Author Topic: Engineering Regiment Breakdown  (Read 84434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2023

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 645
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2004, 17:03:30 »
CWO Lacharite:

Do you know if the Fd Tps in 1 CER have lost there Tp Storeman and Ammo/MT Reps? 2 CER has pushed those positions to the SQMS's so that we are on par with the Inf Coy's we support. It seems to be working ok. Easier for the Tp's actually. If we need something we just ask and we get. Puts more strain on the SQ shop though.
"Even if you control the physical, you do not control the man. If you control his mind.........then you have him."

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2004, 00:06:41 »
The Fd Sqns have recently started pulling those pers into the SHQ.  However, this decision is being taken in the squadrons themselves and it is not officially a unit policy.  The Engr transformation plan still has these pers in the Fd Tps.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2005, 02:00:19 »
MCG,

To allow the battle groups to keep their own engineer squadrons but not lose the capabilities you are talking about what do you think of grouping the traditional engineer support squadron into a Combat Support Regiment under brigade control and leaving the field squadrons in the battle groups.
I think I would encourage a structure similar to the transformation structure described in this thread.   Additionally, I would include a Sapper Pl in each manoeuvre unit.   Permanent affiliations would be established between a field squadron and one of the manoeuvre units and its Sapper Pl.

It is a bit of a compromise solution, but it allows one of the Fd Tps to gain a greater intimate familiarity with the BG it will be a part of.   At the same time, the other Fd Tp would have greater experience working with the engr cbt sp assets.   This also gives the CER more flexibility to respond to a surge in demand for a particular skill set.   It has happened where a demand for a particular capability has exceeded the capacity of a specialised troop or section to provide.   But all the skills can be found in the Fd Tps from guys that have been rotated out.

Offline SprCForr

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,792
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 417
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2005, 19:01:51 »
We sort of did that earlier with Fd Tp affiliations to  Bn/Regts. In 1 CER 1 Tp was with 1 VP, 2 Tp with 3 VP, and 3 Tp(M113) was with 2 VP or LDSH. I'm not sure how it went in the old 4 CER days. Anywho, the idea was followed as much as possible, and it did provide for a level of familiarity. I could see this being much more effective when an attached Sapper Tp is involved.

 <sigh>...I wish I was still in. :(
"We don't rent pigs"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2005, 19:16:45 »
Under the new structure, 1 Tp and 11 Fd Sqn will affiliate with 1 VP, 2 Tp and 12 Fd Sqn will affiliate with 2 VP, 3 Tp and 13 Fd Sqn will affiliate with 3 VP, and 4 Tp and 14 Fd Sqn will affiliate with the LdSH.  I think we need one more Fd Tp in each affiliation, but it could be part of the Fd Sqn or a Spr Pl in the manoeuvre unit.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,399
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2005, 13:00:40 »
Just a note, 3 Commando Brigade, the maneuver formation of the Royal Marines, will be enlarging its contingent of Royal Engineers from a Commando Squadron to a Commando Regiment under the British Army restructuring plans.

It appears that our military engineering structure for our formations has been validated - McG, you may take a bow.....
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2005, 03:09:01 »
The ratio of a full engr unit to support a bde sized formation is also seen in Col Douglas Macgregor's proposal for Light Reconnaissance Strike Groups (roughly equivalent to the SBCT or our medium Bdes).

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2005, 19:02:09 »
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).
The vision for transformation has adjusted now that the government has committed to an additional 5,000 troops.  The Engr Transformation will now likely see the fourth fd sect permanently established and manned by Reg Force for force generation.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: The Engineering Regiment
« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2005, 09:46:58 »
The first big step happened Yesterday.   1 CER did the transformation to four fd sqns of a fd tp and sp tp each.


Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #59 on: July 15, 2005, 02:20:11 »
I've heard 5 RGC has taken some steps toward transformation, including designating one fd sqn as light.  Does anyone have any information on how this is going for them?

Offline cantley091

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2005, 08:41:26 »
Any word about 2 CER??

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2005, 02:24:18 »
Any word about 2 CER??
I would not expect much has happended in 2 CER as of yet, but I did not expect 5 RGC would have started any transformation yet either.   Both regiments were supposed to have been last to transform according to what I had seen and heard.

Sapper Bloggins

  • Guest
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2005, 02:45:59 »
CWO Lacharite,

Thanks for the clarification.
Airborne, Chimo.

Offline Capt. Happy

  • Every day is Monday in the Engr Corps
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 364
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2005, 09:17:36 »
I would not expect much has happended in 2 CER as of yet, but I did not expect 5 RGC would have started any transformation yet either.   Both regiments were supposed to have been last to transform according to what I had seen and heard.

In 2CER, 24 Fd Sqn has always pretty much been the *unofficial* light squadron (yes even with our M113's  :) ), being their affiliation is with 3RCR, and 23 is mechanized with 1RCR. The last CO's brief to the regiment this spring pretty much stated 2CER will not move above 2 Fd Sqn's because 2CMBG only has the 2 Inf Bn's, and 4ESR is responsible for 2RCR in G'town. IIRC, the plan for 2CER, as shown on the slideshow we were given, is that one of the Fd Tp's in 24 would eventually go "light" completely, with the other going to a LAVIII based organization.

The thing I found to be amusing, was that most of the options given for the transformation of 2CER, were almost identical to the regimental plan 9 years ago. Of course, like the old saying goes, "If you don't like it, wait five minutes 'cause it'll probably change."

Anyway, I don't think you'll see much transformation in 2CER until next Feb at the earliest when both Fd Sqn's are back on the ground and the Regiment has a chance to shake out as a complete unit again.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2005, 12:52:24 »
The last CO's brief to the regiment this spring pretty much stated 2CER will not move above 2 Fd Sqn's because 2CMBG only has the 2 Inf Bns
But, 2 CMBG also has an armoured regiment.   This is why the transformation plan that I saw had 2 CER "growing" to three squadrons while "shrinking" to only three fd tps:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22585.0;attach=1781;image

Offline Capt. Happy

  • Every day is Monday in the Engr Corps
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 364
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2005, 13:42:40 »
I don't know where you saw / got that (not saying it's not true or nothing) but the presentation given to us by our CO made no mention of growing another Fd Sqn. Not to mention we just do not have the numbers to do it....

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2005, 22:43:56 »
Not to mention we just do not have the numbers to do it....
The positions for a new fd sqn would come from the established positions of the fd tp that the unit will loose.

Offline Yeoman

  • I have to wear pants?!?
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 439
  • land of misfit toys
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2005, 18:24:16 »
well hey I've got to admit here, I'm not *as* lost on how you engineers work out your orbat.
still kinda, but at least I've got a rough idea.
now all I gotta do is understand how the armoured and artillery works  ::)
Greg
Be normal and the crowd accepts you, be deranged and they will make you their leader.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,399
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2005, 23:09:11 »
The first big step happened Yesterday.  1 CER did the transformation to four fd sqns of a fd tp and sp tp each.

MCG, is the Sup Troop of each of the four Squadrons equal in organization or does each one have a seperate tasking (Contruction, Heavy Eq, Res, etc, etc) like the diagram you put up before?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2005, 16:11:45 »
MCG, is the Sup Troop of each of the four Squadrons equal in organization or does each one have a seperate tasking (Contruction, Heavy Eq, Res, etc, etc) like the diagram you put up before?
Yes & No.  The function ogranized Sp Tp is the garrison "standard" (11 Fd Sqn has Hy Eqpt Tp, 12 Fd Sqn has Const Tp, 13 Li Sqn has Ress Tp, and 14 Fd Sqn has Armd Tp).  However, at that time we looked more like 11 Fd Sqn with Hy Eqpt/Ress Tp, 12 Fd Sqn with Const Tp, 13 Li Sqn with a msn tailored Sp Tp for the PRT, and 14 Fd Sqn with Armd Tp.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,399
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2005, 16:24:33 »
Ok.  Does this not present a problem with the fact that each squadron is "matched up" to one of the Manuever units of the CMBG?  What if 12 Field Squadron deploys somewhere with 2PPCLI (implying that the construction troop is taken along with the Field Troop) and suddenly 1PPCLI is required to deploy somewhere else - is it hooped for Construction troops if it needs them (it's field squadron has the Hvy Eq/Res)?  What if it doesn't need heavy equipment/Res engineer assets for the particular mission it is deploying on?

It seems that if we are to "match" field squadrons to maneuver battalions, unique resources within the CER (The various support troops) must be either parcelled out evenly amonst the Support Troops of the Field Squadrons or kept in a Support Squadron and deployed as needed.

Does this make sense?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #71 on: September 22, 2005, 16:56:11 »
Ok.   Does this not present a problem with the fact that each squadron is "matched up" to one of the Manuever units of the CMBG?  
No.
Composite sp tps are established for exercises & operations.  11 Fd Sqn is now ramping up to join the 1 PPCLI BG.  It has representation from three of the sp tps (no armoured) and even a section comprised of specialists which cannot be found in any CER.  There is no functioning hy eqpt tp at the moment (all the operator positions are in the 13 Sp Tp or the 11 Sp Tp) and many of the Ress functions are temporarily residing in other sqns (such as dive in 14 Fd Sqn) but will regroup in 13 Fd Sqn when it returns from the PRT.

The constant regrouping of sections in the Sp Tp is an ugly process.  However, the regrouping exists regardless of placement of Sp Tps in a Sp Sqn or across the Fd Sqns.  At least this structure ensures that the Tp Comd, Tp WO, and Tp Recce will have trained with and will know the sqn that they sp (regardless of the composition of the sections).

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,399
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #72 on: September 22, 2005, 17:07:53 »
Ah, I see.  The placement of different support troops is largely administrative then, correct?  When gearing up for deployment, a Field Squadron will "plug and play" its supporting assets from across the Regiment according to the mission requirements.  The HQ structure of the Support Troop is kept in place to minimize this disruption.  Am I correct here?

A question though.  Would four even composite support troops be a better idea to maintain cohesion and familiarity at the Field Squadron level, or is this simply unobtainable due to the wide array of support functions and limited resources/manpower available to the Engineering Regiment?

And another question; is a single Field Troop the standard now?  Is this not a pretty small amount of combat engineers to support a Task Force/Battlegroup on operations?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #73 on: September 22, 2005, 19:19:32 »
Ah, I see.   The placement of different support troops is largely administrative then, correct?  
Correct.

Would four even composite support troops be a better idea to maintain cohesion and familiarity at the Field Squadron level, or is this simply unobtainable due to the wide array of support functions and limited resources/manpower available to the Engineering Regiment?
No.  Some capabilities cannot be sustained below tp level, and other capabilities cannot be divided across three to four sqns (there is only one ROWPU, one FEL, two ZL, two dozers, one bridge-reload trl, etc).  Additionally, we cannot predict what the correct "balanced" sp tp will look like before we get a mission.  An ATHENA Sp Tp is not a PALLADIUM Sp Tp.

is a single Field Troop the standard now?   Is this not a pretty small amount of combat engineers to support a Task Force/Battlegroup on operations?
One Fd Tp is standard, but this is not a standard that has gone unquestioned.   From my own observations, a single fd tp is insufficient to sp a BG in combat operations unless we are prepaired to limit close sp to one section per company or we are prepaired to deny close sp and hold everything centralized.


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,856
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #74 on: September 22, 2005, 19:30:12 »
McG:

Does it make any difference if we are talking about mobile operations vs static operations, the first roto vs roto 5?

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"