Assault Pioneers & Assault Troopers (engineer light of the Inf & Armd)

[OldSolduer]

May I weigh in here?

Engineers are not integral to the Infantry. At any time, your dedicated engr sect could be cut to another coy or another unit altogether. Your Pioneer Pl was there....always.

 

[SeanNewman]

Engineers are not integral to the Infantry. At any time, your dedicated engr sect could be cut to another coy or another unit altogether. Your Pioneer Pl was there....always.

If a command relationship is established that allows that, of course.  For the house of cards to work, it would have to be established as part of the OrBat that those Engineers are integral, and you actually have 6-7 different trades permanently belonging to a Coy-lvl Cbt Tm.

If T2B is reading this thread, perhaps he could comment on if this is/is not where the 2 RCR BG is headed?

Regardless of why the decision was made and if the logic was/was not faulty, or if it worked or didn't, SMEs on the subject are now attempting to get a Pioneer capability back as an Infantry-held skill.  The only difference as was noted above is that it will now be organic to a conventional platoon like Urban Ops skills, not a stand-alone entity.

 

[McG]

As for the Engineers having the task for the last decade, it was based on sound logic. 

To say “based on sound logic” would imply that the decision was based on a proper estimate.  That clearly did not happen.  It is not enough to say that task A can be done by either capbadge X or capbadge Y, but that is all that was done.  Sound logic would have assessed the PY requirement; we would have concluded that cutting quantity N PYs from capbadge X would require the addition of quantity N PYs to capbadge Y.  Instead, we just cut N out of X and carried on.

I think a lot of the sour taste that developed from the decision to cut Pioneers was that nothing was immediately done to fill the gap; they were just cut.

Yep.  That is not sound.

For the house of cards to work, it would have to be established as part of the OrBat that those Engineers are integral … a Coy-lvl Cbt Tm.

Even if Engr or Pnr are built into a Bn’s OrBat, a Bde Comd can still direct a battalion to detach a Pl/Tp to another Bn (or to some other element of the Bde for that matter).  In the end, it really is a requirement to get the right numbers to satisfy our need for the capability.  If we don’t have enough people, there will be jobs that go un-done and higher commanders will pull people from lower commanders in order to get their things done.

 

[dapaterson]

There was also an alarming lack of organizational discipline.  Until recently, the nine Reg F Inf Bns, three with integral jump companies, and six other s, there were nine different establishments with nine different rank structures, as each Bde Comd and Area Comd was permitted to insert their fingers and muck around with their tactical units - rob positions to assign to more important tasks (said tongue in cheek).

It was very symptomatic of a peacetime Army, since reducing combat power (even just a handful of troops here or there) had no immediate, appreciable impact.  One hopes that, going forward, greater central control will be exercised - tactical units assigned the same role should be the same; higher commanders should not have to worry that 1 PPCLI is not interchangable with 2 RCR because a former Area commander removed a company to give himself more HQ staff (notional example only).

 

[SeanNewman]

MCG,

Understood on all of your points.  From what you are saying though (and from what others have echoed who are in favour of a Pioneer Platoon), technically that platoon could still be taken away.

For the strong proponents of the Pioneer capability, would the best COA then involve not having a platoon but to do it the way it is now being proposed to have people inside of normal platoons having those skills?

As you and others have stated, if grouped Engineers and Pioneers can be taken away by higher command, as the tactical commander wouldn't you want those people integral in your conventional infantry OrBat (again, using Urban Ops skills as the parallel)?

That way, if one were to command X-sized organization (platoon, company, etc) I know that there are Y Sgts and Z Cpls who are in the sections who can not be taken away but still have Pioneer skills.

I am in complete "receive mode" on this.

 

[OldSolduer]

In 92/93 when 3 VP was in Croation on OP HARMONY, the Pioneers and Mortar Pls were spread amongst the rifle coys. The deal was that they were to train together every so often and when the cr@p hit the fan, they were to be  integrated into their proper  support platoons.

When 2 VP went over, Pioneers were spread out amongst the rifle coys, while 1 VP sent over their Anti Armour and Mortar Pls.

It was robbing Peter to pay Paul, IMO.

 

[Old Sweat]

Petamocto

From my vantage point way out of my lane, it seems to me that the proposal is an attempt to keep the skills alive. Surely, given normal career progression, there would have been cross pollenation between the support weapons platoons and the rifles companies. By that I mean the upwardly mobile NCOs would have returned to duty in a rifle platoon at some stage as there would not have been enough jobs for them in, say Pioneer Platoon. This would have resulted in a sprinkling of leaders who knew enough about field engineering tasks to be able to organize things like the construction of field defences, freeing the support weapons platoon for other things. This pool must have been sadly depleted by the ravages of time over the past several years.

Maybe I am not getting the big picture, but I remember the contortions we went through in the gunner world to keep STA skills alive for more than three decades.

 

[McG]

To survive without a platoon, Pioneers in a battalion would have to be managed much like Combat Divers in an Engr Regt.  They are individuals spread around in Fd Sect, Troops HQs, Sqn HQs, and anywhere else in the unit.
For individual training and skill maintenance, they regularly come together and form a temporary sub-sub unit (we call it the Cbt Dive Tm) -> Dispersed Pioneers would have to do this.
When the CER receives a Cbt Dive task, the sub-units are directed to detach their divers to the Cbt Dive Tm -> For tasks larger than section level mouse-holing, dispersed Pioneers would have to do this.
I have see Bde HQs direct CERs to detach Cbt Dive Tms to other units -> If dispersed individuals in a unit can be aggreggated together and detached from one unit to another as a temporary sub-sub unit to , then dispersed Pioneers may still be grabbed to support a Bde Comd's priorities.
No resource is safe when it does not exist in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand.

 

[dangerboy]

The problem with having guys in Sections with Pioneer training vice having a dedicated Pioneer Pl is that it is so hard to keep guys in the Section and maintain the skills.  If you have a dedicated Pioneer Pl then the RSM and Cbt Support CSM ensure that it stays x number of people strong and they are fully qualified.  If the guysa are in a rifle coy it becomes another qualification that would be nice but in the big pictures it is more important to have LAV qualifications in your Sect than Pioneer .  Also to do any meaningfull training you have to get together as 1 soldier by himselft in 11B can't do that much.

 

[SeanNewman]

...If the guysa are in a rifle coy it becomes another qualification that would be nice but in the big pictures it is more important to have LAV qualifications in your Sect than Pioneer...

There is certainly some merit in that, but the next bound should be that light fighting skills such as rifle shooting, marching, map/compass NAV and patrol base routine should be the most important. 

I get where you're coming from though, in that once you learn basic soldier skills what is the priority for enhanced skills (LAV? Urban? Pioneer?) And yes the way we are going everyone is using LAVs.

 

[OldSolduer]

Having your Pioneers scattered about onesies and twosies through the Bn is useless. It takes a critical mass of Pioneers to make some things happen.
That's why they were their own platoon, and  the CO's personal reserve. When they weren't out doing Pioneer tasks (mobility, counter mobility etc) they were to be ready to go scrap as Infantry where ever Nineer told tohem to be.

You can't be the CO's reserve when you're already in the fight.

My basic premise is that it was a huge mistake to let the Pioneers go, same with other Cbt Sp Platoons.

 

[SeanNewman]

MAS,

I do like the idea of a force generated Reserve though, and that point is a keeper.

A lot of the other points seem to bounce back and forth like if they are grouped they can be taken away, two COEs vs one, etc...but on current Ops it was always the Coys who were asked to give one of their platoons up for the Reserve, and it would be nice to not have to do that to them.

Although I must admit I always did want to see "On this Op, BG HQ is going to be the airmobile reserve..." it just never came.  It would have been glorious for planners, clerks, and signals to...well...maybe Pioneers as a Reserve is the way to go afterall.

 

[OldSolduer]

The Pioneers had a unique skillset. Although demolitions is what everyone thinks of when you mention "Pioneer Platoon" it was only one of several things they were very good at.
Minor road repairs, bridging, mine warfare, are just a few of the things Pioneers can be tasked with.

But to task them to perform some of these tasks requires a critical mass of them.

Scattered onesies and twosies in the coys is not a good plan.

 

[dapaterson]

Or perhaps return to square compaines of four platoons, with the fourth collecting the combat support elements.  That way:

(1) HLTA - pull one pl at a time from the line, keeping 75% of your combat power intact;
(2) Bn Comd can group the Cbt Sp pls into a rump Cbt Sp company if / when he or she desires it; and
(3) section-level gropups to rpactice and maintain skills.

 

[OldSolduer]

Dinosaur speaking, but the old Cbt Sp Coy ORBAT is the way to go IMO:

Anti Armor
Mortars
Pnrs
Sigs
Recce
BHQ

It worked and worked well. We just reinvented the wheel.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Speaking from experience the BN from the top down never utilized Pnr's to their potential for the most part.  Rarely did we have an officer and it seemed no one from the CO down really knew what we could do.  That said I think having it as a skill set like Mountain Op's will ensure that Pnr's are never used as they are intended.  No one will be able to speak up and inform the higher ups just what they can do.  Only as a cohesive platoon will it be able to maintain the skill set and also have any chance of informing the officers what we do.  BUT we have to start somewhere.

As far as employment it was always reinforced that we were the SME's and would be in charge of the provided regular infantry to guide them ie a Cpl in charge of a section of troops.

 

[vonGarvin]

In a perfect world, the Engineers would do what they do best: combat engineering.  The skill sets are similar to pioneers, but they aren't the same, hence, two different trades doing two different jobs.  To an outsider (eg: me), they looked the same, smelled the same, etc, but they were certainly different.

Having said all that, in order to man the support platoons of old, we would need to "invent" PYs in order to do so.  Where do we find those PYs?  Yes, we used to have them, but they are long gone.  Getting back the capability is the first step.  If required, and if spread evenly across all four companies of a force employment battalion (in theory), then of the 36 sections, you end up with 72 infantrymen who are qualified "Pioneer-Lite".  A crafty CO could use them how he pleases, and yes, some of his Sr NCOs and WOs would have the "adv pioneer lite" to supervise, as required.  But it would come at the expense of riflemen.

 

[SeanNewman]

Mr Patterson,

There have been all sorts of OrBats in the last five years in Afghanistan, all with pros and cons.

9 platoons in three coys gives better bn-level but thin pls during LTA.  8 platoons in two coys is a stronger coy but only two.

 

[dapaterson]

Who said anything about only two companies - if we`re going to have pipe dreams, have great ones, with each bn having three line coys of four pls each.

However, we are then left with the question of where to find 27 platoons worth of PYs - roughly 1000.

Alternatively, we could move 2 PPCLI to Gagetown, disband 2 R22eR and spread those PYs among the remaining 8 Bns in the Reg F, then rebadge 2 PPCLI and 2 RCR to Black Watch... 8 Bns of 3 coys of 4 pls each, almost PY neutral, and gets a real infantry regiment back into the Regular Force...  >

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Having your Pioneers scattered about onesies and twosies through the Bn is useless. It takes a critical mass of Pioneers to make some things happen.
That's why they were their own platoon, and  the CO's personal reserve. When they weren't out doing Pioneer tasks (mobility, counter mobility etc) they were to be ready to go scrap as Infantry where ever Nineer told tohem to be.

You can't be the CO's reserve when you're already in the fight.

My basic premise is that it was a huge mistake to let the Pioneers go, same with other Cbt Sp Platoons.

I have a dog in this fight that is dying to bark.  I am a former (and never reformed) Pioneer Pl Comd (once in the Mo and again in the regs - long story).  As a new subbie in 2 VP I was a candidate on the Basic Pioneer Course (all subbies had to take a PCF course back in the day).  I have been fighting the pioneer rearguard battle for a long time, and all I will say is that the current plan that is floating around is the very best that we could do, and even that was a long slog both within the Corps and the Army.  I will say that additional PYs have come the Infantry's way over the last 3 years, and we, as a Corps, have chosen to "invest" them in priorities other than Pioneers.  Methinks that a great bucket-load of PYs is not about to be dumped in our laps any time soon, and so we need to make the best of the situation.  Keep the flame and the skills alive, and when Infanteer is CLS we can have our way....