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

[Colin Parkinson]

Yep, I sure the combat engineer crawling out forward of everyone to clear a lane through the minefield is saying to himself: "Glad I got one of those cushy support jobs"  ;D

 

[Shamrock]

Recce soldiers can admit to their being in a cushy combat support position.

 

[McG]

Recce soldiers can admit to their being in a cushy combat support position.

Seeing as there is no recce branch, it does not fall into this classification.  However, Armd recce is a combat arm becuase of the "armour" part.

 

[McG]

The UK also has the audacity to place its engineers in the combat support role.

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).  It seems having "act as infantry" being an official role is the distinction between Canadian Combat Engineers and the engineers of other nations when it comes to the combat arms label.

 

[Old and Tired]

Has anyone bothered to check OFFICIAL pubs to see what they have to say on the matter.  Old title Used to be CFP-300, The Army.  Makes for interesting reading and some find the answers they are looking for.

 

[Kat Stevens]

"I can say this, Arty and cbt eng are NOT maneuver units..."



And I'll add this:  Armd and Inf won't maneuver too well for too long without Engineers breaching obstacles and building bridges, or Arty pounding shit out of hard points, either.  It's a stupid designation that helps further the "us and them" bullcrap between you real soldiers and us in the baggage train.

 

[Shamrock]

Has anyone bothered to check OFFICIAL pubs to see what they have to say on the matter.  Old title Used to be CFP-300, The Army.  Makes for interesting reading and some find the answers they are looking for.

Good call.  (Pub designation withheld, available via PM) covers employment of combat support.

A.  Artillery;
B.  Engineers;
(remainder omitted)

At no point does it mention the employment of engineers as infantry as primary, secondary, or tertiary duties.

This isn't a stupid designation that's part of some let's keep the engineers out club.  It's a role.  We're not devaluing the role of combat support in general or engineers in specific, you just have different roles than we do.  Nor are we suggesting engineers aren't up in the hug and slug with the combat arms, far from it.  Yes, combat would become considerably more difficult without combat support.  Combat would be impossible without combat service support. 

 

[392]

At no point does it mention the employment of engineers as infantry as primary, secondary, or tertiary duties.

1. The term engineer encompasses all military engineer
support found in the theatre of operations. The roles of engineers
are:
a. The Primary Role. To assist friendly troops to
fight, move and live, and to denying the same
ability to the enemy; and
b. The Secondary Role. To fight as infantry.

Right out of another pub; again as pointed out above, available via other means and not laid out in full here.

 

[Shamrock]

Really, though, isn't that the same for every other soldier in the CF?

Screw it.  I never should have waded into this.  Some people seem to think that being combat support somehow denigrates your role.  Here, I'll give in

You guys are combat arms.  But pioneers are engineers.

 

[392]

Really, though, isn't that the same for every other soldier in the CF?

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.

 

[geo]

In most NATO nations arty and cbt eng are considered combat support arms. I had an old army PAM (our army) that also listed the same.

Yes I know arty and cbt eng get muddy, dirty, wet, tired and miserable but like I said, most NATO countries they are a cbt support arm.

I don't know why canada decided to be different.

I can say this, Arty and cbt eng are NOT maneuver units...

While it is true that Sappers are seldom seen in any organisation larger than a troop in the field (wow 45 sappers ) they are definitively part of any formation's maneuver plan.  Also, when $h!+ hits the fan, the sapper will be there to pick up the pieces and save the day.... cause that's what the sapper does

 

[Shamrock]

While it is true that Sappers are seldom seen in any organisation larger than a troop in the field (wow 45 sappers ) they are definitively part of any formation's maneuver plan.  Also, when $h!+ hits the fan, the sapper will be there to pick up the pieces and save the day.... cause that's what the sapper does

Here I was thinking the infantry had corned the ego market.

 

[HItorMiss]

We do!!!!!

The Engineers are a close second (deservedly so btw)

 

[Kat Stevens]

Here I was thinking the infantry had corned the ego market.

Coming from a black hatter, THAT is without a doubt the most hilarious thing I ever read.... :rofl:

 

[HItorMiss]

Coming from a black hatter, THAT is without a doubt the most hilarious thing I ever read.... :rofl:

Not all Black Hatters Kat...

Just the ones that think they are Recce!  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

The real concern of "What's Combat Arms" has more to do with positions annotated as "Combat Arms - Any" on the establishment.  With Engineers designated as one of the Cbt Arms, they receive a proportional share of those positions to man, increasing the number of officers and NCMs, and providing greater influence in the Army.  Most of the Army's key staff positions up to the rank of Colonel are designated as "Combat Arms - Any" (at all levels - CMBG, Area and the Land Staff).

 

[geo]

Bureaucratic herresey!!!

 

[Shamrock]

Coming from a black hatter, THAT is without a doubt the most hilarious thing I ever read.... :rofl:

We're not arrogant, we're just better than everyone else.  And trust me, we know it.

 

[McG]

Has anyone bothered to check OFFICIAL pubs to see what they have to say on the matter. 

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

 

[Old and Tired]

Now that I'm at work with my copy of Relevant Pubs, here it is right from the book: (B- GL-300-003/FP-000)

TERMINOLOGY

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.

It would seem that the Term "Combat Arm" has fallen out of favour in Army Pubs.  So there we have the OFFICIAL description.