Assault Pioneers & Assault Troopers (engineer light of the Inf & Armd)

[MedCorps]

I would guess that is why it has not be easy to identify who the CoE should be... Inf Schl or CFSME. 

I am pretty sure that arms search is part of a separate project, and will not be pioneer centric, but rather another "new" CA driven capability.  I think is is also part of a new pam which is just about to be published (if not already published) on the topic of tactical search techniques. If you need more information on this (and cannot find it in the AEL) let me know and I can see if I can dig it up again. When I saw the last version of the study draft it was done well and will prove to be useful, actually filling a training gap. 

You might recognize parts of it because it looks likes it is copied it out of ME Vol 2, Pam 6A (71271), although not nearly as good and more all-arms centric.

MC

 

[GK .Dundas]

Ah, but who will teach it initially?

*ahem*

(raises hand furtively, in the hopes of time spent back with the infantry)

Edited to add:

But seriously, what about all arms search?

I'm sorry but if you insist on making sense  we"ll have to ask you to leave!

 

[vonGarvin]

I still don't believe it.  And I won't until I see it.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As recently as this past May I have spoken to staff officers on the CA Staff about this capacity build.  In speaking to them they indicated that it is going forward as a Comd CA approved plan. 

The plan will see a 20-25 day formal Pioneer Course offered by units (with the Centre of Excellence being the Inf School or CFSME). This is not all that shorter then the old course, which was 30 days Reg F or 33 days Res F.

It will not see these trained personnel end up in a pioneer platoon but rather dispersed within the unit (due to the requirement to remain PY neutral) as a decentralized capability. The idea is that the additional skills set conferred by this qualification will add to the field capacity when paired with additional personnel with the 4 or 5 day Basic Demolition Course or the 15 day Basic Demolition Instructions Course.  There is no intention to run an Advanced Pioneer Course again.

It would appear that these new pioneers will have a lesser skill set then the old pioneers, but still a useful one IMHO. 

They will be able to:
- Conduct explosive breaching
- Conduct mechanical breaching
- Breach point obstacles and fences with or without explosives
- Use small boats and conduct improvised wet gap crossing
- Have some additional, but limited, demolitions skills
- Create simple and complex wire obstacles
- Construct improvised road blocks
- Construct field fortifications and bunkers
- Improve urban defensive positions (room shoring, fire proofing, sandbagging, etc)
- Construct improvised targetry
- Destruct duds / blinds for grenades and artillery simulators (any maybe 66/Carl Gustav rounds)
- Construct battle simulation
- Construct one / two / three strand rope bridges
- Use tools such as chainsaws and punjars in a limited manner

They will not be able to:

Advise anyone Combat Team Comd or higher on engineer matters
Conduct counter-IED
Conduct explosive ordnance disposal
Construct roads
Construct bridges, other than rope bridges
Emplace anti-tank mines (block 3 / PO 405/406 of the old course)
Construct an abaitis
Crater roads / runways
Destroy bridges
Conduct advanced CBRN tasks (block 2 / PO 403 of the old course)
Conduct building recce and planning
Partake in any tasks requiring specialized engineer tools or vehicles

I hope this is of some interest / help.  It is quite an exciting time for the Army to gain part of the pioneer capacity back.  If I was a Infantry NCM again I would have my fingers crossed hopping I got picked to do this course.

MC

Sigh.  I recognise that list from an Infantry Conference in 2007....indeed I probably still have a copy of the draft CTS/CTP that was created by 1 PPCLI for the proposed trial course that never happened.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sigh.  I recognise that list from an Infantry Conference in 2007....indeed I probably still have a copy of the draft CTS/CTP that was created by 1 PPCLI for the proposed trial course that never happened.

I also discovered that, in COIN ops, pioneers become invaluable when re-roled as high risk search teams, especially when deployed in support of ATOs or Engineer search teams. I recall the police and other agencies being especially pleased with the thoroughness, evidence awareness, and overall success of our 'Asslt Engr troop', as they were called, in 45 Cdo.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I also discovered that, in COIN ops, pioneers become invaluable when re-roled as high risk search teams, especially when deployed in support of ATOs or Engineer search teams. I recall the police and other agencies being especially pleased with the thoroughness, evidence awareness, and overall success of our 'Asslt Engr troop', as they were called, in 45 Cdo.

Err... sorry not to be a pedant, but they would have been All-Arms Search Teams, only REST do 'high risk' search.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Err... sorry not to be a pedant, but they would have been All-Arms Search Teams, only REST do 'high risk' search.

Correct-o-mundo. Forgot the formal name for the team... it's been so long!

They did some of the support stuff for the REST, and tagged along as extra bods on the ATO team. They did alot of occupied house/building searches on their own, which didn't technically qualify as high risk. Turned up tons of stuff, literally: HME, .50 cal, ammo and more ammo, lots of weapons etc. Very impressive, and miles better than the equivalent police search teams. It was interesting to watch the ops network give them more and more complicated stuff as they proved themselves and develop their skills.

I suggested that the section commander attached to our company be put in for an MiD or something. Never happened though, sadly. I think he went on to be an RSM, and a Unit or a Bde Search advisor.

I also saw other search teams in other units, who were not pioneer/asslt engrs, not do nearly as well. Might have been luck, but perhaps not.

 

[McG]

They will be able to:

• ...
  - Conduct mechanical breaching
  ...
  - Use tools such as chainsaws and punjars in a limited manner

They will not be able to:

• ....
  Construct an abaitis
  ...

Given what they will do, why not allow mechanical construction of an abaitis?

As for C-IED, that is an all arms thing - it should not be an exclusion.  What pioneers should not be doing is IEDD or other sub-sets of EOD.

 

[MedCorps]

My first guess (and would welcome an Engr / Pnr to correct me) but I am assuming it is an economy of force issue.

If pioneer trained personnel are not employed in together in a section it becomes too much work do construct an abatis manually given low numbers.

When I look at my staff tables it indicates that it would take a section (8 men) to construct a light abatis (20-30 m deep) by mechanical (versus explosive) means 2-3 hours. This works out to 16-24 man hours. If you only had two pnr trained soldiers working together in a platoon then you are looking at some serious time commitment to construct. Engineers amassed as a section with explosive can do the same work in 1 - 1.5 hours.

My second guess is that it is a skill that is impossible to train these days with all of the regulations in place. Some might even argue that it is a skill no longer required.

My third guess is that it is technically complex to construct. I have never constructed one or seen one in real life so I am not sure how true this hypothesis is. 

Comments from the experienced?  Suggestions on why not to train this skill to pnrs?  Am I close?

MC

 

[Towards_the_gap]

All three sound right to me.

Mechanically or explosively, it is a time consuming task, which you simply cannot train for (I think a reserve engr unit managed to do one 2 years ago in Wainwright), and to be truly effective as an obstacle it should ideally be tied in with craters/mines, thus adding to the complexity.

Heck we don't even ''practice it' apart from drawing the symbol on a map as part of a barrier plan, why would you waste valuable training days teaching it to pnrs?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Heck we don't even ''practice it' apart from drawing the symbol on a map as part of a barrier plan, why would you waste valuable training days teaching it to pnrs?

For the same reason we have to wear the '1812' pin?  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

Heck we don't even ''practice it' apart from drawing the symbol on a map as part of a barrier plan, why would you waste valuable training days teaching it to pnrs?

Isn't the Army's new motto "Train to Excite!"? What could be more exciting than digging.

 

[Infanteer]

Filling in the hole?

 

[McG]

Mechanically or explosively, it is a time consuming task, which you simply cannot train for (I think a reserve engr unit managed to do one 2 years ago in Wainwright), and to be truly effective as an obstacle it should ideally be tied in with craters/mines, thus adding to the complexity.

Abatis training is done.  An abatis done properly does not need craters to be effective.  And, if you are doing it to stop something less than a Soviet Division, it is far less time consuming that we typically teach - against many threats, a 40 m deep abatis is significant overkill.

In any case, I know both the infantry and armour have intrest in breathing life back into assault pioneers and assault troopers.  Is it possible that the individual training requirements of these two specialties could be achieved through a common course?  I recognize that there are differences in employment, but if those can be ingrained through collective training then it would make it much easier for CMBGs to resource inf/armd pioneer courses including load leveling of students and staff across units.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Normally an abatis is further strengthened with wire, A/T and A/P mines ...... As far as I recall craters would be used to funnel them to this particular obstacle vice strengthening it.....  Been awhile since I looked at an abatis though.....

 

[brihard]

In any case, I know both the infantry and armour have intrest in breathing life back into assault pioneers and assault troopers.  Is it possible that the individual training requirements of these two specialties could be achieved through a common course?  I recognize that there are differences in employment, but if those can be ingrained through collective training then it would make it much easier for CMBGs to resource inf/armd pioneer courses including load leveling of students and staff across units.

Given the combat team concept, that would definitely seem to make some sense. It could potentially also allow for some efficiencies of scale in continuation training for this skillset as well.

 

[Jay4th]

Still waiting...  We would probably have an easier time resurecting Machine Gun platoon with a dozen C16 automatic grenade launchers.

 

[McG]

Still waiting... 

I don't know what is on the go with Pioneers, but I do know that the LdSH Asslt Tps are getting out to train with 1 CER for almost two months of garrison and field training in basic Sapper type work (to include a basic dml crse for all of them).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Still waiting...  We would probably have an easier time resurecting Machine Gun platoon with a dozen C16 automatic grenade launchers.

I will try and fix this

 

[McG]

I still think an effective way to package the training could be common IT for Pioneer and Asslt Tps, with units developing particular branch nuances through CT.