Engineering Regiment Breakdown

[MedCorps]

Kirkhill,

I definately do not have all (or any of the answers) as I was just at the presentation.

The VLMDS is vehicle launched mine dispensing system.  I am not sure if we have these, or are thinking about getting them. 

Yes the org would indicate that a CER would have 6 AEV and 6 AVLB.  That would leave one for CTC and one for CMTC.  It is possible that each of the CERs would keep 2 of them, or one of the CERs would hold all of them.  Again a guess (not even sure how educated, as I just learned from you that we only have 8 of them... lol).

As the Leopards are fading away with the DFS Bn replacing them,  there will be lots of Leo's we can rip the turret off and bolt on the  plough. 

That is abot all the info I have.  If anything else comes along, I will share.

Cheers,

MC

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks MC. 

Especially on the VLMDS.  Cheers

 

[McG]

MedCorps,
What you were shown by the Engr was intended as a model for TEWTS, CAX, CPX, etc.   It is not real and we do not have enough equipment for it to ever be real.   However, it does reflect some new organisational thoughts on Engr Regts.   Specifically the re-introduction of support troops into each of the field squadrons.

Still seems like we did not replace the Pnr / Asslt Tps very well, as there is only one Close Sp Tp.

This title â Å“Close Sp Tpâ ? has been used inaccurately here.   A CS Tp has always been an Armd /Fd Tp hybrid (one Tp HQ, three Fd Sects, and an Armd Sect).   The CS Tp was to provide close Engr Sp to the Cbt Tm.   It would not be a permanent troop but several could be created by the trading of sections between Fd Tps and an Armd Tp.

The â Å“Close Sp Tpâ ? in the org you have shown is really just a Sp Tp.

And wrt the Badger AEVs, the Beaver AVLBs and the Leo Dozers are we planning on converting some of the Leo MBTs

No plan for Leopard Dozer tanks in the Engrs, however there has been talk of converting some leopards to permanent plough tanks.   I have heard no details on this beyond concept talk.

I've never heard talk of converting MBT in to AVLB or AEV.    I don't think it would even be possible to convert to AEV.   The AEV hull is more like that of the ARV and not like that of the MBT.  

As I understand it we only have 8 of each of the AEVs and AVLBs and about the same number of Dozer Tanks (1/Sqn of 19?)

We have 9 of each.   6 of each will go to 1 CER/CMTC and 3 of each will sit in a Montreal depot.

the Engineers could be being downsized to 6 or 7 Squadrons, again assuming your ORBAT requirement of 4 MPEV per Field Squadron.

We only have seven field squadrons now.  

The MPEV has been a long time coming.   For the last 10 years our doctrine has called for two in each Fd Tp.   However, another school of thought feels that these unarmoured vehicles would be under utilised at that level.   This school of though suggests that the four MPEV be grouped as a Sqn asset or as part of a Sp Sqn.   In either case, we have been waiting a decade, but we do not have them yet, and the train-the-trainer courses are just starting now.

The VLMDS is vehicle launched mine dispensing system. I am not sure if we have these, or are thinking about getting them.

We do not have any of these (but like the MPEV they do have a place in doctrine).  So far the only place I've heard may be getting any is 4 ESR's MCM Tp.


So, what will we see?   I don't know yet.   2 CER and 5 RGC may stay as they are now (with no Armd Engr) and see the MPEV placed at Tp or Sqn level (or maybe even grouped in heavy Equipment troop).   1 CER has been told it will get an Armd Sqn.   This may turn out to be one 6 tank troop in each field squadron or it may turn out to be a full armoured squadron with two troops of six tanks each.   4 ESR . . . anything could happen there.

 

[Kirkhill]

Quote from: McGToday at 17:33:08 

Quote from: Kirkhill on August 17, 2004, 16:56:53
And wrt the Badger AEVs, the Beaver AVLBs and the Leo Dozers are we planning on converting some of the Leo MBTs
No plan for Leopard Dozer tanks in the Engrs, however there has been talk of converting some leopards to permanent plough tanks.  I have heard no details on this beyond concept talk.

I've never heard talk of converting MBT in to AVLB or AEV.  I don't think it would even be possible to convert to AEV.  The AEV hull is more like that of the ARV and not like that of the MBT. 


Quote from: Kirkhill on August 17, 2004, 16:56:53
As I understand it we only have 8 of each of the AEVs and AVLBs and about the same number of Dozer Tanks (1/Sqn of 19?)
We have 9 of each.  6 of each will go to 1 CER/CMTC and 3 of each will sit in a Montreal depot.

Thanks for the clarification McG.  Always preferable to have the straight skinny.


And as for this....

Quote from: Kirkhill on August 17, 2004, 16:56:53
the Engineers could be being downsized to 6 or 7 Squadrons, again assuming your ORBAT requirement of 4 MPEV per Field Squadron.
We only have seven field squadrons now.

I'm sorry.  I thought you guys were the fair-haired boys of the new kindler-gentler army - cleaning up after all those other nasty people get finished killing each other.

Irony intended.  Anger, sadness, "dumfoonert".....

 

[Huffman]

I was just wondering what the rank breakdown is like? For the Troop that is, someone said it's like the Pioneers, so is it like this?

http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/pioneer.htm

If anyone could explain it in the terms of that link (^^) or give me another link that is similar to that but is in modern terms such as the structure used by the 1 CER for there 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Troops, that would be great.

Thanks.

****Edit: Just adding more detail to the question.

For instance, are there sections headed by a NCM (Sgt or Cpl) like in the infantry? Are there 3 or 4 sections to a platoon and then a few platoons to a Troop, so a Troop is like an infantry Coy? Or no?

Thanks again.

 

[Cpl. Williamson]

Yes Huffman A Sgt Is Usually The Section Commander (Or MCPL) And An Engineer Troop is the Equivalent To an Infantry Platoon

 

[Huffman]

So it would look like this then?

Troop 1
Lt.

Section 1
Sgt. or MCpl. (in command)
Cpl. (2ic)
Sappers (how many by the way)

Section 2
same format.

Who else is part of HQ besides the lieutenant?

 

[McG]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/2139/post-89552.html#msg89552
The Tp HQ consists of a Tp Comd, a Tp WO, a Recce Sgt, and a Stores NCO (plus drivers). 


http://army.ca/forums/threads/2139/post-89569.html#msg89569
The Fd Tps have four Fd Sections + HQ Sect

Section size should be 8 â “ 10 with a Sgt leading the section and a MCpl as his second in command (however, it is not unheard of for a MCpl to lead and a Cpl to be the 2ic).

 

[Huffman]

Alright, thanks for all your help!!

 

[armybuck041]

I hate always being the devils advocate but I need to resolve some disinformation with this post.

Here is the latest Field Squadron Organization:

SHQ

OC: Maj
LAV III & Driver: Spr/Cpl
Gunner: Spr/Cpl

SSM: MWO
LSVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl

2 I/C: Capt
LSVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl

Op's O: Lt/Capt
Op's NCO: Sgt/WO
M577 & Driver: Spr/Cpl
Signaller: Pte/Cpl

SQMS: WO
Assistant SQMS: MCpl
HLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
HLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
MLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
LSVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl

Field Troop X 2
Tp Comd: Lt/Capt
LAV III & Driver: Spr/Cpl
Gunner: Spr/Cpl

Tp WO: WO
M113 & Driver: Spr/Cpl

Tp Recce: Sgt
LAV III & Driver: Spr/Cpl
Gunner: Spr/Cpl

3 x Field Sections consisting of:

Sect Comd: Sgt/MCpl
M113A2 Pioneer Dozer/MTVE & Driver: Spr/Cpl
Sect 2 I/C: MCpl/Cpl
Sect Strmn: Spr/Cpl
Sect C-9: Spr/Cpl
Sect M203: Spr/Cpl
Sect Mbr: Spr/Cpl
Sect Mbr: Spr/Cpl

A Field Section consists of 8 to 10 total(on paper), and it is not at all unusual to have a PLQ/QL-5A qualified Cpl command a Fd Sect.
There is no longer a Troop HQ Sect, Troop Storeman or a Maintenance/Transport Rep held in the Field Troop organization.
The Tp WO handles all of the Adreps, and his Driver the MT, for the Troop.
The SQMS is the Senior WO in the Sqn and steps up to the SSM's position in his absence. His staff handles all of the organizations Stores and MT requirements.

You may see a striking resemblance to an Infantry Coy.... If so, that is because that is the layout we have now adopted. 2 CER has been this way for almost 2 years now.

There is a slightly different TO&E for oversea's deployments where the second Field Troop becomes a composite organization, holding EOD, Heavy Equipment and other specialty pers.

 

[McG]

It does not help that every regiment tries to do things a little different.

SHQ

...
Op's O: Lt/Capt
Op's NCO: Sgt/WO

If it is a Lt we call it an LO and give it less responsibility.   The Sqn OpsO is post troop command.   The Sqn Ops NCO out here are Sgt.

SHQ

...

SQMS: WO
Assistant SQMS: MCpl
HLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
HLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
MLVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl
LSVW & Driver: Spr/Cpl

Our SQMSs are still Sgt (in the old Engr tradition) but I have heard that the way of the future will eventually be WO.   Our A/SQMS have been Cpl.   The HLVWs are still down at Tp level.

Field Troop X 2

Yep.   That's the way of it here too, but I have seen the concept for Engr transformation . . . expect this number to change in the next couple of years.

Field Troop X 2

...

3 x Field Sections

half our troops are manned for 3 sect and half are manned for four.   Expect the way of the future to be three sections for force generation (read while in Canada) and a fourth section to be provided by the reserves for operations (don't blame me if you don't like that sound, but it is the official concept).

A Field Section consists of 8 to 10 total(on paper), and it is not at all unusual to have a PLQ/QL-5A qualified Cpl command a Fd Sect.

Expect this number to drop to 8 on paper (don't know if we will see more than 6 in the real world though).


armybuck041,
I would be interested to hear about the Regt Recce org that is unique to 2 CER.

 

[armybuck041]

I'm pretty sure 2 CER is the poster child of the future for all of our Units and would not be surprised if you see 1 CER following suit after Op Athena Roto 2. The only big change in the near future is the number of Field Troops per Field Squadron, but the 3 Sections per Troop is here to stay. You may start to notice that the Level B/C of the BTS will start to change to reflect this. As it stands right now, 23 Fd Sqn (my home) has not been given the authority to stand up a 4th Field Section per Troop for Op Athena Roto III and the TO&E sitting in front of me reflects this vacancy. The option of taking Reserves has not been totally explored at this point.

As for Regt Recce.....

In a nutshell, 2 CER has put a Dive, Jump and EOD capability under the direct control of RHQ. Rather than having these pers spread all over the Unit standing up when required, we have centralized a small number of highly qualified pers in this one area. As it stands there is approx 10 pers assigned to this organization. They are often tasked with providing specialized training within and outside the Unit (such as LAV III CGT, Dml Trg for other arms, Mine Awareness etc) and handle large scale Recce Tasks for Regt Exercises.     

 

[armybuck041]

The option of taking Reserves has not been totally explored at this point.

I guess i'll eat my socks on that point.... Apparently we sent out 8 messages last week in an effort to augment our 10% Standby list.

 

[McG]

As stated above, I've seen the concept for Engineer Transformation and now I have lived it for a month in the field . . . depending on who you talk to you will get differing opinions about if it really works or not.

When this transformation is implemented (starting this summer and taking a few years to complete) 1 CER, 4 ESR, and 5 RGC will grow and 2 CER will shrink (but over all the corps will grow by about 200 soldiers).   The support squadrons will no longer exist (and this is the biggest bone of contention for many Sr NCO and Jr officer).   There will be 12 field squadrons across Canada.   Four Fd Sqns in 1 and 5 CER, three Fd Sqns in 2 CER, and one Fd Sqn in 4 ESR.

Each Fd Sqn will consist of one Fd Tp and a Sp Tp (this matches our recent force employment trend).   For force generation purposes, the Sp Tps will remain specialised in Canada (so in 1 CER a Fd Sqn will have a Hy Eqpt Tp, another Fd Sqn will have a Ress Tp, a third Fd Sqn will have Constr Tp, and the last Fd Sqn will have Armd Tp)

 

[Mountie]

I'm just curious what you engineers have to say about my engineer proposal that was part of my Canadian Medium Brigade Group proposal on another post.

I propose a large Combat Engineer Squadron, rather than a regiment for each CMBG, similar to the WWII company/squadron.   The reasoning behind this is relatively simply.   The CF does not have the numbers to maintain up to strength CERs.   Regiments are making do with fewer squadrons than necessary, squadrons with fewer troops and troops with fewer sections than required.   So I wanted to come up with an organization that was a happy medium between the authorized strength and the reality.   Something that the CF could afford to maintain at full strength all the time.   Secondly, most peace support operations require a significant amount of support engineering, rather than field/combat engineering.   Therefore, I have concentrated the engineer support troops in a large engineer support squadron that supports each CMBG but is found in the support group along with the general support battalions and other Role 3 support units.   (See my post on "What Should the Army's Structure Be?" under The Canadian Army chapter for more on this)

***Note*** for those of you that haven't read my previous post, I have introduced a new vehicle called the Light Armoured Support Vehicle.   It is my name for the British Army's Command & Liaison Vehicle and would be either the British Panther or the General Motors Eagle IV.   It fills the roles that require an armoured vehicle, but don't require a large vehicle like the LAV-III.   It is a means of saving the valuable LAV-III for those who really need it and of saving money.   I have used it in the same roles as the British Army does, so it is a proven concept.   Its not something I just dreamed up, I just renamed it.   It is armed with a Protected Weapons Station.   See www.army-technology.com for details on the British Panther CLV.

I also chose a 5-tonne 4x4 Steyr truck as the future MLVW replacement, rather than a 2.5 tonne replacement.   It doesn't make a big difference but that is why you will find an MLVW in the field troops not a HLVW.

Combat Engineer Squadron:   (245 troops & 71 vehicles in total)

Squadron Headquarters: (15 troops)
- Command Section - 2 x LASVs (OC & 2i/c) & 1 x LUVW or LSVW (SSM)
   - OC (Maj)
   - 2i/c (Capt)
   - SSM (MWO)
   - Assistant Operations NCO (Sgt)
   - Signal NCO (MCpl)
   - Drivers/PWS Gunners/Signallers
- Operations Section - 1 x LSVW Van (CP) ***Engineer Cell at Brigade HQ
   - Operations Officer (Capt)
   - Operations Warrant (WO)
   - 2 x Operations Assistants/Signallers (2 x Cpl)

Administrative Troop: (31 Troops)
- Troop Headquarters
- Squadron Orderly Room
- Stores Section (SQMS)
- Maintenance Section
- Medical Section

3 x Field Engineer Troop: (50 troops)
- Troop Headquarters - 2 x LASV (Trp Cdr & Trp WO) & 1 MLVW (stores)
   - Troop Commander (Lieut)
   - Troop Warrant (WO)
   - 4 x Drivers/Gunners for the LASVs
   - MLVW Driver
- Engineer Recce Detachment - 1 x LASV
   - Recce NCO (Sgt)
   - Driver/Gunner (Spr/Cpl)    
- 4 x Engineer Sections - Each with a LAV-III ESV (US Stryker ESV)
   - Section Commander (Sgt)
   - Section 2i/c (MCpl)
   - Driver/Gunner (Spr/Cpl)
   - 6 x Combat Engineers

Engineer Support Troop: (49 troops)
- Troop Headquarters - 2 x LUVW
   - Troop Commander (Capt)
   - Troop Warrant (WO)
   - 2 x Driver
   - 2 x Combat Divers - 1 x LSVW SEV Van
- 3 x Mobility Support Sections (8 troops) - Each capable of reinforcing a field engineer troop with earthmoving and digging support.
   - 1 x MLVW
   - 4 x MPEV
   - 1 x HLVW Assault Bridge (as used by the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team Engineer Company)
   - 1 x HLVW Dump Truck (HLVW Dump instead of HESV to keep commonality through the CMBG, only the engineer support squadrons in the support group would use the HESV)
- Heavy Equipment Section (12 troops)
   - 1 x MLVW
   - 3 x MPEV
   - 3 x HLVW Dump Truck
   - 1 x Road Grader
   - 1 x Track Excavator
   - 1 x Heavy Crane
   - 2 x HLVW Tractor-Trailer for carrying crane and excavator
-Water Supply Section (7 troops) - 1 x LSVW & 2 x HLVW ROWPU
   - Section Commander (Sgt)
   - 2 x Detachment Commander (MCpl)
   - 4 x Engineer (Cpl/Spr)

 

[McG]

I propose a large Combat Engineer Squadron, rather than a regiment for each CMBG, similar to the WWII company/squadron.  

Seeing as we deploy squadrons on operations, this would defiantly be un able to support up to four battle groups (which is what each brigade is structured to be able to generate).   The need for an Engr Sqn has been clearly stated by the Engr branch:

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.  

The reasoning behind this is relatively simply.   The CF does not have the numbers to maintain up to strength CERs.   Regiments are making do with fewer squadrons than necessary, squadrons with fewer troops and troops with fewer sections than required.  

You must have missed the post where I stated that J3 Engr has plans to increase the number of soldiers allotted to each CER.   69 new PYs each to 1 CER and 5 RGC.   This is a plan being developed in Ottawa in order to ensure that engineers are able to match the needs of managed readiness.   If we are going to cut the number of engineers, we may as well shut down some Armd Regt or Inf Bn because they would be unsupportable from an engineer perspective.

Secondly, most peace support operations require a significant amount of support engineering, rather than field/combat engineering.   Therefore, I have concentrated the engineer support troops in a large engineer support squadron that supports each CMBG but is found in the support group along with the general support battalions and other Role 3 support units.  

1) All the Engr functions will be housed in one squadron on an operation.   So you are proposing that instead of building that squadron from elements of one unit, that it will be built of elements that are not even in the same formation (ASG vs CMBG)?   How do they develop as a team?

2)   What â Å“supportâ ? functions do you intend to transfer to the ASG?  

- Heavy Equipment Section (12 troops)
   - 1 x MLVW
   - 3 x MPEV
   - 3 x HLVW Dump Truck
   - 1 x Road Grader
   - 1 x Track Excavator
   - 1 x Heavy Crane
   - 2 x HLVW Tractor-Trailer for carrying crane and excavator

No Dozers?   No Loaders?

-Water Supply Section (7 troops) - 1 x LSVW & 2 x HLVW ROWPU
   - Section Commander (Sgt)
   - 2 x Detachment Commander (MCpl)
   - 4 x Engineer (Cpl/Spr)

This is not enough to support the needs of up to four battle groups,

  - 1 x HLVW Assault Bridge (as used by the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team Engineer Company)

I would not want an assault bridge launching vehicle to be soft skinned, as it would tend to get shot during the assault.   It would may provide a suitable platform for tactical bridging to open more lanes for follow-on forces to cross an obstacle.   However, I don't think this project is ready yet.   Last time I checked, the Stryker brigades were using MGB (which requires at least 6 HLVW to move).  
 

 - 2 x Combat Divers - 1 x LSVW SEV Van

Dive stores uses an HLVW PLS or HESV to move all the kit.   The divers themselves are spread through the regiment.

3 x Field Engineer Troop: (50 troops)

This is not enough to support up to four battle groups.

I've also noticed that you have no Mine / Counter Mine section.   Does this Cbt Sp function fall into the ASG?   There is no Assault mobility (Armd Engr or future replacement systems) either.

 

[SprCForr]

I like the idea of not re-inventing ourselves everytime we are tasked overseas. The DCO and RSM 1 CER gave me a quick rundown at the smoker last month and I was happy to hear about the pers increase. The idea of establishing the Sqns to provide maximum stability and continuity sounds good. As opposed to the other thread with the Tp(+) Sqn (-) discussion, the Btl Gp is the ideal place for the new Sqns.

We must remain in our war fighting organisation.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Well then, why don't we go all out on this one? Three identical Fd Sqns consisting of a SMALL SHQ, two full strength Fd Tps, a hy/armd hybrid troop, and a fair sized store/res tp, under the SQ.  Not on the scale of a current Regimental Stores tp, of course.  We also need to get away from the idea that we need a gazillion officers and SNCO's for a gazillion staff jobs. Who the hell ever heard of an LO before '95?  These guys perpetuate the lopsided teeth to tail ratio. In 15 Sqn, we got by with a M/Cpl in the SQ shop for years. Also a decentralized maint system, with parts and whatnot held by the Adm Sqn in the rear.....the list could go on forever...

 

[Kat Stevens]

The logical extension of all this, is to do away with the Regimental System, and form permanent Bn Gps with numerical designation.  The obvious advantage of this is to foster closer all arms interoperability within the group, and less mad scramble to fill manning shortfalls at deployment time.  Just a thought

Chimo, Kat

 

[McG]

Well then, why don't we go all out on this one? Three identical Fd Sqns consisting of a SMALL SHQ, two full strength Fd Tps, a hy/armd hybrid troop, and a fair sized store/res tp, under the SQ.

This is almost where we are going, except that there will be four Fd Sqn (with one being light) and the Sp Tp will not be the same.  We will still have HET, Res, CT, and Armd (though Armd will become known as Assault Mobility Tp).  The regiment will also still exist and the new squadrons will not be permanently inffused into the battle groups.

Why?

To break-up the regiment would not be sustainable.  We only need one MCM section, and we only need one ROWPU section.  However, we cannot really sustain these at the sub-section level on a permanent basis.  There is also the availability of training resources.  There are only two ROWPU, one minelayer, one portable mill, one crane, two dozers, two graders, two excavators, etc.  We cannot divide this equipment across four battle groups and expect those battle groups to develope & sustain the skill sets required of a Sp Tp.