Author Topic: Engineering Regiment Breakdown  (Read 83998 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #75 on: September 22, 2005, 19:53:33 »
Correct

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

Quote
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.

Ok thanks - I guess this begs the next question.  Do you think a CER is properly organized if it cannot supply certain capabilities for more than one TF/BG?  The resources you mention seem to fit into the context of Brigade level operations, but we've seen in the last 15 years that we've been focused on TF/BG operations - the Brigade at times has 1 or 2 concurrent TFs operating abroad.

What if Brigade is tasked to provide more than one task force at a time, both requiring ROWPU assets?  Is it forced to shop in another Brigades CER for help?

Quote
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.

I think I agree with you here.  I recall reading a article in the Gazette about the level of support Marine units needed from their Sappers in various operations in Iraq throughout the spectrum of conflict; 3 Troops seems be ideal, but at least 2.  Obviously, 1 is a pill we have to swallow right now.... :(
"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
  • *****
  • 188,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #76 on: September 22, 2005, 22:17:28 »
Do you think a CER is properly organized if it cannot supply certain capabilities for more than one TF/BG?  The resources you mention seem to fit into the context of Brigade level operations, but we've seen in the last 15 years that we've been focused on TF/BG operations - the Brigade at times has 1 or 2 concurrent TFs operating abroad.

What if Brigade is tasked to provide more than one task force at a time, both requiring ROWPU assets?  Is it forced to shop in another Brigades CER for help?
It is important to recognize that just because we do not have enough kit to support 4 BGs, does not mean we cannot train enough pers.  You could train a 12 mbr section with one ROWPU and provide a three mbr det to each BG.

The same is true with the shopping list of hy eqpt.  The troop will rotate operators to ensure they get "stick time" on all the basic equipment, and those qualified on specialist eqpt will get stick time there as well.  So, a whole list of ones & twos trains a full troop.

Ress Tp holds kit that trains the whole regt.

When a Sp Tp goes overseas, it will use Op stock ROWPU, trucks, hy eqpt, etc.

However, despite this potential, our Sp Tps are under-manned to meet this.  Fortunately, Engr transformation was intended to correct this by pumping more manpower into the Sp Tps.

I think I agree with you here.  I recall reading a article in the Gazette about the level of support Marine units needed from their Sappers in various operations in Iraq throughout the spectrum of conflict; 3 Troops seems be ideal, but at least 2.  Obviously, 1 is a pill we have to swallow right now....
I'll have more on this later.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #77 on: September 22, 2005, 23:06:19 »
It is important to recognize that just because we do not have enough kit to support 4 BGs, does not mean we cannot train enough pers.   You could train a 12 mbr section with one ROWPU and provide a three mbr det to each BG.

The same is true with the shopping list of hy eqpt.   The troop will rotate operators to ensure they get "stick time" on all the basic equipment, and those qualified on specialist eqpt will get stick time there as well.   So, a whole list of ones & twos trains a full troop.

Ress Tp holds kit that trains the whole regt.

When a Sp Tp goes overseas, it will use Op stock ROWPU, trucks, hy eqpt, etc.

However, despite this potential, our Sp Tps are under-manned to meet this.   Fortunately, Engr transformation was intended to correct this by pumping more manpower into the Sp Tps.

Ok - that makes sense.   The same thing was done by 3PPCLI when it switched its para-designated company.   Although the battalion was only alloted a single parachute sub-unit, rotating that allotment to attempt to qualify as many of you pers is a smart move.

It seems to me that an option may be to rationalize a generic "Support Troop" for the Field Squadron, essentially a "skeleton crew",  that can offer to a TF/BG engineering support.  This "skeleton crew" can be provided with the necessary cross training and stick time (perhaps with some assets kept at the unit level?).   When the time comes to deploy, the support troop "skeleton crew" will probably deploy largely intact while taking on extras demanded by the mission requirements (either from another sub-unit or from a unit reserve).   Would this not keep turbulence low and cohesion at the best level it can?   Just a thought, but the realities of manning keep things tethered to the ground I guess.

Quote
I'll have more on this later.

Roger.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2005, 23:54:16 by Infanteer »
"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
  • *****
  • 188,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #78 on: September 28, 2005, 23:31:14 »
It seems to me that an option may be to rationalize a generic "Support Troop" for the Field Squadron, essentially a "skeleton crew",   that can offer to a TF/BG engineering support.   This "skeleton crew" can be provided with the necessary cross training and stick time (perhaps with some assets kept at the unit level?).   When the time comes to deploy, the support troop "skeleton crew" will probably deploy largely intact while taking on extras demanded by the mission requirements (either from another sub-unit or from a unit reserve).   Would this not keep turbulence low and cohesion at the best level it can?   Just a thought, but the realities of manning keep things tethered to the ground I guess.
The structure we have addopted is probably the closest we can get to this.   The Tp HQ is the "skeleton," and all other elements (less unique national assets) are held in the regiment within one of the function based Sp Tps.  

The rotation of personnel, which I referred too, is less macroscopic that assigning new roles to a sub-unit.   The RSM and SSMs manage rotating eqpt operators between fd tps and HET, rotating ROWPU or HESV/HLVW guys between fd troops and ress tp, etc.   So, buy keeping it all in the regt, we don't need to involve career managers to rotate guys between fd and sp jobs.   Additionally, there is almost daily rotation in some Sp Tps between eqpt and tasks.

On the notion of one Fd Tp supporing a BG in offensive operations.   Imagine attaching every element of the Sp Tp less Tp HQ to SHQ.   Then attach two Fd Sects to Sp Tp from the Fd Tp.   In effect you create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps and a collection of independent Sp Sect.   Each "mini-troop" would be used to sp a Coy Gp.                                                                              . . . and one more thing, this is just a tac grouping, not a permanent structure.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2005, 02:23:35 by MCG »

Offline Gobsmacked

  • browbeaten but unbroken CF Advocate
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
  • Disillusioned Defence/Geopolitical Analyst
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2005, 16:08:48 »
The Tp HQ is the "skeleton," and all other elements (less unique national assets) are held in the regiment within one of the function based Sp Tps. 

On the notion of one Fd Tp supporing a BG in offensive operations.  Imagine attaching every element of the Sp Tp less Tp HQ to SHQ.  Then attach two Fd Sects to Sp Tp from the Fd Tp.  In effect you create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps and a collection of independent Sp Sect.  Each "mini-troop" would be used to sp a Coy Gp.   . . . and one more thing, this is just a tac grouping, not a permanent structure.

CWO,

Pardon my ignorance, or maybe my 'Civie to Military Matrix Translator' hasn't kicked in yet,
[Uhura, pls chk the Universal Translator  ;D]
but previously you noted that:
(1x) [FG] Fd Tp w\
- 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
- M-113A2 Fitter Veh/MTVF
(3x) Field Sections consisting of:
- Sect Comd: Sgt/MCpl, M113A2 Pioneer Dozer/MTVE w\1m Turret & 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
and a fourth section to be provided by the reserves for [FE] operations.

How does  "two Fd Sects from the Fd Tp . . . create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps" for FE ??   :-\
Each 'half-sized Fd Tp' is only 1/4 the size of the FE sub-sub-unit.
Or did you mean 2 Fd Sects, incl. added reserve Fd Sect, per identical half-sized Fd Tp ??   :)
Don't bother with ATI, by time u finally get redacted info its way out of date.
Dedicated to providing Verified Accurate Information.
But whats the point?
You get screwed in the end by GoC.
Tired of Disengeneous, Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved in Major Equipment Procurement at PWGSC and DND.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #80 on: December 06, 2005, 18:38:24 »
The example that you are asking about refers to a standard "force employment" model sqn.  This implies that the four sections are complete (however with the promised growth, I've heard that the "force generation" model has grown to include four fd sect per fd tp).  I've attached a picture below that shows the "standard" FE sqn on the left, and the "two half-troop" model on the right.  (I'd be interested on Sapper6 or Chimo's opinion based on their experience with a similar structure for Op APOLLO).

As an aside, I've notice that much of 1 CER's transformation has been done through growth authorized when the SORD (04/05 I think) directed the establishment of an Armd Sqn.  There are now Veh in the unit for that sqn, and I assume additional PYs.  The Engrs have a coherent plan to support Army Transformation (and despite its problems, I think it is the best COA).  When will this plan be articulated in a SORD so that the rest of the Army (and even CF) can get behind it?

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2005, 21:48:26 »
CWO,

When did McG get the promotion?   ;)
"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 Gobsmacked

  • browbeaten but unbroken CF Advocate
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
  • Disillusioned Defence/Geopolitical Analyst
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2005, 23:00:37 »
MCG,

Thanks for the info and FE diagram, I thought you meant 2 Fd Sect per Half-Tp.   :salute:

I believe the Armd Eng Sqn was SORD 2005:
"Engineer Capabilities.   The transformation of Engineer capabilities will continue in FY 05/06.
An additional Engineer Squadron will be established in 1 CER in order to provide heavy mobility and counter mobility support to CMTC and to align a Sqn with the direct fire unit.  In order to build the squadron 22 strategic PY  were allocated as offsets, 20 PY were moved from 2 CER and 14 existing 1 CER Armoured Engineer-related PY were reinvested
(56 PYs total).  The AEVs and AVLBs will be concentrated in LFWA in accordance with WFM constructs."

If i got the rank mixed up, well, don't keep on top of that too well - only cardinal Army rule I know is don't call an NCO Sir!   :D
Don't bother with ATI, by time u finally get redacted info its way out of date.
Dedicated to providing Verified Accurate Information.
But whats the point?
You get screwed in the end by GoC.
Tired of Disengeneous, Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved in Major Equipment Procurement at PWGSC and DND.

Offline bilton090

  • Old man
  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 194
  • AGFN 03-07
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #83 on: March 09, 2006, 11:38:18 »
A squadron is required to support a BG overseas (with on e Fd Tp and one Sp Tp).  If you would like to join that other thread, we can debate that particular issue.  However, you will note that there currently is no consensus in that thread.

Additionally, you cannot reduce the Sp Sqn to a Tp.  The one element you might be able to remove is the construction troop.  However, if you read the consensus of the engineers in this thread, the other Sp Tps are not sustainable if split up.  All of the other Sp Tps provide some degree of Cbt Sp or close Sp.  Assault Mobility Troop is all Cbt Sp.  Resources provides MCM & IEDD (both Cbt Sp).  Hy Eqpt is split in its close support and general support roles, but would not be sustainable below the Tp level.
While your numbers are close, it is not accurate to say that the regiments are â Å“downâ ? to these sizes.  The regiments are capped here.  If the cap were higher, the regiments would be larger.  Your earlier suggestion about an inability to grow is unfounded.

   dropping construction tp is nuts
Chimo!  Airborne

Offline bilton090

  • Old man
  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 194
  • AGFN 03-07
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #84 on: March 09, 2006, 13:41:27 »
Alright sappers, I‘ve been trying to figure out how an Engineer Regiement is broken down in terms of organization.  Is it something similar to the infantry with equal breakdowns at all levels, or are sub-units organized around specializations (the odd collection of vehicles you guys have leads me to this idea)  Thanks for any info

Chimo (From a confused grunt)
each eng sec.  10 men, 4sec. per TP + 1 sec H.Q . 2 TP's per Sqn. 2-3 Sqn's per Regt. ( W/ Supt. ellments ).
Chimo!  Airborne

Offline bilton090

  • Old man
  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 194
  • AGFN 03-07
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #85 on: March 09, 2006, 13:42:58 »
Thanks.

One more question.  Is there an engineering sub-unit that deals with "other" duties.  When we were in Bihac, we had a whole bunch of engineers come down with excavators, packers, and backhoes to help with camp construction.  Would these guys be attached to RHQ?
No w/ park Tp or Hvy Eqpt Tp
Chimo!  Airborne

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #86 on: March 09, 2006, 14:18:09 »
each eng sec.  10 men, 4sec. per TP + 1 sec H.Q . 2 TP's per Sqn. 2-3 Sqn's per Regt. ( W/ Supt. ellments ).
This standard will not last.  We're in the process of some big changes (some regts more so than others at this point in time). 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2006, 14:52:54 by MCG »

Offline bilton090

  • Old man
  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 194
  • AGFN 03-07
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2006, 08:41:14 »
The other two troops in the Sp Sqn are armoured troops.  However, with the exception of 4 CER, no regiment has ever had two armoured troops (and 4 CER no longer exists).  Where 20 CER has three Field Squadrons of three troops, real CERs have two squadrons of two troops.

Field Troops & Pioneer Platoons each consisted of four sections, a troop HQ (Tp Comd, Tp WO, Recce, & stores).  Sections were armed the same as a rifle section (with the exception of Eryx) and troops were armed the same as platoons (with the exception of 60 mm mortar).  Pioneer and Engineer section vehicles, small tools, and M&E loads were the same.

    I know 4 E.S.R is not a regiment but rite now we have 2 Tps of m113's mod w/ tur.& 1 Tp of 9 Lav III's, we have the veh's BUT NO people!!!
Chimo!  Airborne

Offline Spr020

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
  • Sappers do it everywhere
Field, Light and Support
« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2010, 23:12:34 »
I was looking at the organization of a Combat Eng Reg. and I was wondering what is the difference in term of tasks and all that between a Field Squadron, a Light Squadron, a Support squadron.


Thank you.
Show no Weakness
Look alive, Engineer!

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 267
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2016, 15:57:16 »
I know this thread has been quiet for 6 years, but I have some question about engineers in Afghanistan.

I've recently re-read a few different books surrounding Task Force 1-06 (1 PPCLI BG), Task Force 3-06 (1 RCR BG) and Task Force 1-07 (2 RCR BG) in Kandahar.  In all three cases the battle groups deployed combined arms rifle company groups.  Each book describes that the engineers were divided up equally among the company groups.  There is some references to full troops on some operations and at other times the reference is of "engineer detachments" attached to each company group.  Considering that neither 11 Field Squadron, 23 Field Squadron or 42 Field Squadron deployed with three field engineer troops, how were the engineers attached to the company groups?   

Clearing the Way - the book about 23 Field Squadron in Afghanistan lists the squadron as having two field troops; one with three field sections and one with four and both with an engineer recce detachment.  If there are no more PY's for a third troop and the standard practice is to dish out the field troops to rifle companies then why not break up the two larger troops into three small troops with two field sections each rather than three or four?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2016, 20:13:42 »
11 Fd Sqn only deployed with one Fd Tp and a Sp Tp.  The squadron regrouped a number of times acording to the tasks it had.  Both Tp HQs spent time in direct support to rifle companies with primarily field sections under command.  I think 1 Tp was usually in support of A Coy while Sp Tp (most of its integral assets detached to the SHQ) supported C Coy, and B Coy usually had a Fd section.  But, there was another time where Sp Tp was centralized with most of its own assets to build FOB Martello.

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 701
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Engineering Regiment Breakdown
« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2016, 21:06:30 »
What would the point be of breaking the 2 Troops into 3? It doesn't make more man power which we were short on already hence having the RCDs crew our LAVs.

I can tell you that we would be attached to whomever needed us on a day by day basis including other Forces like the Americans or Brits. For my section we seemed to be dispatched like a police officer would to who needed us most. Later on in the tour things settled down more and sections stayed more attached rather than running all around. In the end the 2 Troops worked but a 3rd Troop with an additional 4 sections or so would have been nice.