Engineers are Combat Arms (again) (Split from somewhere else)

[Nfld Sapper]

Read wrong PAM 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

It has not been in any current book that I have seen for ages.  Here is the current edition of what you've refered to:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-000/B-GL-300-000/fp-000/B-GL-300-000-FP-000_e.pdf

Ummmm.. that PAM doesn't say anything about what is a combat arm/service/service support

 

[Old and Tired]

Here is the link for the Army Electronic Library.

http://lfdts.army.mil.ca/ael/pubs/300-003/B-GL-300-003/FP-000/B-GL-300-003-FP-000.pdf (for those with DIN access)

http://www.army.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-003/B-GL-300-003/FP-000/B-GL-300-003-FP-000.pdf (for those with internet)

Relevant portion is in the preface under terminology:

(Quote)

TERMINOLOGY
Unless otherwise noted, masculine pronouns apply to both men and women.
The following terminology is introduced to improve clarity:

· Manoeuvre Arm – Infantry, Armour and Aviation.

· Support Arm – Artillery, Engineers, Signals, Intelligence and Military Police.

· Support Services – Medical, Dental, Administrative, Transport, Supply, Maintenance, and Personnel Support.

As read though the pub itself, I did notice that the term, Combat Arm, Combat Support Arm, ans Combat Service Support, more to the point the word COMBAT seems to have been dropped at some point, in favour of the terminology listed above.

 

[2 Cdo]

Not really. Every soldier in the CF is a soldier first, tradesman second to be able to fight defensively when required, not be employed as an extra infantry platoon or section offensively as has been seen very recently on operations apparently with the Engr Fd Tps.

That's true in theory, but it seems that a number of trades people fail to understand that.

This is also not intended as a slight towards trades pers. but an observation after a number of years in Kingston.

 

[dapaterson]

I still remember CFSAL (over a decade ago, so things may have changed) having dress-down Fridays for all students and staff, including DP1 officers and NCMs.  Lounging around the school in jeans and a polo shirt may well be comfortable (and a fundraiser for the United Way); it doesn'tstrike me as a particularly good way to inculcate the military into young officers and NCMs...

 

[392]

That's true in theory, but it seems that a number of trades people fail to understand that.

Agreed 100%. I can just look around at the CSS tradespeople in our unit - probably 95% of them forget that they need to be able to defend themselves and the terrain they hold, but the prevailing argument I hear is that "that is the Infantry's job"  : Even on this course I am on now, we had to basically force the notion of being able to fight your way out of an ambush in theatre down a young Air Force lad's throat, because he thought Air Force types attached to an army unit would magically be rescued instantaneously by the QRF should sh*t hit the fan....

 

[McG]

As read though the pub itself, I did notice that the term, Combat Arm, Combat Support Arm, ans Combat Service Support, more to the point the word COMBAT seems to have been dropped at some point, in favour of the terminology listed above.

This is particularly odd when one consideres that this document was written in 1996, yet the Combat Arm, Combat Support Arm, ans Combat Service Support terminology still appears in pubs written afterward:
- 1997: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-002/B-GL-300-002/FP-000/B-GL-300-002-FP-000.pdf
- 1998: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-001/B-GL-300-001/FP-000/B-GL-300-001-FP-000.pdf

So, where else can we look to find an answer?  The Cbt Arms versions of ATOC are attended by Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Engineer.  This might be a clue.

Alternately, when a tasking or posting is designated "Cbt Arms Any" it can be filled by Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Engineer.  Again, another clue.

The reqruiting website mentions combat arms and they are Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Engineer (
http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/categoriesdetails_en.aspx?id=3&bhcp=1).  I'm starting to see a trend here.  Anybody else?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I still remember CFSAL (over a decade ago, so things may have changed) having dress-down Fridays for all students and staff, including DP1 officers and NCMs.  Lounging around the school in jeans and a polo shirt may well be comfortable (and a fundraiser for the United Way); it doesn'tstrike me as a particularly good way to inculcate the military into young officers and NCMs...

And this belongs in this thread how?

 

[392]

And this belongs in this thread how?

I think that goes back to my post about "all soldiers being soldiers first, tradesmen second" and the ensuing reply from 2 Cdo...

 

[Shamrock]

I'm starting to see a trend here.  Anybody else?

Yep, but probably not the same trend you're seeing.

I think dapeterson and Land Force Engineer Ops have cleared it up nicely for me. 

LF Eng Ops does detail engineer secondary duties as infantry; the pub itself says "This manual amplifies and complements both B-GL-300-001/FP-001 Land Force, Volume 1, The Conduct of Land Operations – Operational Level Doctrine For the Canadian Army, B-GL-300-002/FP-000 Land Force Tactical Doctrine and B-GL-300-003/FP-000 Command which are the foundation upon which this doctrine manual is based."  That means my initial statement is wrong.

That means that the engineers pinging around in the back of an AIFV with a rifle section fulfilling their secondary role of rifleman are unarguably in a combat arms position: they're infantrymen.  Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.  However, how can one be an engineer AND an infantryman at the same time?  I say in that instance, they're infantrymen with a very unique skillset that few other riflemen possess.  They don't have the engineering equipment or vehicles at hand and can't perform the majority of tasks they could otherwise perform so they're not functioning as engineers (regardless of their cap badge).  However, what does this mean for the boatswain pinging around in the back of an AIFV with a rifle section?

 

[392]

I'd say you'd be hard pressed to con a Bos'n into getting into the back of an IFV at all

 

[McG]

However, how can one be an engineer AND an infantryman at the same time? 

That goes back to the observations of the RE major that I mentioned earlier:

I once listened to a RE major go on about how foolish we (Canadian Engineers) were to have committed ourselves to being wasted as a resource (act as infantry in a secondary role). 

I think you might find some answers here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51155.0.html

 

[Shamrock]

I think I understand.

You're infantry engineers.  You'll fight alongside the infantry in an infantry role as infantrymen as combat arms until an engineering task presents itself, at which point you become engineers as combat support.  Here I am asserting it is the soldier's role that defines the element to which he belong and not the soldier's MOC. 

I understand there are quite a few engineer MOC's.  Do all the MOC's function in this switch-hitting capacity?

Sidebar: you mentioned recce not existing as a branch.  You're partially correct.  We in armour do have a seperate MOC for recce soldiers.

 

[392]

I understand there are quite a few engineer MOC's.  Do all the MOC's function in this switch-hitting capacity?

Nope. 043 Combat Engineer= Cbt Arms
600 series Engineer trades = definitely NOT Cbt Arms. Although they hate to admit it (although some of them lead the charge in admission), they try and steer as far clear as they can from any sort of Cbt Arms work.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but just as an Armd soldier fights alongside the Inf as Cbt Arms, so do we. Secondary duties aside, we still fight alongside the Armd and Inf in all phases. We can be tasked as Infantry - usually for depth or due to lack of numbers - although most Comds I have worked for / been attached to highly refrain from that unless absofreakinlutely required.
Without getting into too much detail on here, most of our job in a combined arms setting is to provide a capability when required, and provide extra barrels pointing downrange the rest of the time.

What do you qualify as an "engineering task"? Methinks you may be confusing us and our job description with our Construction brethren, or maybe even the difference between a CER and ESR? I think I'm even starting to confuse myself here ???

 

[navaho]

I must say something about the Engineers as to where we fit into the mainstream of things and it is not a cut and dry subject.  The Engineers are a very large family and our work encompasses all environments being land, air, and sea. ( "sea" being the Naval Construction Troops).  That statement in it self makes one think Combat Support. (No pers from the Engineers is in the Navy.)

The majority of our number are from the land element (green beret) and are the Combat Engineers.  Hence the name Combat Engineers (043) and their task is  ( fighting with all the bullets/bombs/etc, closing with the enemy, pioneer work, etc.), basically blowing stuff up.  The other green folks (some not all) are like me and work in support trades and many like myself are retreads (ex armour, infantry, and drop shorts).  Some retreads felt they looked better in a blue uniform and work in the support side of the family. As previously mentioned the Combat Engineers do a lot of Infantry and front line "kaboom" work, therefore deserving to be recognized as part of the Combat Arms.

Some Engineers, like me, have chosen a different path and that is construction.  We accept the glory of supporting the hard working folks at the pointy end of the spear.  As mentioned most of us 600 series (and the Geomatics Techs and Fire Fighters) know the value of having hot showers, lights, power, potable water, and a pooper that flushes.  These are also some of the Engineer Branch's responsibilities. Therefore the construction side of the Engineer Family is classed as Support.

That being said, the personell that are in the Construction Engineering (CE) world (not to forget the mappers and fire lizards) support all our brothers to the best of our abilities and our Combat Engineers fight along side the other Combat Arms Branches.

Now to decipher where to put us.........................majority rules!!!!!!!!!!!! There are more Cbt Engineers than any other trade in the Engineer Branch.

But if you still are not satisfied with the combat arms title there is always "UBIQUE"

Navaho

CHIMO

 

[armybuck041]

LFCO 24-04 IBTS for Land Ops Policy, Para 11:

c. Combat Arms:

(1) The CMTC Opposing Force (OPFOR) and elements of all Regular Force Infantry Battalions, Armoured Regiments, Field Artillery Regiments, Air Defence Artillery Regiments and Field Engineer Regiments in the Reconstitution and Support (R&S) phase of the Managed Readiness Plan (MRP);

(2) All sub-unit and sub-sub-unit mission elements from Infantry Battalions, Armoured Regiments, Field Artillery, Air Defence Artillery Regiments and Field Engineer Regiments of the Reserve; and

d. Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) Arms:  All Canadian Mechanized Brigade Headquarters and other Regular Force elements of the Army in the R&S phase of the MRP and all other elements of the Militia who are not listed in sub-paragraphs a through c.

So wether or not people want to consider the Combat Engineer a Combat Arm, we are required to train to the same INDIVIDUAL level as the Infantry (Save for a few types of weapons we do not possess) as well as a significant portion of the Platoon Level Infantry Battle Task Standards during DLOC. This actually brings up another intersting point. We are the only other element on the Battlefield that is organized and equipped almost mirroring the Infantry, that alone speaks for itself. I dont see any other CS or CSS units riding in Section LAVs (Crew plus 8 Soldiers ready to dismount with C-9s and M203s) to provide Close Support to the Infantry. Take it for what its worth regardless of whats written in books.

 

[Dog]

I think that the biggest stumbling block here is semantics. There is obviously a confusion around what Combat Support means. It seems that those people who are arguing that engineers are Combat Support are confusing it with infantry support, since there's been some question about whether the artillery is a combat arm as well (earlier in the thread).