Engineer Support in Light/SF Roles

[Unknown Factor]

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.

It is an example, the only reason I can think of why people read into things is to sound SMRT or here themselves talk.  Specically what everyone is trying to do is justify existance into a formation which they think is 'new' and 'cutting edge'.  The reality is that for those that were in the Inf Bn's in the 80's and early 90's they were already configured into what everyone wants now in a light force.  3 rifle coys(4 for deployment), cbt sup (including tow/dfs,mortars,pioneers,reece/pathfinders) and an admin coy. Now if I forgot anyone I'm sure someone will point that out but if you look closely every element is represented.  So if you want to be cutting edge maybe what you should do is propose that the light inf bns reconfigure back into the old orbat and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.  Realize this though each of those Bn's soldiers would be Inf first - skill set second and I'm sure no one has a problem with that!

 

[Infanteer]

So if you want to be cutting edge maybe what you should do is propose that the light inf bns reconfigure back into the old orbat and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

The old Orbat - ha, I think that is still the current the doctrinal orbat; AFAIK, "The Infantry Battalion in Battle" has yet to be updated.

However, I have to wonder if there is a waste of effort by giving Infantry guys skills that others make their raison d'etre - perhaps the Infantry battalion as we know it (branch pure, tied to the Regimental system) itself is an anachronism; this seems to be the American experience WRT Transformation and the Unit of Action.

 

[Unknown Factor]

The old Orbat - ha, I think that is still the current the doctrinal orbat; AFAIK, "The Infantry Battalion in Battle" has yet to be updated.

Well that is a relief! all we have to do is undo what is actually going on and re-write some titles in the old book update some doctrine and we get our wish!

However, I have to wonder if there is a waste of effort by giving Infantry guys skills that others make their raison d'etre - perhaps the Infantry battalion as we know it (branch pure, tied to the Regimental system) itself is an anachronism; this seems to be the American experience WRT Transformation and the Unit of Action.

I completely agree, and my point was looking in the reverse, how would an Engineer like to be infantry and not be able to use all of those skill sets?  As for the regt system I agree as well, and it is not lost on those that believe to move forward we have to lose it.  No reason then to train all Army pers to in basic infantry skills first and then specific trade training. 

 

[McG]

So if you want to be cutting edge maybe what you should do is propose that the light inf bns reconfigure back into the old orbat and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

How did we switch to light infantry battalion ORBATs?  That's already going (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28736.0.html).

 

[Chimo]

I think we are losing a bit of focus on the topic. Let me try and bring it back on line. The Light Engineers have to be more then just following an Infantry section from point A to point B. If that was all there is to it, bring back the Pioneers. There is much more to Light Engineering then lighting a fuse.

First, going back to the days when the Airborne was the Airborne. 1 Abn Field Squadron was equipped with heavy equipment, dozer, loaders, graders, etc that could be airdropped on to the objective. This was utilized during Op Caesar to create an Ice Landing strip for C-130s to resupply the mission and extract the scientist and troops at the completion. This is an example of the flexibility and force multiper that Light Engineers can bring to the fight.

As for the make up of a Light Squadron or Regt, I am still pondering it. I don't have a DS solution. However, I will go out and say I have never been a big fan of parceling out sections, and Sappers to Infantry Sections.

In asymmetrical warfare, the Infantry Coy Comd or Bn Comd must decide where the main effort is, employ Engineer Recce with his and deliberately plan the Engineer portion of the Operation. This phase is constantly missed both on exercises and Operations such as Op Apollo. We have never dealt with this effectively mainly because of BS turf wars.

As far as the point of SSE being or not being an Engineer task. Let me state here and now. It will all be fun and games until our first Soldiers are killed doing it. Then the Higher Headquarters will be looking for what went wrong. We as a Branch need to be able to offer solutions to how to clear caves, buildings tunnels or sewers. I believe we have the corporate knowledge, its a matter of standardizing it as much as possible and teaching it as a BTS. Until then we are putting troops at risk, if we do not plan it as a deliberate operation. I do not mean just getting to the site, but the actual process of entering, clearing and processing the site. I see it as a combined arms ops.

Light Forces are usually used to raid, seize and hold and those type of operations. I see the Light Engineers doing LZ/DZ improvements/ denial ops, river crossings, destruction of key points, IE radio towers, rail lines etc. Also, assisting movement through mined areas, force protection with IED/EOD skills, diving support ops, and  heavy equipment construction tasks.

 

[armybuck041]

First, going back to the days when the Airborne was the Airborne. 1 Abn Field Squadron was equipped with heavy equipment, dozer, loaders, graders, etc that could be airdropped on to the objective. This was utilized during Op Caesar to create an Ice Landing strip for C-130s to resupply the mission and extract the scientist and troops at the completion. This is an example of the flexibility and force multiper that Light Engineers can bring to the fight.

We tried this last week.... My Troop is comprised of 3 Sections. During an assymetrical OBUA Assault Scenario, a Light Section was attached to each Light Platoon to assist with Dynamic Building Entry and to ID possible Booby Trap's and IED's. The 3rd Section was left mounted in an MTVE with a ZL and operator attached to breach composite obstacle blocked routes into the OBUA site. This worked out very well and displayed the need to have access to equipment when needed even though we are supposed to be "Light". We were a force multiplier and proved to be a "must have" amongst Infantry who didn't seem to want us around initally.     

However, I will go out and say I have never been a big fan of parceling out sections, and Sappers to Infantry Sections.

I agree, but in some situations it is the obvious choice. ie 2 x Sappers per Infantry Section to Hooligan or Blast into Buildings. 

As far as the point of SSE being or not being an Engineer task. Let me state here and now. It will all be fun and games until our first Soldiers are killed doing it. Then the Higher Headquarters will be looking for what went wrong. We as a Branch need to be able to offer solutions to how to clear caves, buildings tunnels or sewers. I believe we have the corporate knowledge, its a matter of standardizing it as much as possible and teaching it as a BTS. Until then we are putting troops at risk, if we do not plan it as a deliberate operation. I do not mean just getting to the site, but the actual process of entering, clearing and processing the site. I see it as a combined arms ops.

We assist the Int people with SSE. Depending on the level of threat or the situation, the Int people instruct us on their requirments from a site and we collect the information for them. This limits the pers on site to those who can both ID and defeat possible BT's and IED's as well as gather info for SSE. WRT to my experience with this oversea's, we rendered the site completely safe prior to allowing the Int people in to collect information.

Light Forces are usually used to raid, seize and hold and those type of operations. I see the Light Engineers doing LZ/DZ improvements/denial ops, river crossings, destruction of key points, IE radio towers, rail lines etc. Also, assisting movement through mined areas, force protection with IED/EOD skills, diving support ops, and  heavy equipment construction tasks.

Agree'd....

 

[bilton090]

Ok Troops, listen up, ROE for this discussion...NO running down units because of past roles, whether actual or implied, forced upon them. No running down troops with "light " experiences from 1 CER, 2 CER, 4 CER, 5 RGC, 2 Tp Para, 4 Tp or Engr Pl, Canadian Airborne Regiment.(Or anyone else I might of missed).

OK, Nick and Doug, nod your heads... lets carry on as the professionals we are...My question is with the transformation of the CF, I can see the Engineers being left with a capability gap of not having Light Engineers to support the Force, in particular, the Light Bns and SOG.

I know we have always managed it, particularly supporting the Lt Bn but at quite a cost to the Regts involved and to the troops that had to concentrate on Lt Ops and Mech Ops.

Should we form Lt Sqns or a Light Regiment with a view to support the SOG and the Lt Bns? Perhaps a Independent Combat Engineer Regiment, equiped, mandated, training to sustain and support all light and special ops type operations. IMHO if we do not reinvent ourselves to be and do what the Army needs us to do, we are in danger of being sidelined. I am very proud of our past successes. Many have been totally due to the initiative of the Section Commander on the ground rather then through well designed training. 

In my vision, this Unit would be totally concerned with light Ops, Para insertion, Helo Ops, Boat Ops etc. Their TO& E would be designed to support our light fighters. For too long we have expected our Sappers to be able to do both.

OK, my helmets on,  :warstory: flak jacket in place... watch and shoot. What do you have to say on the subject?

  Thats why we had the Airborne Eng. Sqn. in 2 CER

 

[bilton090]

   Thats why we had the Airborne Eng. Sqn. in 2 CER

The first nail was killing the S.S.F, Than the Airborne Battle Group.

 

[McG]

Thats why we had the Airborne Eng. Sqn. in 2 CER

Do you mean Abn Engr Tp?  I did not think the Abn Engr Sqn existed after the Regt moved from Edm.

Anyway I think you will see 2 TP para rise from the ashes very soon.  I believe that engineers will play a pivotal role in the new tier 2 SF.

Except that I anticipate that the Engrs will be a part of CSOR as opposed to a part of 2 CER.

 

[GO!!!]

Except that I anticipate that the Engrs will be a part of CSOR as opposed to a part of 2 CER.

Hopefully in the form of an Assault Pioneer Platoon!

 

[George Wallace]

Hopefully in the form of an Assault Pioneer Platoon!

Except that I anticipate that the Engrs will be a part of CSOR as opposed to a part of 2 CER.

There was a Topic or discussion on the Aussie unit that handled 'special' tasks.  Along those lines, we may see the JNBC guys, EOD and Engrs almagamated to form such a Unit in the CSOR Org.

 

[Infanteer]

This topic made the latest (online) issue of the Army Journal:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_4/CAJ_vol8.4_11_e.pdf

 

[geo]

The Canadian combat engineer squadron supporting two light battalions will also need to have the same mobility capabilities (airborne, airmobile, amphibious), as well as special skills (e.g. mountain master, pathfinder) and will have to acquire the same level of fieldcraft expertise.  Without these prerequisites, the task of supporting light forces will be difficult, if not impossible.

The secondary role of combat engineers is to fight as infantry.  Light combat engineers will have to train to acquire a skill level similar to that of light infantry soldiers to carry out their engineer tasks. Although light engineer missions will be similar to those to be assigned to light battalions (e.g. destroy, seize, deny)23, light combat engineers will have greater destruction, technical reconnaissance, emplacement and obstacle clearing capabilities than light infantry, thus greatly increasing commanders' flexibility.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Infanteer]

Although light engineer missions will be similar to those to be assigned to light battalions (e.g. destroy, seize, deny)23, light combat engineers will have greater destruction, technical reconnaissance, emplacement and obstacle clearing capabilities than light infantry, thus greatly increasing commanders' flexibility.

What do you need infantry for then?

 

[Kat Stevens]

What do you need infantry for then?

BEST QUESTION EVER!!!!

 

[geo]

:|

said sapper will fight as infantry when needed..... but he's already got plenty on his plate and is happy & to share battlefield with his friends.

CHIMO!