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

[Towards_the_gap]

Abatis training is done.  An abatis done properly does not need craters to be effective.  And, if you are doing it to stop something less than a Soviet Division, it is far less time consuming that we typically teach - against many threats, a 40 m deep abatis is significant overkill.

In any case, I know both the infantry and armour have intrest in breathing life back into assault pioneers and assault troopers.  Is it possible that the individual training requirements of these two specialties could be achieved through a common course?  I recognize that there are differences in employment, but if those can be ingrained through collective training then it would make it much easier for CMBGs to resource inf/armd pioneer courses including load leveling of students and staff across units.

I should have modified that to say, Abatis training is hard to plan to do, considering the EA that has to be done when you tell Base Env that you plan on cutting down 15-20 mature trees along a route. That being said, it is not impossible, just not something you can pick out of a hat to do one day.

And you're right, an Abatis doesn't need mines/craters/wire to be an effective obstacle. In fact we inadvertanly made some a few years ago when blowing up trees to clear lines of sight/fire for our COP. Of course, those were only effective until the locals came out for firewood.....


As for common training, I could be wrong but as of 2004 the Battlefield Engineering Wing of the RSME in the UK still taught a common Assault Pioneer/Trooper course, for RAC/Cav and Inf types to attend, mixed as it were. The tasks were the same, the means of getting there were different that's all.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I still think an effective way to package the training could be common IT for Pioneer and Asslt Tps, with units developing particular branch nuances through CT.

There may be some bits in common, but I'd prefer that we (the Armoured Corps) do our own thing with the Support Trooper Course separate from a ressurected Pioneer Course. The differences are not just nuances. There may well be portions that would be virtually identical such as the basic demolitions and some of the obstacles/survivability portions. The Support Trooper Course, though, has other critical elements that should not just be "CT."

Having said that, there could certainly be efficiencies with any Engineer-specific support for either course, especially as the capabilities stand up. They still wouldn't be the same courses, just sharing SME resources if this is feasible.

 

[McG]

Having said that, there could certainly be efficiencies with any Engineer-specific support for either course, especially as the capabilities stand up. They still wouldn't be the same courses, just sharing SME resources if this is feasible.

The problem is that the efficiencies would only be seen in a combined course where resources could be concentrated.  Perhaps a Cbt Arms Pnr Crse (equal to Basic Pnr but for both Inf & Armd) - successful Crwmn could then attend a shorter branch crse to cover the training delta.

Advanced courses could still be run by the branch schools in Gagetown, but the goal of combining the basic level training would be to facilitate the ability of brigades to run such courses internally as part of a PCF cycle.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I would not see efficiencies running the courses together. The basic course loads should be left as is. The efficiencies would be in the development of the demolitions package, which probably exists anyway.

There is much more to being a Support Trooper than demolitions. Indeed, many of the Assault Troops from 1999 on were not handling explosives.

 

[McG]

There is much more to being a Support Trooper than demolitions.

I am aware and I never suggested narrowing the scope to just a demolitions course because the overlapping skills are also much more than just demolitions.  There is also hand & power tools, point obstacles, protective obstacles, nuisance obstacles, limited mine warfare, targetry construction, enhancing camouflage, etc …

PCF cycles area already stuffed full, and instructors are often in high-demand as the limited supply is spread across all of the simultaneous courses  Introducing two separate full-up courses becomes a greater challenge to sustain – we can probably all think of valuable existing courses that are never run for lack of human resources. .  A single common sapper skills course would allow brigades to concentrate resources (particularly instructors from across Inf Bns, Armd Regt and CER) to enable a sustainable year-after-year production.

The remaining training delta of non-sapper skills then is left as a smaller hurdle to tackle within the regiment.

 

[Infanteer]

There is nothing to say Armoured and Infantry units couldn't run their own courses.  To me, the key question is would there be different POs between "Infantry Pioneer" and "Assault Trooper"?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If I was looking at qualifying eight soldiers a year on demolitions then a combined course with the Bde would make sense. If I am training larger numbers then we would need multiple serials anyway. If the basic package is the same then we already have efficiencies in that courseware etc for that bit does not get invented twice. Leave the courses separate, however, to enable them to achieve their aim.

Our Troopers are not in the infantry, and neither are Pioneers in the Armoured Corps. If we are going to do this then lets do it right.

Our Support Troopers take something that it closer to the Basic Recce Patrolman course with elements of what could go in a Pioneer course. They are different enough to warrant separate courses with distinct QS etc. This is different than 25mm TOC or LAV Driver where the skill being taught is the same regardless of MOC.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, that makes sense to me - if the QS are different then there is no use trying to make apple juice out of a pear and a banana.

 

[McG]

If the basic [demolitions] package is the same then we already have efficiencies in that courseware etc for that bit does not get invented twice. Leave the courses separate, however, to enable them to achieve their aim.

There is an existing three day basic demolitions course, but it falls short of what either Armd or Inf should be looking for ... that would be looking at a 1.5 to 2 weeks to get what you need.  Within the Army, the way to ensure that training content & courseware is standard is to define that under a single QS.  As soon as it gets put into two separate QSs, there is nothing to constrain the courseware to a common package.

This is different than 25mm TOC or LAV Driver where the skill being taught is the same regardless of MOC.

Use of mine detectors or operation of gas-operated tools is also the same regardless of MOC.  Creation of point, nuisance and protective obstacles are also the same regardless of MOC.  Constructing range targetry is again the same regardless of MOC.  This adds up to several weeks of common training regardless of MOC.

Well, that makes sense to me - if the QS are different then there is no use trying to make apple juice out of a pear and a banana.

But, our system is wise enough to recognize where there is training overlap and specifically parcel that out from the main QS in the form of prerequisites quals.  To train an Armd Engr Op, the IT programme requires Cbt Engr to first complete a Leopard D&M - potentially, and quite often in the past, this was done on the same course as Armd Crmn and Veh Tech.  To qualify a Mech Inf Pl Comd, the officer must receive AIEV and AJCA before he can be granted ADAB.  Typically the prerequisite qual must be satisfied before attending training specific to the next qualification, but there are many examples of where the prerequisite can be embedded in a block of time within training specific to the next qualification.  So, I don't think the right analogy is apple juice from pears & bananas - rather it is a question that, if we want apple & pear juice then can we accept apples from an apple orchard or do all the fruit need to be grown together in one mixed apple & pear orchard.

Our Support Troopers take something that it closer to the Basic Recce Patrolman course with elements of what could go in a Pioneer course.

So why not:  Cbt Arms Pnr Qual + Dismounted Recce Ptlmn Crse = Sp Tpr Qual  ?
You get efficiencies on the front end, but then go your own way to ensure the final product is what you want.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Your desire for efficiencies is noted, but do not let that drive our training. The Support Trooper course has similarities to the Recce Patrolman course, but there are differences as well. Support/Assault Troop has a different role than Assault Pioneers or Engineers. As you note the basic demolitions package exists. We plug that into our course but do not let that drive how the course is delivered. I mentioned earlier that we had very successful and useful Assault Troops that did not have demolitions.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I don't really know where the beef is here... Get the basic pioneer and assault trooper CTPs, identify all common POs to the two, find instructors and book a bus to Wainwright for a couple weeks.  RTU to fill in the empty spots in-house.  Economy of effort and all that rot.

 

[Journeyman]

Great, now we have two Engineers telling the tankers how to run their training. 


      :stirpot:

 

[Kat Stevens]

Great, now we have two Engineers telling the tankers how to run their training. 


      :stirpot:

Honestly I couldn't tell you what an assault trooper does, every time I had any contact with the tankers it was either driving a big machine of my own, or rattling up to an obstacle in the back of an M113.  Assault troopers are classed with Bigfoot in the sapper world, some of us believe they exist, but few have ever seen one.

 

[Journeyman]

.....some of us believe they exist, but few have ever seen one.

Truth be told, the whole concept of a tanker dismounting is beyond me. If anyone has a picture, I'd assume it was photoshopped  :nod:

 

[patt]

I should have modified that to say, Abatis training is hard to plan to do, considering the EA that has to be done when you tell Base Env that you plan on cutting down 15-20 mature trees along a route. That being said, it is not impossible, just not something you can pick out of a hat to do one day.

When we were doing our cutting portion for our Support troop course back in June/July  base environment actually encouraged alot of cutting.  Our assault troop did a very well Abatis during Spartan bear 2011 with very little to no training.

Truth be told, the whole concept of a tanker dismounting is beyond me. If anyone has a picture, I'd assume it was photoshopped  :nod:

We arnt all Tankers lol

Your desire for efficiencies is noted, but do not let that drive our training. The Support Trooper course has similarities to the Recce Patrolman course, but there are differences as well. Support/Assault Troop has a different role than Assault Pioneers or Engineers. As you note the basic demolitions package exists. We plug that into our course but do not let that drive how the course is delivered. I mentioned earlier that we had very successful and useful Assault Troops that did not have demolitions.

I've been in the RCD assault troop since it stood back up in '10 so far any of our tasks never really needed much or at all any explosives.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

When we were doing our cutting portion for our Support troop course back in June/July  base environment actually encouraged alot of cutting.  Our assault troop did a very well Abatis during Spartan bear 2011 with very little to no training.

The Spartan Bear 1 obstacles you mean? The ones we cleared in about 1 minute with an ELAV? Sorry but those weren't abatis. They were speed bumps. But I liked the melmac plate 'AT mines'. Train to excite and all that!! :

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Spartan Bear 1 obstacles you mean? The ones we cleared in about 1 minute with an ELAV? Sorry but those weren't abatis. They were speed bumps. But I liked the melmac plate 'AT mines'. Train to excite and all that!! :

Did you see the part about little or no training?

 

[George Wallace]

I've been in the RCD assault troop since it stood back up in '10 so far any of our tasks never really needed much or at all any explosives.

Back in the day, everyone in Recce Sqn got to play with DM12 or C4; FIB and Det Cord to make Basic Charges, Ring Mains, etc.  Always interesting to watch methods/styles of crimping Blasting Caps change almost annually.  Most enjoyable part though is always the moment to set the ignitor and blow something up.    :camo:

 

[OldSolduer]

Pretty much everyone in a Cbt Arms trade should know how to use explosives, IMO.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pretty much everyone in a Cbt Arms trade should know how to use explosives, IMO.

There was a time that we were.

As a Cpl, I taught A Sqn 8th CH, their annual basic demolition. I was also the guy that carried the kit onboard my Ferret, to blow blinds that anyone came across in places like Meaford or duds on the grenade range.

The last charges I set were comprised of 4 crates of C-4, 6 beehives, and 6 rail cutters. Along with all the det cord, initiators, etc to go with it.

I was taught by my SSM (armoured).

There was no requirement for Engineers.

Engineers only and demolitions are empire building. 

Sorry, it ain't rocket science.