Engineer Support in Light/SF Roles

[Sapper6]

We had several different missions in Afghanistan in 02. I will talk about three that really emphasize Lt Ops and Engrs...

I feel we had many valuable lessons learned as far as Light Engr Ops but it may be soon forgotten as people age and we lose the experience people had from units like the Airborne Regiment.

Chimo,

Good thing we had one of those crusty ex-CAR Sapper MWOs on the tour with us, eh?  We'd be hurtin' if he hadn't been around!

Rakkasan!

Sapper6 (or was it Chimo6?)

 

[armybuck041]

Well this post has certainly been an interesting/educational read....


Being from the mid 90's generation of Sappers who never had an opportunity to serve with a Commando in the CAR or have Sex, Snitzel and drink Green Grenades in Lahr (but my helmet has heard many stories about both , mostly from 39G), I quickly realized that aside from a Mtn Op's crse, some scant Hel Op's trg and a few situations during Athena, I have had no real experience in this style of operation. Most of my time in the Regt was spent in the Track and Resources Troops. When looking at this from the outside it appears to be much the same as how Arctic Op's are conducted, only without the Arctic , which is something I do have lots of experience with.           

So after recently exercising within the Regt in this role, and facing the fall campaign of 2 CMBG's notorious "Bear" exercises, a few things got me thinking of how we will manage on a couple of 8 Day Operation Cycles:

Not sure who wrote it up top, but the normal Fd Tp layout is not really all that workable in the dismounted environment. Looks great on paper, but it became apparent early on that we were dragging around many more pers/clag than we needed to. When providing close support to the Light Inf Coy, a break-up and parcelling of the Tp is almost inevitable.

I can almost totally envision the Tp Comd getting into the Coy Comd's *** pocket providing advice on best employment of the Tp, the Tp Recce Sgt (and I don't believe that this fad of Sqn Recce Sgt's is a workable long term solution) most likely falling into the sensory element of the organization and providing advice/gathering data for the Tp as per normal.

Sect's will of course be pushed out to conduct tasks as required. Aside from Coy level water crossings and large defensive tasks etc, I see the Sect's being almost decentralized, especially during Urban Op's, possibly being divided into even smaller portions as needed.     

This leaves the Tp WO gathering up Engr Specific stores, tools, replenishment and in our case keeping in touch with the "Tech Net".

As mentioned before, the ability for us to get our paws on specific tools not originally carried into the Op becomes an issue right off the bat. Right away it is apparent that the Tp/Sect Stores will need to be maintained and delivered by someone (Tp WO/SQMS?) who is outside the immediate tactical picture. It is a totally different ballgame to launch into the Light Role when your immediate probable tasks are not made abundantly clear. In my case, I am looking at 8 day cycles in the light role with tasks ranging from Assault Water Crossings, Route Denial, Obstacle Breeching and Explosive Entry followed by Defensive Ops in a MOUT Environment. A tough bill to fulfill when you are supposed to launch with everything you need on your back.
I have a Quad at my disposal and am going to experiment with using it as a "Special Equipment" delivery means to get stores from our Troop Vehicles which will be located some 10 - 15 kms away from the FEBA. But to truely sustain Light Op's, new SOP's (or old ones from the CAR/LIB days) will need to be created to deal with equipping Light Engineers to meet the changing tasks without consolidating a crap load of tools at the dismounted Troops, ie 25lbs of crap comes in and 25lbs of crap departs. Commodity replenishment would of course still come from the Unit which we are OPCON, but we still need to sustain our own specialist capability resources from the Engr Regt. In a purely Heliborne Op, this would be an even trickier coordination effort.             

Lastly, allot of questions and head scratching is appearing over the employment of the Engr HC Operator in a Light Role Tp. Conventional IEDD and HC tasks, aside from "Manual approach" become almost impossible. Thoughts?                 

Any opinions? Apollo guys feel free to speak up with your own experiences on this.

 

[Unknown Factor]

Oh I so want to jump in and be sarcastic! - but I'll refrain.  The reality is, is that even the infantry have light forces wrong.  I'm sure someone has written it in the many threads pertainging to light forces but somehow the point doesn't get accross.  Light forces pertains to being predominantly on your feet after insertion (by what ever the means) it's not like by being considered light you are somehow trasformed into something else - harder perhaps?  Light infantry for example means two things 1) you master the basic infantry skills to the point that it looks lilke you are different than the rest, 2) you do a hell of allot more PT than everyone else because you have no vehicles to do maint on.  As for light engr.? what is wrong with being able to dismount to support a light task?  It seems as though the 2 pers I took on patrol in the mountains in Afghan had no problem with the transition.  As for the requirement to have engineers along for every light task?  Realistically the only reason I can see engineers and light infantry together would be for an engineer task not a light inf task as for engineers and SF? even less likely.  I think for the most part the CF is stuck halfway between Bosnia and Afghanistan.  It places unrealistic restrictions on movement and when you do have to move off of the 'trace' suddenly you have to take 2 engineers with you.  A fine Canadian example of SOP's becoming and controlling doctrine rather than doctrine determining SOP's.  A light engineer would still be an engineer at the end of the day just as mech infanteers are still light infantry, some are just better and in better shape and I mean that in the sense that they remember what they are taught and keep themselves in shape so that when called upon can go light.  That goes for everyone aspiring to go light, master your trade keep in shape and technically you are light the moment you step out of your vehicle and start carry a load.  Good luck!

 

[kj_gully]

what is wrong with being able to dismount to support a light task?   It seems as though the 2 pers I took on patrol in the mountains in Afghan had no problem with the transition.   As for the requirement to have engineers along for every light task?   Realistically the only reason I can see engineers and light infantry together would be for an engineer task not a light inf task as for engineers and SF? even less likely.   I think for the most part the CF is stuck halfway between Bosnia and Afghanistan.  .  !

  I think the biggest problem with the current practice of having Engineers be all things to all elements, is that they cannot do just service to any. The Engineering requirements for a mounted task are very different, at least in scale if not in scope, than dismounted. Also if light means having more time for PT because there are less vehicles to maintain, well a line Engineer regiment has vehicles in spades, and the coffee and doughnuts that go along with them. Not much fun leaving your Timmies mug in the cup holder and humping straight up a cliff!

It places unrealistic restrictions on movement and when you do have to move off of the 'trace' suddenly you have to take 2 engineers with you

As for this one, it only places restrictions because you have to scrounge up a couple of Engineers who aren't doing vehicle maintenance ( eating doughnuts)  to come along. If you had a few Engineers, or assaulters or Pioneer + personell (names are irrelevant, expertise is not) within your unit you could go anywhere and do anything.

There was the other bit about Engineers being unnecessary in SF role. You mentioned it was unlikely. I agree, it is unlikely that Engineers would be required for SF tasking, but ONLY because JTF had the wisdom to embed Engineers directly into therir force at several levels, both immeadiately at the breach (which he blew) to various support positions slightly removed from the coal face.

 

[armybuck041]

I think the biggest problem with the current practice of having Engineers be all things to all elements, is that they cannot do just service to any. The Engineering requirements for a mounted task are very different, at least in scale if not in scope, than dismounted.

This is my own challenge.... Trying to provide a high level of Engr Sp in a dismounted role and get away from dropping off two Sappers with a mine detector and prodder. I think i've found a workable plan to get me through the Fall Ex.

As for this one, it only places restrictions because you have to scrounge up a couple of Engineers who aren't doing vehicle maintenance (eating doughnuts)   to come along. If you had a few Engineers, or assaulters or Pioneer + personell (names are irrelevant, expertise is not) within your unit you could go anywhere and do anything.

On the current Operations this is easier said than done. Its not the lack of Sappers, but rather finding common ground between current SOP's and the Tactical Situation. It would take a 1000 word essay to explain the entire current process of Designating Ground, and how it puts a strangle hold on the manouvre element, particularly those who are trying to sneak around on foot. Pioneers and Assaulters do not conduct Engr Ground Recce's and therefore cannot Designate Ground without Engr Support. This is pretty much stipulated in the SOP's.    

 

[armybuck041]

Interesting article on US Army Light Engineers (Sapper Platoon) in Kosovo:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDF/is_1_31/ai_78974286#continue

Some excerpts I found interesting:

Instead of having each squad of the platoon tasked to each infantry company, the task-force commander decided to keep the sapper platoon together and attach it to one of the infantry companies. Unlike in the mechanized world, where an engineer company supports a maneuver battalion, the air-assault infantry battalion is supported by one sapper platoon. Throughout the deployment, the sappers showed the diversity of 12B soldiers and their ability to serve in many different capacities. While in Kosovo, the platoon served as another light infantry element.

Lessons learned:

A platoon should deploy with all of its equipment. Before leaving, many items on the platoon leader's hand receipt were questioned as to whether they should be taken to Kosovo, but the decision to take all equipment paid dividends. Even though the mentality was of operating as a light infantry platoon, the 1-187 used the platoon as engineers on many occasions. Having properly maintained chain saws, tools, and equipment allowed the platoon to complete every mission.

 

[kj_gully]

As someone who was once in the Engineer platoon of a Light(parachute deployable) Airmobile Regiment, I can understand how it could work. I do not want to completely reveal my bias as to the ideal configuration for a new expiditionary force, merely hilight the unsuitability (is that a word?) of the current engineer regiment to support it.

 

[Unknown Factor]

I think the biggest problem with the current practice of having Engineers be all things to all elements, is that they cannot do just service to any.

This is not only true with the engineers but with all trades within the Cbt Arms, the reality is that we are all handcuffed by the regt. system.  This seems to be leaving all trades searching for a light and mech solution that is compatable with the regt system prior to an operational one.  Now I'm not here to bash the Regt. Syst. but at the end of the day what are we getting paid for?  We often knock around the idea within the infantry of seperating the trade qual into light and mech after the soldier has passed basic, if this was done accross the Cbt Arms then manning in those Units could be based on a more realistic structure. You have to remember though that the most effective use of 'Light Engineers' within a light force would be to perminantly employ them within the light force where your tasks would be gun slinger first - engineer second.

 

[McG]

What is the textbook definition of "Light" in this context anyways?

I think "light" is the same for engineers as it is for the rest of the army:

According to the Light Forces Working Group light forces are principally foot borne forces optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet not tied to any one platform. This definition was addopted in Nov 04 when the then proposed definition was rejected.

While the term "light" does not by default imply that a unit is airmobile, I think that our light sappers must be fully capable of airmobile ops.   They should also be able to operate out of an LSVW/LUVW fleet or completely independant of of significant vehicle support.

1)   What does a Light Squadron look like?   How is configured and how does this look different than a "normal" squadron.

At the moment, it looks like any other post-transformation engineer squadron.   The Fd Tp and SHQ are identical in manning & organization to any other mech fd sqn, and the sp tp is just one of the "traditional" support troops of the old sp sqn.   However, we may have to get away from this construct.

Last Feb, I sat through a well thought out presentation that proposed that a light fd tp could fully meet the needs of a li bn, and that one fd sect decentralized under the control of a rifle coy could meet all its engr needs.   The "traditional" field troop structure was validated, and the section became the smallest independant engr element (and the standard sized supporting element).   It all sounded really good until the end when I asked how this would support a li bn fighting in urban or similar complex terrain.   How would one section provide close assault mobility to a company that had platoons fighting different alleys, sections fighting seperate lots, and fire teams in different rooms & hallways?   He hadn't thought about it.

There could be several solutions.   Maybe the light section needs the ability to split itself into three 4 man teams to fill the "assault pioneer +" role (thus one sect could provide intimate support to each section within a rifle pl).   I do not think that a section is large enough to sustain support to a company, but many think that a troop is overkill.   Perhapse the solution is a smaller troop (only two or three sect instead of four)?

Not sure who wrote it up top, but the normal Fd Tp layout is not really all that workable in the dismounted environment. Looks great on paper, but it became apparent early on that we were dragging around many more pers/clag than we needed to. When providing close support to the Light Inf Coy, a break-up and parcelling of the Tp is almost inevitable.

Agreed, but it should not be the default answer.   Keeping the troop together (or only parcelling-out some elements) may mean that, while somebody is forced to live with less intimate sp, the Coy OC may be given greater flexibility when selecting a COA, or he may be able to consider larger engineer tasks to achieve his mission.

Lastly, allot of questions and head scratching is appearing over the employment of the Engr HC Operator in a Light Role Tp. Conventional IEDD and HC tasks, aside from "Manual approach" become almost impossible. Thoughts?

The mini-ROV will fit in an ATV trailor, and many other larger tools have a man-portable "little cousin".   There are certainly restrictions on how light the HC capability can get and certain tools & protection will have to be left behind (like tEODor and Bisons), but I don't think we are limited to a manual approach.

wow, I wrote it , but I don't even understand it. What I am trying to ask is the traditional Engineer regiment the right unit for the modern battlefield. I will admit that I am biassed, but think that the Army needs to be more cohesive, and have dedicated support at each sub level. So if 2 platoon, 2 PPCLI goes out on patrol, they take their integral engineers with them. If 2PP is on a fighting patrol, then Battalion hq has some more engineers in the HQ element, and every sub unit has a few. This would be the case throughout each Brigade.

I think there needs to be a "mothership" to maintain minimun trg standards and certain skill sets.   I would be supportive of a notion calling for sapper platoons in each manouvre unit (and I've said so in other threads), but I think we still need the CERs (especially to maintain all of our specialist skill sets).   Here is a thread that touches on this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22585.0.html

 

[McG]

I think this an important point to consider when looking at the equipment distribution within a light squadron as they may need greater quantities of certain equipment simply because the entire sect is not grouped around the sect veh, they may be quite dispersed.

This exact consideration went into the eqpt build for the Op ARCHER li sect.

 

[Kirkhill]

Early on in this thread I asked the question - partly facetiously I guess - what can you do with a Bobcat and a Gator.  But after looking at the Bobcat site maybe the question has merit?

http://www.bobcat.com/products/historical/lookup.html?machineType=ML

Bobcat produces tracked and wheeled loaders and excavators ranging from Ride-Ons at about 7500 lb (AUW?) to Walk-Behinds (kind of like motorized pallet jacks but with a hydraulic power pack and a claw or bin) at about 2500 lb (AUW?).

As well there is the John Deere 6x4 Gator utility vehicle which weighs in at 512 kg (1300 lb?)

http://www.deere.com/en_GB/professional/gators/6x4.html?sidenavstate=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000001

It seems that vehicles of this type might be heli portable -  could they be reasonable equipment for a Support Troop for a Light Eng Squadron?

 

[GO!!!]

That goes for everyone aspiring to go light, master your trade keep in shape and technically you are light the moment you step out of your vehicle and start carry a load. 

No, that means you are dismounted.

According to the Light Forces Working Group light forces are principally foot borne forces optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet not tied to any one platform. This definition was addopted in Nov 04 when the then proposed definition was rejected.

At present, mechanised units are tied to their platforms, with their organisations constructed for the facilitation of a mechanised role. (ie every Vehicle having a properly trained crew commander, who is not necessarily a section commander, and vice versa) In addition to this, LAV specific training and maintenance seems to eat up so much time, why are we trying to master every single skill? Split the trade (as mentioned elsewhere, and let both areas, light and mech excel in their areas.

As well there is the John Deere 6x4 Gator utility vehicle which weighs in at 512 kg (1300 lb?)

http://www.deere.com/en_GB/professional/gators/6x4.html?sidenavstate=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000001

It seems that vehicles of this type might be heli portable -  could they be reasonable equipment for a Support Troop for a Light Eng Squadron?

The gator was used on ops in Afghanistan in 2002, primarily by the CQs for resupply, as the helo resups were often far, far away! It is transportable IN a chinook, although I never saw one slung anywhere (but they can sling a hummer, that should'nt be a problem)

 

[geo]

Bobcats & Gators....
Weight should not be a factor - slung under most helicopters
Noise might be factor... but as a carrier for that extra bit of
heavy stores, both machines prove their weight in gold.... IMHO
... but they are not mountain goats so accessibility may sometimes become a factor

 

[Unknown Factor]

Bobcats & Gators....

How is this considered light? the fact that they weigh less than a bulldozer or Truck?  Light Engineers or Engineers tasked with supporting a light force?  Maybe we should better define the role 'Light Engineers' are going to play and in what context are they going to be used in.  The thing with Supporting Arms is that at the end of the day even though you might be light one moment the next the powers that be will expect you to perform tasks while not so deployed, are your tactics and equipment going to fit that mission?

 

[GO!!!]

According to the Light Forces Working Group light forces are principally foot borne forces optimized for military operations in complex.. environment,

Light forces can ride around in helos too, that does'nt make them airmobile forces.

Don't get so hung up on the word. "Light" is meant to emphasize the concentration of training, not the only training, or the only area of expertise, or the exclusive capability - just the main effort.

Unknown Factor: What do you have against this evolution of the Army?

 

[McG]

Maybe we should better define the role 'Light Engineers' are going to play and in what context are they going to be used in.  

The light engineer sqn should be able to provide sp to a principally foot borne battalion group optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet not tied to any one platform.

However, light forces may be mounted in ground vehicles for an operation.   This means that the light sqn must also be able to provide engr sp to light vehicles (likely up to MLVW).   Most of the additional capability would be provided by the sp tp (MPEV, back-hoe, etc), or through eqpt held by sp tp but employed by the fd tp (light bridges, assault boats, etc).  However, many capabilities resident in the fd tp, configured to sp the dismounted companies, would be directly transferable to the supporting a light vehicle fleet (explosive breaching, protective obst, etc).

Bobcat produces tracked and wheeled loaders and excavators ranging from Ride-Ons at about 7500 lb (AUW?) to Walk-Behinds (kind of like motorized pallet jacks but with a hydraulic power pack and a claw or bin) at about 2500 lb (AUW?).

We already have the Bobcats (particularly the skidsteer loader).

Bobcats & Gators....
Weight should not be a factor - slung under most helicopters

Don't forget to factor in a prime mover though.   Once off the helicopter, this kit is fine in one spot but may require something to move it if it will be used over a large area.   If we are not being limited by the lifting capacity of a helicopter, then we may be better served with something larger (like an MPEV or FEL).

 

[Unknown Factor]

The light engineer sqn should be able to provide sp to a principally foot borne battalion group optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet not tied to any one platform.

I may be reading into this the wrong way, but here it goes anyway.  Potentially before it is decided that you need Light Engineers you have to identify here they are required and is that requirement often enough to justify.  Many who read my posts assume that I have no experience in light tactics or that I've served with (or currently serving with) a light unit, this being far from the truth.  Now don't get me wrong I actually enjoy working with and being employed w/ Engineers (especially 1 CER guys) but at the end of the day what you are proposing is that a Engineer Sqn or troop train specifically in light tactics, in my sumation working with these guys they need very little prep time to go dismounted and many are in alot better shape than light troops.  I have complete faith in their leadership to ensure that the Atts that they send me are properly equiped for the task and physically fit enought to carry it out.  I don't think that it is neccessary to have embedded engineers or specific engineers  within a light bn just to light the fuse on a demo charge durring a pl or coy raid why would anyone want to missuse such a valuable resource?, which gets back to my point a few pages back that unless it is a specific Engineer task such as sensitive site exploitation.

I would hardly think the Army would care much if the Engineers made their own light trained Sqn which could work closely with a lt bn to benefit from insertion training and small team tactics but at the end of the day I would hope that they wouldn't be missused at the end of the day and find themselves lossing their skill sets as the light forces employ them as fuse lighters doing tasks that a basic demo course could accomplish.

And 'Go' I have nothing against evolution, what I am against is the flavor of the day without the forethought of the implications or manning.  I also refrain for designing the Army based on what I want and more on what might work but if you want my objective opinion...well I think you will find the the JATF will have everything that's being asked for here and more within their structure and sadly for those that think that it will filter down to the Army, don't count on it, expect to be doing alot of what you are doing now.  Manning will rip this Army apart and in order for the Armies deployment matrix to work (2000 pers deployed) it can not change for the forseen future. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

 
"I would hardly think the Army would care much if the Engineers made their own light trained Sqn which could work closely with a lt bn to benefit from insertion training and small team tactics but at the end of the day I would hope that they wouldn't be missused at the end of the day and find themselves lossing their skill sets as the light forces employ them as fuse lighters doing tasks that a basic demo course could accomplish."

This is what I said on the first page, and got a bollocking for it.  Thanks for the confirmation that I'm not completely OTL...

 

[McG]

If you want your light fighters to fill a "traditional" SF role (whatever that is), then train them as SF. 

It is not just JATF that needs light engineers.  The three light battalions need light engineers.

in my sumation working with these guys they need very little prep time to go dismounted and many are in alot better shape than light troops.

The soldiers may be fit, but a mech troop does not have the same equipment as a light troop (or at least it should not).  Many of a mech sections capabilities are tied to the vehicle (dozer blade, auger, hydraulic chainsaw, etc), and this is incompatable with a light force that is not tied to any one platform.  There are other tools that can be used to get the same jobs done, but now we are asking an already equipment intensive organization to maintain two sets of equipment. 

 

[043]

I may be reading into this the wrong way, but here it goes anyway.   Potentially before it is decided that you need Light Engineers you have to identify here they are required and is that requirement often enough to justify.   Many who read my posts assume that I have no experience in light tactics or that I've served with (or currently serving with) a light unit, this being far from the truth.   Now don't get me wrong I actually enjoy working with and being employed w/ Engineers (especially 1 CER guys) but at the end of the day what you are proposing is that a Engineer Sqn or troop train specifically in light tactics, in my sumation working with these guys they need very little prep time to go dismounted and many are in alot better shape than light troops.   I have complete faith in their leadership to ensure that the Atts that they send me are properly equiped for the task and physically fit enought to carry it out.   I don't think that it is neccessary to have embedded engineers or specific engineers   within a light bn just to light the fuse on a demo charge durring a pl or coy raid why would anyone want to missuse such a valuable resource?, which gets back to my point a few pages back that unless it is a specific Engineer task such as sensitive site exploitation.

I would hardly think the Army would care much if the Engineers made their own light trained Sqn which could work closely with a lt bn to benefit from insertion training and small team tactics but at the end of the day I would hope that they wouldn't be missused at the end of the day and find themselves lossing their skill sets as the light forces employ them as fuse lighters doing tasks that a basic demo course could accomplish.

And 'Go' I have nothing against evolution, what I am against is the flavor of the day without the forethought of the implications or manning.   I also refrain for designing the Army based on what I want and more on what might work but if you want my objective opinion...well I think you will find the the JATF will have everything that's being asked for here and more within their structure and sadly for those that think that it will filter down to the Army, don't count on it, expect to be doing alot of what you are doing now.   Manning will rip this Army apart and in order for the Armies deployment matrix to work (2000 pers deployed) it can not change for the forseen future.  

Since when is a SSE an Engr specific task???? It's an all arms task with each phase requireing SME's. Engr's may not even be the first to enter if the area is occupied and if they do go in they just go in to make it safe prior to the Int guys going in and gathering evidence. It is not a Engr Specific Task.