Relationships: Manouvre elements & attached engineer groupings

[Kat Stevens]

A coy of anything should only get a Tp of Engineers in sp in only exceptional circumstances and then it would only be for a specific phase of an operation. For example in a Res Dml, a coy could be tasked as the dml gd and a Fd Tp assigned to set up the target(depending on size and complexity) after the target was set up the Tp would move off to other tasks leaving behind a Fd Sect or det to act as the firing party.

It all boils down to this:   Infantry/Armd Lt. Colonels don't employ attatched Engineer assets properly. The only outcome of a full field troop slogging through the khud with a light Company, is that they would become a 4th rifle platoon with an interesting side job.   Just my thoughts...

Kat

 

[McG]

It all boils down to this: Infantry/Armd Lt. Colonels don't employ attatched Engineer assets properly.

This is only one of many reasons why the Engr Sqn is the smallest element, that Canadian engineers believe, is suitable for operational employment.  The manoeuvre LCol would have an Engr Maj advising him as to how he can get the most out of his engineers.

 

[Kat Stevens]

That's if he chooses to listen.  I lost count of how many Combat Team traces I rolled my AVLB up and and down the Bowling Alley, never even getting a WngO, let alone a task.  A few times the OC even pulled us out, and we went in to Camp Wainwright for the night.


Kat...big CHI, little mo

 

[SprCForr]

They are getting better but there still is a long way to go. The idea of the Sqn being the smallest unit suitable for deployment is only a recent idea. It stems from the close support concept developed in the early 90's late 80's for 4 CMBG. The traditional full up Fd tp is actually organised to be the smallest detachable unit. Since it has 3/4 Fd Sects and a HQ Sect it contains all the elements needed to be independant. The Storeman/MT/Ammo fufill thier obivious tasks, the Recce Sgt has his and the planning capability is fufilled by the Tp WO/Comd. Compare it to the traditional Rifle Pl and you can immediately see this. A Fd Tp doesn't have the nipple dependecy to Sqn like the Rifle Pl has to Coy.

The tasks generated at Bn level are adequately addressed with the Tp type of organisation. Jamming a Maj in there just seems to dumb down the Tp WO/Comd postions. Ask the Tp leaders, in almost every case that extra level of comd and control just muddied up what was plainly obvious to the troops on the ground. We did well in all the early deployments by attaching some hy eqpt dets as required. If the Bn Comd decides to listen he will regardless of the rank. Nordick did, Diakow did, so did a pile of others. If he decides not to, then it doesn't matter anyway what rank he is. This is where C/S 9 steps up with the backing of the Bde Comd.

I would be interested to hear what others experienced in this matter especially those from Bosnia after 95, when this whole Sqn thing really took off.

 

[Kat Stevens]

In 12 Fd Sqn in Bosnia '97, the SSM became basically a leave co-ordinator and SLJ list writer.   The OC was either not able or willing to go to bat for the troops, as a result we were second class citizens within the Bn Gp. The last to be issued our snivel kit, the first to be issued our crappy jobs.   Life would have been a lot easier all around if we had been considered as a Field Troop Plus, under command of a Capt, and stuffed into the Cbt Sup Coy.   We just became poster boys for the " more tail than teeth" philosophy. Also, in 4 CER, we were in a Fd Tp to Inf Bn ratio.  On Combat team Ops, Armd Eng and Hy Tp assests were tasked, but basically, as soon as we rolled out the main gate, a Tp was under Op Com of said Bn.  The Close Support concept never really took seed until after Yugo in '92, where we were a seperate Can Eng Bat, probably the first and last time you'll ever see that happen.

Kat

 

[SprCForr]

The Close Support concept wasn't used in Daruvar. Freddy hit us with that one in our 3 1/2 CER phase, remember? Carmen wasn't really sure what day it was. We were luckier with 3 VP. The Engr Tp was in HQ coy and we were tasked directly by the CO/Ops O. That kept the Coys "out of our hair". So back to the Sqn thing here is a rough estimate:

1 x Maj
1 x Capt
2 x LT/Capt Tp Comds
1 x SSM
LO as applicable
Ops WO
SQMS org
2 x Tp WO
2 x Recce
say 6 Sgts
and add another 8 M/Cpls (two of which are Storemen)

just to supervise, control and coordinate about 60 troop loops. Huh. Looks a little top heavy to me. So if Bn can't employ a Sqn (-) properly, then is it reasonable to say a Coy can't employ a Tp?

 

[Kat Stevens]

we're getting back to my point.  A rifle Coy OC is going to look at a full field troop of Sappers as one thing: extra bodies in the line, and extra mouths to feed. Can't blame 'em really, if you dropped 30 extra rifles into my Coy, I'd probably do a little happy dance too.  Don't forget the old adage from 4 CER, "We are our own worst enemy in the field".  An OC/TC is meant to ADVISE other arms, not just indiscriminately pass on the bad news to his troops.  This took on a rambling quality, time for coffee and re-org......

  Chimo, Kat

 

[McG]

(4-13-68) does not look so imbalanced to me.   It is an SHQ with two 30 man Fd Tps.   You could add an additional Fd Tp (or two) and increase the troop size to 40 pers with the same HQ but as long as you have the two troops, you need an SHQ.

An OC/TC is meant to ADVISE other arms, not just indiscriminately pass on the bad news to his troops.

Yes, and it does not hurt to have an Engr OC available to pull an Inf OC aside later and, peer-to-peer, advise him on where he may not have been getting the most from any engineers that he may have had supporting him.

So if Bn can't employ a Sqn (-) properly, then is it reasonable to say a Coy can't employ a Tp?

. . . or a Bde cannot employ a regiment?

We have to accept that it is our job to educate the manoeuvre commanders, because they will always be the main effort.  We are there to support them.

 

[SprCForr]

McG:

Thanks for moving the thread. Sorry for the hijack of the Abn Engr thread. Educating the the other arms was, is and always will be required ;D Remember they always come around to our way of thinking.

The ratio is much too high at  4 Offrs and 13 SNCOs. That alone is a ratio of 1:4 and M/Cpls were not included in the calculation. Too many chiefs in any situation. Ditch the second troop and SHQ. Make it a Tp (+) and cut the useless leadership mouths. It brings the leadership ratio back into proper balance. Everyone ends up doing the job they were trained for. The Tp WO/Recce can handle it. Sgts regain their proper place, The Tp Stmn/MT NCO are not over tasked and the Tp Comd is liasing with the people he is supposed to be dealing with. Fending off rifle coy OCs should not a real big problem and officer worth his salt should be able to do this. You don't need a Maj to pull aside another Maj and have a quiet talk, when a Capt(that has the direct backing of the CO and is no "threat" to regimental pecking order) can to the same. Same same for the Tp WO at the CSM level. If the attached Engr Tp is not included in the Cbt Sp Coy org and put in the realm of the Ops O instead, then there is much less tendency to mess with them. The players in Bn quickly learn to listen to what the sapper is telling them. This also allows the Tp key pers to deal direct with Bn sub units instead of going through another layer of command. . Less friction in the accomplishment of the mission.

Bde Comds have to be a different creature to deal with combined arms. An Inf background Bde Comd ignores his Armd/Arty/Engr COs at his peril and vise versa with other arms. The Btl Gp/Cbt Team orgs push this experience farther down the food chain but the unit leadership is sometimes not adeqately prepared to deal with it. "Switched on" CO/OCs are always able to look outside the box but the average leader is still focused on his particular trade/role/niche. If we had Inf pl or a Armd Tp inserted into our Sqn/Regimental org I suspect that we would probably be guilty of the same stuff. (hmmm...an entire rifle pl as site security or gate guard...)

"We have to accept that it is our job to educate the manoeuvre commanders, because they will always be the main effort.  We are there to support them"

True, always has been. Doesn't mean we have to put up with their sh*t if it gets in the way of the job being done properly.

Hey! other arms! whats it like from your point of view?

 

[McG]

Here is the explanation I get from higher:

The Squadron HQ is the minimum independent level of Engineer Command on operations (monitor and coordinate mine safety, provide risk assessment, first level of complex Engineer planning capability, can identify and coordinate surge efforts, can support coalition operations etc).  Departure from this results in undue risk for BG personnel - which historically is manifested in mine strikes.

But lets look at a recent example where it worked:  Op APOLLO.  The Field Troop would go out with the BG on the air mobile operations.  Left behind in the camp, the SHQ was able to coordinate sling-loads of demolition and other stores for the Fd Tp in responce to actual usages.  This would be a difficult task for a field troop to manage, unless it were prepared to leave a Sr NCO behind during the air mobile op (probably not a good idea).  In this same theater, the SHQ did the mine strike investigations.  This left the Tp Recce to focus on troop tasks (and not all the other stuff the engineers were responsible for). 

The proper employment of MCpl is as section 2ic (so we should not try adding them to the ratio)  You may find the ratio of 1 Sr NCO to 5 1/4 Jr NCO unacceptable.  However, it is the by product of our squadrons being minimum sized.  As I said, that same SHQ could take on two more troops.  But that SHQ does not function without its key personnel.

 

[SprCForr]

...The Field Troop would go out with the BG on the air mobile operations.   Left behind in the camp, the SHQ was able to coordinate sling-loads of demolition and other stores for the Fd Tp in responce to actual usages.   This would be a difficult task for a field troop to manage, unless it were prepared to leave a Sr NCO behind...The proper employment of MCpl is as section 2ic (so we should not try adding them to the ratio)  ... that same SHQ could take on two more troops.   But that SHQ does not function without its key personnel...

  While the Troop was out what was the Tp Stmn and the MT NCO doing? The unit forming the Btl Gp is capable of handling dml and stores for their own, how are we different? The resupply function formed by SHQ was a useless duplication of effort. All resupply to a unit in the field is actual usage. They are the ones who call to the rear for the stuff. Let's not forget that the M/Cpl is the head of HQ sect. He is supposed to be your switched on ready to be promoted guy. He should be able to handle the job of resuppling his troop. Is there alot of difference between a 6A MCpl and a 6A Sgt? Yes of course in somethings, but running a Fd Sect isn't one of them. We had Cpls slingloading Hy Eqpt, boats and bridging, etc in the 80's what makes it so different that you need a Sgt to do the same job in the 21st century?

  The minimum sized Sqn is a fact of life in the present, but I think it is a mistake to employ higher rank people at lower level tasks. If the possibilty exsists that the Sqn is going to get another Tp or two then that is completly different, Was there a possiblilty that Sqn was going to get another Tp in OP ATHENA?

  How does an SHQ stop grunts/zips from driving over mines? The explanation from higher about SHQ reads more like a justification for over ranking a mission than providing effective support. Complex Engineer planning at Bn level? huh? surge efforts? support coalition operations? are they for real? This is mostly work done at the contingent level. What the hell is the CC Engr doing? As for the coordination of mine safety - Icky Mears did it all by his little lonesome. At Force level no less.

 

[McG]

The Tp Stores NCO was focused on getting things from the helicopter to the sections spread across the Bn.  MT is a secondary job in a Tp, that means he is part of a section (if he even exists in a light troop).  Yes, the BG can plan its sling loads, but if you are depending on stores arriving in a logical fashion so that they can be employed immediately, do you want an Engr or an infantryman deciding your demolition loads.  The Engr would know to get you a mix of det cord & C4 in the first load so you can start work.  In addition to the Fd Tp, the Sqn included the ROWPU det, a Hy Eqpt det, and an EOD section that the SHQ was responsible for.  A Fd Tp Comd would not be able to worry about these assets sitting back in the camp while the Tp is deployed.

The additional Fd Tp & coordination of surge efforts go hand in hand.  If an additional Fd Tp needs to be surged, it will fall under the SHQ.

 

[SprCForr]

A whole Bn deployed out to the boonies? Was the OC out there? Who else from SHQ? Tp Stores getting it out to the sects, OK but over a Bn area? MT a secondary job? Is this recent? God knows it was full time back in the day, has veh reliability improved that much? The way the stores are to arrive is the way the Tp asks for it to come out. It is just a matter of radioing back what you want and in what order. Simple. Your statement implies that some guy (Engr/Inf/whatever) in the rear is going to decide what you need and when you need it. Let the guys in field decide, they know what they need. Tell the resupply guys what you need in the first load even before you leave. Make it an SOP, leave them a list taped to their forehead, draw them a picture, getting the correct loadout is not Engineer voodoo. Each of these units have an integral Assault Tp or Pioneer Pl that use explosives also. So there is some knowledge base to use. I guess my point is to use the people in the positions that they are in economically.

  To now sort of complete a circle, the extra attachments (ROWPU, HY Eqpt) or a possible Fd Tp do create a requirement for someone in the rear to help coordinate their work and yes a SHQ fits that bill. How many people we talking about here? Whats in Hy Eqpt (Is the det a section or an actual detachment)? Does the scope of work for the ROWPU det differ from that of the old WPU Erdalator? Does it change so much or so fast that Cpl Bloggins can't manage it? He should be able to if he Adv Wat Sup qualified. It was nothing for a Cpl to run a Bde water point. Hell, life was good there. Is the Hy Sect Comd not able to co-ordinate his own requirements anymore? (Ian- remember the Hamburglar?) What is up with an EOD sect? Is this a section or detachment of HB guys or HC/IED? If they are just blowing UXO, are not the Fd Sects able to handle the jobs? They did fine in the busy days. If this is just lowlevel .50 de-armer or rocket wrench stuff then they should be able to. Is not the HA/HB/HC available much anymore?

On a personal note; McG, please don't think I'm picking on you. I appreciate your observations and you are definitely well informed. The trade changed while I wasn't looking and you're helping me to understand the changes. If I am getting too harpy then PM me and tell me to take a 500lb f*u*_*k off pill ;D

 

[McG]

Each of these units have an integral Assault Tp or Pioneer Pl that use explosives also.

No.   There is no such thing as a Pioneer anymore.

What is up with an EOD sect? Is this a section or detachment of HB guys or HC/IED? If they are just blowing UXO, are not the Fd Sects able to handle the jobs? They did fine in the busy days. If this is just lowlevel .50 de-armer or rocket wrench stuff then they should be able to. Is not the HA/HB/HC available much anymore?

The Engineer branch is re-emphasising EOD.  HA is now written off through the Sect 2ic course.  Due to the nature of Afghanistan, there was sufficient UXO threat for dedicated EOD personnel.  The current Afghanistan deployments have increased this from a section to most of the Sp Tp.  Included in the work is IED & RCIED (but a sigs det is permanently attached for this task).  Remote mine clearance systems have also been included for ATHENA, but they are manned by a fly-over element as needed.

On a personal note; McG, please don't think I'm picking on you. I appreciate your observations and you are definitely well informed. The trade changed while I wasn't looking and you're helping me to understand the changes. If I am getting too harpy then PM me and tell me to take a 500lb f*u*_*k off pill ;D

No, it is always good to have one's opinions challenged.  It helps to reflect, rethink, and possibly change opinions for the better . . . but sometimes I've been right all along.  ;D

 

[SprCForr]

sigh...seems like another change not for the good. 

Any other bad news you want to tell me? lol

 

[Kat Stevens]

Jeff
  I ran the Wat Sup Sect for 2 years waiting for my dodgy back to mend.  That included all the Y2K prep flap.  I also created, designed, and tought an in unit ROWPU crse in prep for Y2K.  Long answer to short Question:  yes, a Cpl can run the Wat Sup Sect

 

[SprCForr]

I actually knew the answer.

:warstory: Ed Fitch fired me into W/S after Larry Beaton left the unit. I got RV 85 and left after prepping for RV 87. 1 CER was unlucky enough to be the only WP deployed for the entire ex with safe water, so a Bde WP became a Div (-) point. That was OK until the UTTH (tac hel fags) started in on us.

Man, those blue jobs use water like...well...water! ;D