, as well as

the depth or slope of the terrain. There are tactical applications

for this knowledge, but it can also help coalition forces give

By Sergeant Mitchell J. Armbruster

the Iraqi people vital information to help them stimulate their

economy.

The detachment can determine where vehicles can travel

by soil type; they have a scale that ranges from go, slow-go,

to no-go. By making these determinations, the terrain analysts

can give units the vital information they need to make a mission

successful.

The detachment makes hard copy maps or transfers the

maps digitally to other parts of the COSCOM when needed.

Their business is dictated by customer requests, and they

have been extremely busy. Many units, after seeing the maps

and products, have put in requests for their own maps.

Any map can be adapted to the needs of a unit. Most of the

time, the team will use a map that is already made and add

specific items to it. If items on the map—such as boundaries,

buildings, or roads—have changed drastically, the map is

reproduced. Terrain analysis is an ever-changing job because

maps must be updated constantly.

Many things are involved with terrain analysis, such as

cover and concealment and drop zones, that help U.S. forces

secure victory with topographic analysis. The analysts in the

detachment know that the work they do helps units and all

Soldiers be successful.

Sergeant Armbruster is a public affairs specialist for the

207th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, Fort Collins,

Colorado. He holds a bachelor’s in filmmaking and is

working on a second degree.

Mapmakers

Scope Out

Iraqi Terrain

Terrain analysts work on customer projects
January-March 2006 Engineer 45

A flock of young shorebirds spread their wings and fly

away from their nests on East Inlet Island in the Long

Island Intracoastal Waterway in New York for their

first major flight south for the winter. A few years ago, this

wouldn’t have occurred because many of these birds are

threatened and endangered. It’s a reality now because people

from several agencies put their minds together and created a

project that not only benefits wildlife but their team players as

well.

In 2002, the United States Army Corps of Engineers®, New

York District—in cooperation with several environmental,

state, and local agencies—created a wildlife habitat on this

island for threatened and endangered bird species, using

dredged sand from the waterway. Sand is regularly dredged to

ease boat travel.

This sand was placed on the mainland in the past, but Long

Island’s growing residential and business developments have

limited land space. So the team of agencies had to think of

another location, and they decided on an environmentally

beneficial one.

For the past few years, shorebirds—such as least terns,

common terns, piping plovers, and roseate terns—have

colonized, nested, and bred on this island, demonstrating an

example of how the Corps is collaborating with partnering

agencies to produce successful environmental projects.

In the past, the dredging projects have been criticized by

the public for affecting endangered shorebird habitats. Once

the Corps proposed creating a bird habitat with the dredged

sand, it received enthusiastic support. Some of the most vocal

critics turned around and actually supported the innovative

things the Corps was doing.

Performing environmentally friendly projects is hard at first

but—in the end—is beneficial to all involved. The following

are benefits that can be expected:

 Strengthens customer relationships. When customers,

such as environmental agencies, see the positive results

of environmentally aware projects, it increases their trust.

As a result, these customers—who may have been

originally wary—may be more open to providing ideas for

improving the project.

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Environmental Awareness Is for the Birds...

and Everyone Else!

East Inlet Island

Photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service–Long Island Field Office
46 Engineer January-March 2006

 Builds public trust. When the public realizes that their

quality of life has been enhanced in ways above and beyond

the ones originally envisioned for the project, their trust

and support of the project increases.

 Saves time and money. Performing an environmentally

aware project is hard at first, but it gets easier. In the

beginning, you may find yourself educating and

convincing an organization of the benefits of the project.

Trust must be built with environmental groups and agencies

so they have confidence in what is being done. Once a

project becomes a success story, the efficiency increases

because it is easier for you to do the project. For example,

it is less difficult to secure permits from the local people,

and support for the project increases, which saves time

and money.

 Expands engineer skills. You will experience a wider

breadth of professional experience in the environmental

field and gain personal satisfaction that you are doing

good things, smart things.

 Produces better projects. A successful project receives

increased customer support, allowing it to be produced

more efficiently. Customers who are happy with the project

will be open to providing ideas and suggestions for

improvement and will work to remove potential project

barriers, such as securing permits, saving the project time

and money.

To be more environmentally aware, do the following:

 Talk and listen. Talk with the local people and resource

agencies to get to know them, and listen to find out what

they value and what their issues are. Put your head

together with individuals who have ideas on how to make

the project more environmentally friendly. This not only

brings fresh ideas into the mix but also improves

relationships with these individuals and groups.

 Research. Check out the Web sites of the major agencies

or groups that you plan to work with, which will provide

you their mission and priorities and might give you ideas.

Being environmentally friendly in projects requires

innovation and creative thinking. As with any innovative or

creative endeavor, it helps to have input from several different

viewpoints. You cannot do this without including people who

do not see the world as you do. The management of the group

dynamics is the hard part—gaining individual trust and making

the diverse group productive.

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

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

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

mission planning, augment target folders, check on project

status for the Corps’s reconstruction projects, and gain a better

understanding of the urban terrain.

BuckEye can be used to help increase security by capturing

imagery throughout designated areas. This imagery gives the

terrain a realistic look as to where features are in relation to the

known landmarks. To a terrain analyst, BuckEye provides

immense benefits with its imagery platform.

Army commanders are recognizing the benefits of having

high-quality geospatial intelligence prior to executing their

missions. The commander of the 1/25th Stryker Brigade Combat

Team (SBCT) reported on one of these benefits. He said that

Mosul is a teeming city of two million, making it easy for

insurgents to hide and build vehicle-borne improvised

explosive devices (VBIEDs) and IEDs out of sight. But the

SBCT has the highest percentage of found VBIEDs and IEDs

in Iraq, because it uses its assets to see first, before just

running in, which was the way of the past.

Similarly, BuckEye is used to improve the Soldiers’

situational awareness by providing them with highly accurate

imagery that can be used to produce current, high-resolution

reference graphics and image maps. It provides accurate and

high-resolution geospatial information for terrain analysis,

operating environment visualization, and change detection to

assist the warfighter in achieving dominance of the battlefield.

BuckEye information is already being incorporated into the

Urban Tactical Planner. According to the BuckEye program

manager, the goal is to see the BuckEye system fielded with

every Army terrain team to ensure that Soldiers have the edge

they need to win the war.

Ms. Roberts is a public affairs specialist with the Engineer

Research and Development Center–Topographic

Engineering Center. She has been providing public affairs

support to the Army for the past five years. She holds a

bachelor’s in social science and a master’s in public affairs.

BuckEye With LIDAR

(“BuckEye,” continued from page 41)
January-March 2006 Engineer 47

Recently, on a cool, breezy morning on the Glen Cove

waterfront in New York, the city’s mayor stated to the

public and media that as she stood before them, the

last truckload of radioactive waste was being hauled from that

property, clearing the way for a new waterfront development.

Standing beside her were members of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); United States Army

Corps of Engineers®, New York District; and state and local

agencies that played major roles in making this milestone a

reality for the small community.

Li Tungsten Superfund Site

T.

he Li Tungsten Superfund Site is comprised of the

former Li Tungsten facility; the Captain’s Cove

property, which was used as a disposal site for some

of the facility’s waste; and the Glen Cove Creek, which was

contaminated with slag from the facility operations. For

decades, the 1-mile industrialized portion of the Glen Cove

waterfront was occupied by various industries, and a portion

was used as a dumping ground. All of this occurred before the

establishment of the strict environmental laws we have today.

Wah Chang Corporation and Wah Chang Smelting and

Refining Company were two of these companies. Ironically,

Wah Chang means “great development” (in part) in Chinese,

and these companies—along with others such as the Li

Tungsten Corporation—ran facilities on different portions of

the site from the 1940s to the mid-1980s.

These facilities processed tungsten, a material used in

industry to harden steel. The tungsten ores were received

from around the world and smelted to produce items such as

tungsten carbide powder, tungsten wire, and welding rods.

The heavy metals and radioactive ore residues from this

production process contaminated the property.

In the mid-1980s, the Li Tungsten Corporation—the last in

a series of site operators—went bankrupt, and the property

was purchased by the Glen Cove Development Corporation.

New York State asked the EPA Region 2 to investigate the

property’s land and nine buildings and to remove any

contaminated waste left by the company.

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Li Tungsten

New York
48 Engineer January-March 2006

The EPA found large quantities of hazardous materials, such

as laboratory chemicals and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-

contaminated waste, in hundreds of rusted drums and in

above- and belowground tanks. In addition, they discovered

asbestos, transformers, and gas cylinders containing

compressed liquids and gases, as well as elemental mercury

spills on the property. An EPA contractor had the site

remediated, and the most serious chemical and radioactive

hazards were removed.

The EPA investigation also found low-level radiation and

heavy metal contamination—posing a public health risk—in

the soil throughout the 26-acre Li Tungsten facility, as well as

in the nearby 23-acre Captain’s Cove property that had been

used as a dumping ground by area businesses and residents.

Corps Assists EPA

I

n the spring of 2005, the EPA issued an Interagency

Agreement with the Corps’s New York District to perform

remediation work at the Captain’s Cove portion of the Li

Tungsten Superfund Site. The work was performed by the

Corps’s Kansas City District, which was responsible for

excavating the soil, separating the radioactive and metalcontaminated soil from the noncontaminated soil, and

transporting the contaminated soil to appropriately licensed

disposal facilities.

Approximately 87,500 tons of radioactive soil and 35,000

tons of metal-contaminated soil have been removed from the

site and transported to disposal facilities. This cleanup, along

with the future cleanup of other areas of the site, must be

completed to allow for the development of the waterfront.

Throughout the construction period, the public has been

protected from any potential health threats by monitoring the

air quality and inspecting and cleaning trucks that enter and

leave the property.

Waterfront Development

The Li Tungsten Superfund Site properties are the

centerpiece for the community’s plans to revitalize 214

acres of the city’s waterfront. Glen Cove Industrial

Development Agency’s goal is to link the city’s nearby

downtown shopping area with the waterfront. Thirty percent

of the development will be comprised of parks, public squares,

nature walks, and botanical gardens. Pedestrian-friendly

walking paths will be lined with restaurants, art galleries, stores,

and hotels. In addition, there will be luxury condominiums and

various modes of public transportation (trolleys, electric carts,

water taxis, and ferry service) to New York City.

The waterfront development is expected to create as many

as 1,700 new full-time jobs and bring in new business that will

generate an estimated $200 million in annual sales. The Glen

Cove waterfront development is expected to be completed in

a decade.

To learn more about the waterfront development, visit

<www.glencove-li.com> or for information about Superfund,

visit the EPA Web site at <www.epa.gov/superfund>.

Dr. JoAnne Castagna is a technical writer/editor with the

United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.

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

An aerial view of the Li

Photo by Mark Pane, EPA

Tungsten Captain’s Cove Site
January-March 2006 Engineer 49

Environmental compliance officers (ECOs) in Iraq face

big challenges. They deal with issues such as

hazardous waste; radioactive lightning arrestors;

petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) spills and contaminated

soils; and hazardous waste pickups. In addition, ECOs oversee

hazardous material and waste storage, wastewater/sewage

facilities, burn-pit/trash operations, and fuel storage. They

conduct environmental assessments, environmental baseline

surveys, cultural and archeological resource protection

programs (there are more than 8,000 of these sites in theater),

endangered-species management, and environmental site

closure of bases. Environmental training is the key to enabling

ECOs to appropriately manage these issues.

After serving as a civil/structural engineer for the past five

years with the 99th Regional Readiness Command, I was

assigned to Iraq to oversee the country’s ECO program. To

garner command emphasis for ECO appointments and training,

I prepared an ECO fragmentary order (FRAGO) for staffing

with the Multinational Corps-Iraq (MNC-I). The FRAGO

(Training for Major Subordinate Command [MSC] and Base

Camp Environmental Compliance Officers) was approved and

made part of the MNC-I operation order (OPORD). The purpose

of this FRAGO was to identify and train an ECO at the MSC

level and at least one ECO on each forward operating base/

base camp in theater.

Wanting to ensure that all appointed ECOs received the

appropriate training, I contacted the Directorate of

Environmental Integration (DEI), United States Army Engineer

School, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and requested

assistance in making training available to all the ECOs stationed

in Iraq.

One training option is for MNC-I C-7 (engineer section)

Environmental to deliver classroom training to ECOs in theater

that need certification or recertification. With the support of

the information management section, Soldiers also have the

option of accessing the ECO course on the MNC-I C-7

Environmental Web site or through Army Knowledge Online

(AKO). The third training option is a compact disk (CD)

developed by DEI that contains the ECO course and test.

MNC-I C-7 would provide each MSC several of these CDs,

and the respective MSC ECO would be responsible for

distributing the course, tracking the test results, and submitting

the results to MNC-I C-7 on the provided ECO spreadsheet.

Soldiers must receive a minimum score of 70 percent on the

test to become ECO-qualified. The MNC-I C-7 will submit all

Environmental Compliance

Officers in Iraq

By Major Kenneth D. Kozak

Constructing an incinerator
50 Engineer January-March 2006

passing scores and names to the Army Training Support

Center, at Fort Eustis, Virginia, for credit.

I am also working to provide support through an information

network for ECOs. A previous FRAGO (Hazardous Materials

and Hazardous Waste Procedures) to MNC-I OPORD requires

that all bases appoint an ECO. Each MSC should have a list of

ECOs for the forward operating bases/base camps. If there is

not a current list, Task No. 5 of a recent FRAGO reinforces the

order to comply by stating that not only will

all ECOs be identified and trained, but a chain

of command to address environmental

concerns, problems, and any questions will

be established. The ECOs have reachback

capability to MNC-I C-7 if an environmental

issue does occur or questions arise.

It is a challenge for the ECO Soldiers

stationed in Iraq, who use the Overseas

Environmental Baseline Guidance Document

(OEBGD), the United States Army Forces

Central Command (ARCENT), and MNC-I C-7

Environmental standing operating procedures

as the standard for environmental issues.

Currently, there are no environmental

guidelines set by the government of Iraq. But with training

and an information network, the ECOs are providing a better

environment to sustain the mission and secure the future for

our Soldiers and the Iraqi people.

Major Kozak, a reserve engineer officer, is the environmental officer assigned to the MNC-I C-7 office in Iraq. He

holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from Penn State.

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 Web site must be

accompanied by copyright permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content of

the article. Also include a short biography, including your full

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

assignments, experience, and education; your mailing

address; and a fax number and commercial daytime

telephone number.

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 or telephone number. All

articles accepted for publication are subject to grammatical

and structural changes as well as editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <engineer@wood.

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

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

Engineer Professional Bulletin, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite

348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being

considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited

space per issue, we usually do not print articles that have

been accepted for publication by other Army professional

bulletins.

○○○○○○ The Engineer Writer’s Guide ○○○○○○

A new sewage treatment plant
January-March 2006 Engineer 51

The 618th Engineer Company (Light Equipment)

(Airborne) completed the first dedicated tactical

unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) landing zone on Fort

Bragg in early August 2005. The project has long been needed

to provide training space for the TUAV aircraft. Named “Ram

Landing Zone,” it was constructed with the installation support

of the Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM) section

of Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM)—an element

of the Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization. The

618th completed the landing zone, which covered just less

than 5 acres, in approximately 5 weeks—a quick turnaround

for a multiagency project.

Selecting a Site

The 82d Airborne Division’s pinnacle event each training

quarter is the joint forcible-entry exercise (JFEX) that

includes United States Air Force aircraft dropping

personnel and equipment and possible support from A-10s or

other attack aircraft. This brigade combat team (BCT)-level

event includes airborne operations followed by air-land

support into a drop zone’s landing zone to build combat power

for the exercise. The 313th Military Intelligence Battalion’s

TUAV platoons participate in the JFEX, but they needed their

own training space. The airspace coordination required that

the TUAV flight path be a given distance away from the Fort

Bragg training area boundary and situated where it would

have little effect on Army aviation airspace or artillery restricted

operations zones to fire through when the TUAV was launched

or landed.

Once range control decided to allow the construction of

the landing zone at Ram Drop Zone, the next task was to fit the

landing zone within the area around the endangered wildlife

and plants, marshes, and perimeter tree line and in line with

the prevailing wind. The TUAV specifications also require a

clear area at the ends of the landing zone.

Design Criteria

The requirements for a TUAV launch-and-recovery site

are more stringent than most of the specifications for

expeditionary aircraft (for example, the C-130 Hercules)

primarily because of the nature of the Shadow 200 TUAV. But

even though the landing zone would be built as a launch-andrecovery site, it is described as a landing zone because it can

still be used to land small aircraft, if required.

Project Design

Construction of the landing zone began soon after the

project was approved by the division as a good concept and

worth applying funding toward. The initial courses of action

consisted of three possibilities:

By Captain Stephen C. Amato

Constructing the First TUAV

Landing Zone on Fort Bragg

Drainage swale and checkdams provide drainage for the

landing zone.
52 Engineer January-March 2006

 An aggregate subgrade on geotextile with a clay cap.

 An aggregate subgrade on geotextile with a stabilized clay

cap.

 An aggregate subgrade on geotextile with a concrete cap.

The primary problem with all of these courses of action

was cost, and after much consideration, the third one was

deemed the only affordable solution. During the discussions

over funding sources for the site, a new idea emerged. ITAM

personnel asked if it would be feasible for the 618th Engineer

Company to clear and grub, then grade and level, the site. A

contractor would be hired to stabilize the in-place surface of

the landing zone, using ITAM tillers and the 618th’s

Caterpillar® CS-433C Type III “Z-lite” steel drum vibratory

rollers. The LRAM section would assist with runway

stabilization and erosion control measurements—further

reducing the cost—and would coordinate with the North

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

of Fayetteville and Raleigh for compliance with state

regulations and policies. Lastly, ITAM would fund hydroseeding of the area around the landing zone to provide soil

stabilization.

ITAM contacted Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., Canton,

Ohio (because of the company’s ability to stabilize soil using

custom-made emulsions), and a Midwest chemist visited the

site and took soil samples in order to prepare an admixture for

the landing zone. The material used would consist of polyvinyl

acetate acrylic polymer emulsion known as Soil Sement®.

When this customized mixture is added to the native soil, the

material provides a dense, compacted surface. The benefits of

such a runway are that it requires little maintenance for long

periods of time, eliminates the need for dust control, and can

be used during inclement weather. Many Midwest products

have been approved by the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and are in the General Services Administration catalog. These include dust suppressants, additives

for improved asphalt road longevity, and a high-mobility

multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) dust control water

distributor.

Project Timeline

Clearing and grubbing the site required several days. This

operation, which was fairly straightforward, involved removing

all the organic material from the site. The initial topographical

survey completed by the company’s surveyors revealed the

site to be generally flat, but it still required a considerable

amount of cut-and-fill operations to build the needed drainage

and slope for the landing zone. The grading and leveling of

the landing zone required the company to manage the poor

water percolation on-site with drainage swales and check-dams

to prevent soil erosion on and off the project site.

Once the 618th brought the site to the proper grade, it

compacted the surface in preparation for the stabilization

phase. ITAM used its offset disk tillers and scarified the landing

zone surface, and Midwest followed the tillers with its applicator

truck—applying roughly 18,000 gallons of Soil Sement to the

surface of the soon-to-be landing zone. The 618th then graded

the tilled soil to a level grade and followed up with Caterpillar

CS-433C rollers (without using the vibrator) for compaction.

The stabilized landing zone was allowed to “cure” for 24 hours

before Midwest sprayed a final surface application of 1,500

gallons of Soil Sement, which sealed the surface and provided

additional strength.

Training With the Landing Zone

The first training exercise at Ram Landing Zone was

during the August 2005 JFEX. The TUAVs were

integrated into the ground tactical plan of the JFEX

without affecting the air coordination of numerous airborne

drops of personnel and equipment that same week.

The 313th Military Intelligence Battalion is proposing

additional facilities adjacent to the landing zone, which will

improve the overall value of the site. These include a covered

TUAV maintenance area, an improved vehicle parking area,

and a power/telephone drop.

The landing zone project was a resounding success. It

served as a realistic training event for the Soldiers of the 618th

Engineer Company, facilitated realistic TUAV training, and

improved TUAV training locations on Fort Bragg.

Reference

Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.; Canton, Ohio, 800-321-

0699, < www.midwestind.com>.

Captain Amato is the commander of the 618th Engineer

Company (Light Equipment) (Airborne). Previous

assignments include S-4 for the 307th Engineer Battalion

during Operation Iraqi Freedom; brigade engineer for the

505th Parachute Infantry Regiment; and plans and exercises

officer for the 2d Infantry Division Engineer Brigade. He holds

a bachelor’s in civil engineering from the Illinois Institute of

Technology and a master’s in engineering management from

the University of Missouri-Rolla.

Grading, leveling, and drainage construction operations

using the 613BS Scraper and DEUCE
pending Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions;

and have no limiting profiles.

The point of contact for this course is the Directorate

of Training and Leader Development (DOTLD) Sergeant

Major at (573) 563-4094 or e-mail <atsedot@wood.

army.mil>. The DOTLD Web site is <http://www.wood.

army.mil/dotld/>.

January-March 2006 Engineer 53

Urban Mobility Breaching Course (UMBC). The

UMBC is a 3-week course conducted at Camp Lejeune,

North Carolina, by the United States Marine Corps, with

assistance from three United States Army engineers. Two

weeks of the course are consolidated training, and the

remaining week is Army-unique. The maximum Army

course load for the UMBC is 15 students. Slots for the

course can be reserved through the Army Training

Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS).

The UMBC provides advanced information on urban

breaching operations. The course consists of in-depth

explosive theory; detailed planning that combines

operational and training safety issues; urban reconnaissance; and employment of urban breaching assets,

including explosive, manual, and ballistic breaching

techniques for urban operations. The UMBC teaches the

use of Current Force equipment that supports mobility

operations in support of the maneuver force.

Students must meet requirements listed in Department

of the Army Pamphlet 611-21, Military Occupational

Classification and Structure, and Army Regulation 600-9,

The Army Weight Control Program; be a combat engineer

noncommissioned officer in the grade of E-5 (P) through

E-7 and a graduate of the combat engineer Basic

Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC); have no

Commercial numbers are (573) 563-xxxx and Defense System

Network (DSN) numbers are 676-xxxx unless otherwise noted.

ENGINEER UPDATE

Fiscal Year 2006 Class Schedule

Class Number Report Date Graduation Date

01-05

02-05

03-05

04-05

05-05

06-05

07-05

16 Oct 05

27 Nov 05

22 Jan 06

4 Nov 05

16 Dec 05

10 Feb 06

26 Feb 06 17 Mar 06

4 Jun 06

13 Aug 06

10 Sep 06

1 Sep 06

23 Jun 06

29 Sep 06

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The

United States Army Engineer School CELL needs your

help. To keep training, doctrine, and combat developments

current and to prepare for the future, it is critical that the

school continuously receive relevant engineer observations, insights, and lessons (OIL). The CELL can

derive information from a variety of sources: unit afteraction reports (AARs); tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) used by units in and returning from theater;

Soldier observations/submissions to the Engineer School;

and requests-for-information (RFIs).

This information is used to conduct doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) gap analyses and

to determine solutions. These solutions are distributed to

the Engineer Regiment via new doctrine and training

products, Engineer (The Professional Bulletin of Army

Engineers), and other publications, Web sites, and by

answering RFIs. (The Engineer School RFI Web site

provides the Engineer Regiment a reachback capability.)

You can help by forwarding any of these materials from

your unit’s deployment to the CELL. Unclassified

information can be sent to <Doctrine.Engineer

@wood.army.mil> or <reggie.snodgrass@us.army.mil>.

Classified information can be sent by secret Internet

protocol, routed (SIPR) e-mail to <snodgrassrg

@monroe.army.smil.mil>. For more information, call (573)

563-4117.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○

Visual Archive. The History Office at the Engineer

School is developing a visual archive. It currently has more

than 18,000 photographs, largely from World War II and

Korea. Units that would like to contribute photographs

(copies) or other visual material should contact Dr. Larry

Roberts, Historian, United States Army Engineer School,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473. Where possible,

caption information should accompany the images. If you

have questions, call Dr. Roberts at (573) 563-6109.