Author Topic: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists  (Read 59793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,384
  • Crewman
Re: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists
« Reply #75 on: February 08, 2016, 13:44:28 »
What sort of capabilities do they provide? Is it more or less a sort of Eng. recce or the ability to deploy equipment in matter of hours to repair/dismantle objectives? From the very limited information available it doesn't paint a clear picture of what exact sort of tasks a parachute troop would perform differently than a  standard field troop.

They would have a relatively effective capability.  Their equipment was all air transportable and being airdropped.   Even without their vehicles being dropped, they could still drop enough man portable stores to complete the majority of Cbt Engr tasks. 

Airborne operations are a lot more than just a bunch of guys jumping out of an airplane.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline PanaEng

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 19,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 618
    • You Know everything now
Re: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists
« Reply #76 on: February 08, 2016, 14:00:32 »
some have said that "engineers without their equipment are just poorly trained infantry"; however; I've seldom come across a problem where some properly placed explosives won't solve it or make it irrelevant.

In all seriousness, there are many tasks where the equipment dropped at one location is to be used at that location: clearing landing zones/strips and setting up the APOD. There are also many portable tools that can be carried, and with the ability to drop ATV or other veh they should be able to project further form the DZ with more tools. The scope of operations is limited for airborne forces due to the requirement for quick resupply or extrication with several tasks for engineers; from part of the recce and pathfinder teams, the assault teams (see 1st para), ensuring mobility and ability to resupply, and clearing LZ/strip for evacuation or reinforcements.

So, really, if you look at all those possible tasks, it is not far from reality that you can say that you need a troop to support an airborne coy. And that is not even counting mortars, AT, etc.

Chimo!
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 14:06:23 by PanaEng »
Now I am SAS or SWAT dude ;-)
see:
Quote from: RHFC_piper ink=topic=51916.msg617784#msg617784 date=1190404708

The 'pana" is a play on the Greek 'pan' meaning 'all' or 'encompassing' - not quite but similar to UBIQUE
some think I just misspelled "para" :-)

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,893
Re: Re: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists
« Reply #77 on: February 08, 2016, 14:45:02 »
So, I`m going to go back to my original question about, in this day and age do we, as the CAF, still need an Airborne Assault capability?
Perhaps there's a reason people ignored your post -- for example, it's not relevant to this thread.

Why not resurrect Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation (22 pages), "Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?" (7 pages), or "Airborne Redundant?" (only 2 pages)... rather than muck up a thread dedicated specifically to Airborne Engineers?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Re: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists
« Reply #78 on: February 08, 2016, 16:32:54 »
They would have a relatively effective capability.  Their equipment was all air transportable and being airdropped.   Even without their vehicles being dropped, they could still drop enough man portable stores to complete the majority of Cbt Engr tasks. 

Airborne operations are a lot more than just a bunch of guys jumping out of an airplane.
George,
I have emphasized a critical word in your statement.  We don't have light equipment that you can throw out the back of a plane any more.  The "jump troop" envisioned for an airborne company group is a field troop.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,384
  • Crewman
Re: Airborne Engineers & Combat Engineer Parachutists
« Reply #79 on: February 08, 2016, 17:34:47 »
George,
I have emphasized a critical word in your statement.  We don't have light equipment that you can throw out the back of a plane any more.  The "jump troop" envisioned for an airborne company group is a field troop.

I know.  Thanks for the emphasis.  The whole "airborne" org has basically faded into history.  However, the question was asked as to what an Airborne Engr Troop could provide; which I took to mean that the OP had the impression that they would jump in basically "bare ***" with no tools of their Trade.   Overlooked as well in commenting is the knowledge and skill sets that the Engrs would have, that others would not; so even with minimal equipment, they would be a valuable asset.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.