# Canadian Army reactivates elite Assault Pioneers unit



## Retired AF Guy (30 Mar 2019)

My apologies if this already been posted. Just read it at the NEWSREP website.



> Beards and axes: Canadian Army reactivates elite Assault Pioneers
> 
> by Stavros Atlamazoglou · 1 day ago
> 
> ...



Link contains photos and links to other articles.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Mar 2019)

And beards?  Everyone knows that beards greatly enhance all combat, combat support and combat service support capabilities! :nod:

In all seriousness though, good to see the re-establishment of the Pioneers. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

I wonder if this will hail the official return of Assault Troop in the Armour Corps also?


----------



## BDTyre (1 Apr 2019)

We had about twenty or so guys trained up by the Engineers last summer and we just wrapped up our first in-house course. Lots of new toys to play with...


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Apr 2019)

Just wondering....

Is it possible to fully 'reactivate' a formerly full time, Reg F staffed capability, which was fully integrated into nine Infantry Battalions and CoC, as a Class A Res F, part time organization, scattered across a bunch of Reserve Units without a direct CoC connection to those same Reg F battalions they will be supporting?


----------



## BDTyre (1 Apr 2019)

We've actually had about 5 reg force members posted to us as part of us being tasked as pioneer. They acted as course staff and are part of fledgling pioneer platoon. And there is the expectation that we can provide a section plus for reg force exercises.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just wondering....
> 
> Is it possible to fully 'reactivate' a formerly full time, Reg F staffed capability, which was fully integrated into nine Infantry Battalions and CoC, as a Class A Res F, part time organization, scattered across a bunch of Reserve Units without a direct CoC connection to those same Reg F battalions they will be supporting?



The full time Reg force capability is being reactivated.  Some PRes units are being given mission tasks like Pioneer to augment.  The same is being done for direct fire and mortar tasks.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Apr 2019)

Elite. Gimme a break.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Elite. Gimme a break.



Agreed.

Unique?


----------



## garb811 (1 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The full time Reg force capability is being reactivated.  Some PRes units are being given mission tasks like Pioneer to augment.  The same is being done for direct fire and mortar tasks.


Any idea if that Reg Force capability "reactivation" coming with new PYs attached to make up for the PYs that were lost when the Pioneer Pls were disbanded and the capability "transferred" to the CERs? 

Hopefully I'm just jaded but all too often "new" capabilities are launched with the expectation that they will be PY neutral with the belief that internal re-orgs will somehow make it work, such as with the a/m capability "transfer" that saw 0 PYs make it to the CERs to compensate for the new requirement to fill the hole left with the loss of the pioneers?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Apr 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Any idea if that Reg Force capability "reactivation" coming with new PYs attached to make up for the PYs that were lost when the Pioneer Pls were disbanded and the capability "transferred" to the CERs?
> 
> Hopefully I'm just jaded but all too often "new" capabilities are launched with the expectation that they will be PY neutral with the belief that internal re-orgs will somehow make it work, such as with the a/m capability "transfer" that saw 0 PYs make it to the CERs to compensate for the new requirement to fill the hole left with the loss of the pioneers?



There were no new PYs allotted in restoring these capabilities.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just wondering....
> 
> Is it possible to fully 'reactivate' a formerly full time, Reg F staffed capability, which was fully integrated into nine Infantry Battalions and CoC, as a Class A Res F, part time organization, scattered across a bunch of Reserve Units without a direct CoC connection to those same Reg F battalions they will be supporting?



You mean throw the Reserves another bone that is impossible for them to chew?


----------



## garb811 (1 Apr 2019)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> There were no new PYs allotted in restoring these capabilities.


 :facepalm:  :not-again:


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2019)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> There were no new PYs allotted in restoring these capabilities.



Just drop rifle companies to a platoon and a half strength. 
Easy peasey.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> You mean throw the Reserves another bone that is impossible for them to chew?



If it was just augmenting the pioneer platoons, then the reserves could probably do a pretty good job. But there are the Mortar Platoon and Recce Platoon 'operational' taskings too, all while they concurrently continue to recruit, train and retain themselves for the non-Sp Coy roles.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If it was just augmenting the pioneer platoons, then the reserves could probably do a pretty good job. But there are the Mortar Platoon and Recce Platoon 'operational' taskings too, all while they concurrently continue to recruit, train and retain themselves for the non-Sp Coy roles.



I don’t think recce is one of those that the reserves have received.  

Mortars yes.  

Keep in mind it is specific units in each brigade getting these roles.  And it is indeed to augment regular force units.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Apr 2019)

> Known for their specialized training, different grooming standards (they are allowed to wear well-groomed beards), and their axes, Assault Pioneers are a mix of an infantryman and a combat engineer.









Will just leave this here....  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I don’t think recce is one of those that the reserves have received.
> 
> Mortars yes.
> 
> Keep in mind it is specific units in each brigade getting these roles.  And it is indeed to augment regular force units.



My unit is supposed to provide the Recce Pl task so, yes, the reserves are on that too.


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My unit is supposed to provide the Recce Pl task so, yes, the reserves are on that too.



Cool.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Apr 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My unit is supposed to provide the Recce Pl task so, yes, the reserves are on that too.



Not actually providing...yet?  ever?


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not actually providing...yet?  ever?



Units have been identified with some tasks.  

Courses need to be run.  I believe they are starting sometime in Sept. for Recce.   Then they will likely need to send some people on adv. recce.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Units have been identified with some tasks.
> 
> Courses need to be run.  I believe they are starting sometime in Sept. for Recce.   Then they will likely need to send some people on adv. recce.



Yes, it will be a long run up to establishing a full capability, likely 3 to 5 years I would guess, at which point we'll struggle to maintain it due to higher than average turnover levels (which is normal) as well as the work of the Good Idea Fairy, which will ensure that we change tack at some point and go back to square one. 

What usually happens, as with 'Total Force', is that the Regs open up the CT door and everyone who is qualified quickly jumps through before it closes. My guess is that, once the Reserves spend the time and effort to staff up and fully train and nurture these people/capabilities, the Regs will gratefully accept them all in with open arms, having saved a ton of time and effort. The Reserve units will then go back to zero with few well trained NCMs/ Junior Offrs, and crippled succession plans, and start from square one - like after the AFG commitment. 

But that just me....


----------



## BDTyre (8 Jan 2020)

For those curious, here is what the current Basic Assault Pioneer Course entails:

PO 201 - support rigging tasks
PO 202 - construct vehicle obstacles
PO 203 - construct concrete obstacles
PO 204 - construct field fortifications
PO 205 - use gas powered tools to support operations
PO 206 - perform obstacle clearance
PO 207 - support an assault water crossing
PO 208 - perform the duties of an assistant breacher
Basic Demolition (gives AJBV qualification)
Grenade Destruction - basic


----------



## Underway (8 Jan 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> For those curious, here is what the current Basic Assault Pioneer Course entails:
> 
> PO 201 - support rigging tasks
> PO 202 - construct vehicle obstacles
> ...



PO 311 - beard grooming


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jan 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> For those curious, here is what the current Basic Assault Pioneer Course entails:
> 
> PO 201 - support rigging tasks
> PO 202 - construct vehicle obstacles
> ...



As it was written in 2007.  sigh


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2020)

Kind of like the famous bearded one's of the FFL. ;D


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2020)

And these Spanish Legion:







And these from the Queen's Own Rifles and the Royal Regiment of Canada in Toronto:











 :cheers:


----------



## MedCorps (9 Jan 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> For those curious, here is what the current Basic Assault Pioneer Course entails:
> 
> PO 201 - support rigging tasks
> PO 202 - construct vehicle obstacles
> ...



If anyone is interested the former Basic Assault Pioneer Course (1993) looked like: 

PO 401 - Perform Pioneer Field Work
PO 402 - Perform Waterborne Operations 
PO 403 - Perform Nuclear and Chemical Decontamination Tasks 
PO 404 - Perform Demolition Operations 
PO 405 - Perform Booby Trap Operations 
PO 406 - Perform Mine Warfare Operations 

PO 401 was pretty involved.  It had safety, tools and equipment (chainsaws, pionjar, Stanley HP1), cordage, steel wire rope, block and tackle, measuring gaps, holdfasts and anchorage, construct derricks, shears and gyns, aerial ropeways, rope bridges, corduroy roads with wheel tracks and box culverts, minor road repair (potholes and craters), winter roads and ice bridges, timber frame shelters and bunkers, drainage systems, frame revetments, wire obstacles and road blocks.   

30 days of happiness... 

Cheers, 

MC


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jan 2020)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested the former Basic Assault Pioneer Course (1993) looked like:
> 
> PO 401 - Perform Pioneer Field Work
> PO 402 - Perform Waterborne Operations
> ...



One of the best courses I ever took. But that was over 40 years ago - now a "simple charge" to me is lighting firecrackers with my grandkids.


----------



## BDTyre (2 Mar 2020)

Much of that stuff is retained. We've used chainsaws, pionjar and just wrapped up the HP1 this weekend - we're being tested on it in two weeks time, along with our knots. We've covered steel wire rope, we've built bipods and reinforced tripods, we've covered derricks, shears and gyns. We won't be doing any of the bridging or roadwork. All of our classroom material has been lifted straight out of the Basic Field Engineering PAM and the Engineer DP1 without any modification, so certain portions are irrelevant to us. From what I understand, some of the material removed from the course vs. the prior incarnation was at the behest of the engineers who feel us infantry types might be stealing their jobs. We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.



			
				MedCorps said:
			
		

> PO 401 was pretty involved.  It had safety, tools and equipment (chainsaws, pionjar, Stanley HP1), cordage, steel wire rope, block and tackle, measuring gaps, holdfasts and anchorage, construct derricks, shears and gyns, aerial ropeways, rope bridges, corduroy roads with wheel tracks and box culverts, minor road repair (potholes and craters), winter roads and ice bridges, timber frame shelters and bunkers, drainage systems, frame revetments, wire obstacles and road blocks.
> 
> 30 days of happiness...
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Much of that stuff is retained. We've used chainsaws, pionjar and just wrapped up the HP1 this weekend - we're being tested on it in two weeks time, along with our knots. We've covered steel wire rope, we've built bipods and reinforced tripods, we've covered derricks, shears and gyns. We won't be doing any of the bridging or roadwork. All of our classroom material has been lifted straight out of the Basic Field Engineering PAM and the Engineer DP1 without any modification, so certain portions are irrelevant to us. From what I understand, some of the material removed from the course vs. the prior incarnation was at the behest of the engineers who feel us infantry types might be stealing their jobs. We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.



Then that engineer "officer" has the wrong idea. Pioneers can do the jobs that the engineers may not have time for. The two compliment each other.


----------



## BDTyre (2 Mar 2020)

And that's what we've been preaching. We're an organic asset to be used internally to do jobs that the engineers don't have time or manpower to do.


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> ... We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.



 :brickwall:

That's so utterly stupid. Pioneers are a battalion resource while engineers are a brigade resource. It's not a turf bunfight but a mutually beneficial complimentary marriage. 

From my arguments in another thread; a university education obviously doesn't necessarily foster intelligence.

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> And that's what we've been preaching. We're an organic asset to be used internally to do jobs that the engineers don't have time or manpower to do.


One of the roles of Pioneers is that they are the CO's reserve, at least that's what I recall.
Pioneers are a very useful bunch.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Pioneers are a very useful bunch.


   :nod:
Not necessarily a pretty bunch, but definitely useful.   op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> ... We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.


Bit of insecurity there if they're complaining to (to oversimplify) apprentices about "destroying the trade"?  :facepalm:


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.


Army Reserve?  If yes, the opinion likely stems from PRes Cbt Engr being closer to Pioneers in training and resources than they are to Reg F Cbt Engr.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.



That happened to one of my soldiers once. I complained directly to the 'Errant Officers' CO and got a formal apology for my soldier.

Doesn't always work, but it's worth a try!  :nod:


----------



## BDTyre (3 Mar 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> Army Reserve?  If yes, the opinion likely stems from PRes Cbt Engr being closer to Pioneers in training and resources than they are to Reg F Cbt Engr.



MCG - yes, reserve. And I think you're absolutely right in terms of training and resources.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (4 Mar 2020)

> Known for their specialized training, different grooming standards (they are allowed to wear well-groomed beards), and their axes ...



It makes me sad that beards are no longer unique to Assault Pioneers.

But back when they were the only ones with beards, some of the ones I encountered had rather large, gnarly beards. Well groomed? Well I guess they were combed but some of those guys had Stonewall Jackson style beards (which was cool to me, it made them even more unique).


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> We actually had an Engineering officer unload on a newer Private about how we're destroying their trade and we're just a bunch of wannabes.



What the heck led to this particular your officer throwing his teddy in the corner in such a manner?


----------



## CountDC (4 Mar 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What the heck led to this particular your officer throwing his teddy in the corner in such a manner?



Reserve Engineer says it all.   They don't play nice with each other, why expect them to do it with others.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Mar 2020)

To bad, I always thought highly of the Combat Engineers trade and their professionalism. To be worried about some guys with basically shovels, picks and some explosives shows a lack of self comfort. There is never enough Combat Engineers as it is, the pioneers can help bridge that gap a bit (pun intended).


----------



## BDTyre (4 Mar 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What the heck led to this particular your officer throwing his teddy in the corner in such a manner?



The private he was in the vehicle with made the "mistake" of mentioning what regiment he belongs to...


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> To bad, I always thought highly of the Combat Engineers trade and their professionalism. To be worried about some guys with basically shovels, picks and some explosives shows a lack of self comfort. There is never enough Combat Engineers as it is, the pioneers can help bridge that gap a bit (pun intended).



That's exactly the point. The bridging thing was very.....punny.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Mar 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> It makes me sad that beards are no longer unique to Assault Pioneers.
> 
> But back when they were the only ones with beards, some of the ones I encountered had rather large, gnarly beards. Well groomed? Well I guess they were combed but some of those guys had Stonewall Jackson style beards (which was cool to me, it made them even more unique).



Tangent on....

The Assault Pioneers (Army) and Assault Engineers (same thing, but with the Royal Marines) I worked with in the UK never wore beards. Maybe some did, but not with the units I served with.

I've never seen a beard on an Assault Pioneer except in Canada, and parade pictures of the FFL. Just sayin'...

Tangent off....


----------



## MedCorps (4 Mar 2020)

Interesting article on beards in the UK Forces here: 

https://www.forces.net/news/meet-pioneer-sergeant-one-few-army-ranks-allowed-beard-parade

MC


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent on....
> 
> The Assault Pioneers (Army) and Assault Engineers (same thing, but with the Royal Marines) I worked with in the UK never wore beards. Maybe some did, but not with the units I served with.
> 
> ...



I will continue with this tangent.

Our Pioneers in the Royal Winnipeg Rifles were a ceremonial section of soldiers who would clear the parade ground after the skirmishers cleared it of enemy. Please note that all were in period uniforms of the late 1800s. The Pioneers had beards. It seems everyone wants to be a Pioneer now.


----------



## McG (5 Mar 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent on....
> 
> The Assault Pioneers (Army) and Assault Engineers (same thing, but with the Royal Marines) I worked with in the UK never wore beards. Maybe some did, but not with the units I served with.
> 
> ...


Apparently bearded pioneers were a French Army tradition that the British may have adopted after Waterloo.
So, maybe it was a fad in history for the British Army but also the only thing ever known in the Canadian Army.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (5 Mar 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent on....
> 
> The Assault Pioneers (Army) and Assault Engineers (same thing, but with the Royal Marines) I worked with in the UK never wore beards. Maybe some did, but not with the units I served with.
> 
> ...



So I guess the story I was told about why Assault Pioneers wear beards is probably a myth then?

I was told that due to the nitroglycerin sweating on dynamite they'd handle back in the day, and seeping into their hands, Pioneers tended to have problems with shaking hands. They therefore tended to cut themselves shaving. There was a parade reviewed by Queen Victoria and she noted all the Assault Pioneers were cut up. When she learned why, she gave them a dispensation in perpetuity from shaving.

So ... myth/legend? Or true story?


----------



## BDTyre (5 Mar 2020)

With the Aussies, it's the Pioneer Sergeant who has the beard. I've heard the same holds true for the Brits.

When an Aussie Pioneer Sergeant is moved out of the Pioneer platoon, there is a battalion parade and the CO shaves off the Sergeant's beard in front of the entire battalion.


----------

