Engineer Support in Light/SF Roles

[Chimo]

Ok Troops, listen up, ROE for this discussion...NO running down units because of past roles, whether actual or implied, forced upon them. No running down troops with "light " experiences from 1 CER, 2 CER, 4 CER, 5 RGC, 2 Tp Para, 4 Tp or Engr Pl, Canadian Airborne Regiment.(Or anyone else I might of missed).

OK, Nick and Doug, nod your heads... lets carry on as the professionals we are...My question is with the transformation of the CF, I can see the Engineers being left with a capability gap of not having Light Engineers to support the Force, in particular, the Light Bns and SOG.

I know we have always managed it, particularly supporting the Lt Bn but at quite a cost to the Regts involved and to the troops that had to concentrate on Lt Ops and Mech Ops.

Should we form Lt Sqns or a Light Regiment with a view to support the SOG and the Lt Bns? Perhaps a Independent Combat Engineer Regiment, equiped, mandated, training to sustain and support all light and special ops type operations. IMHO if we do not reinvent ourselves to be and do what the Army needs us to do, we are in danger of being sidelined. I am very proud of our past successes. Many have been totally due to the initiative of the Section Commander on the ground rather then through well designed training. 

In my vision, this Unit would be totally concerned with light Ops, Para insertion, Helo Ops, Boat Ops etc. Their TO& E would be designed to support our light fighters. For too long we have expected our Sappers to be able to do both.

OK, my helmets on,  :warstory: flak jacket in place... watch and shoot. What do you have to say on the subject?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Never having been a ninjasapper, I guess I'll just display my ignorance and jump in here.  What level of Engineer support do you expect light fighters to provide?  The Engineer by his very nature is reliant on equipment, from shovels to AVLBs, to accomplish his tasks.  Any sappers that travel too lightly, will end up just being grunts with a hobby, not that there's anything wrong with that.  But if you just want a guy to blow up doors, and find mines, then train your new super elite soldiers to do those things.  Just MHO, nomex undies in place, fire at will...

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[bgc_fan]

Just a quick question, wasn't this already sort of discussed on this thread?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22585.0.html

Anyway, as the thread points out, each engineering regiment is already in the process of providing such a light squadron to complement light infantry.

As it is, at the 5e RGC they're in the process of forming the 53 squadron with the goal of being light engineers to complement the 3R22eR. It won't be until next summer before it's completely formed, but I believe its purpose is to do what you suggest, since it will not be tied down to LAVs and the need for heavy machinery.

Unless you're suggesting something that I'm completely missed.

 

[pte. Massecar]

So, from what you are asking we should just bring the pioneers back to all the units.

 

[Kirkhill]

How much can you do with a Bobcat and a John Deere Gator?

 

[Kat Stevens]

So, from what you are asking we should just bring the pioneers back to all the units.

No, that's not what I said.  If you want your light fighters to fill a "traditional" SF role (whatever that is), then train them as SF.  The SAS has demolition and booby trap experts, regardless of their pre-selection hatbadge.  Pretty much the same for the US rangers, and most other light forces.  Pioneers are not a requirement in the mech Bns because of the close Engineer Support concept. Just an opinion.

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Chimo]

Sorry for not posting a response to this topic sooner, its been a crazy week in the trenches. You make a good point Kat about training them as SF. I would counter that with, SF Soldiers bring a lot of specialized skill and knowledge to the fight. It is a long, expensive and selective process to make a soldier SF qualified. I think engineers could support them, with our special skills without all the high speed training that the SF soldier needs and does.

The engineers has a number of skills that are combat multipliers. For example, sure anyone can blow down a door for an explosive entry. Given enough explosive, most would be able to figure out how to blow up a bridge. What  the engineer brings to the fight is the skill and knowledge, in this case, of explosive to apply the correct amounts, through calculation/experience to achieve maximum effect with minimum explosive.

The Light Engineer would be used in all phases of war. I am relying heavily on an American publication
FM 5-7-30, Brigade Engineers and Engineer Company Combat Operations (Airborne, Air Assault, Light)

The Light Engineers would would be tailored as part of a combined arms team to support the SOG or Light Bns. It would focus on mobility but also provide countermobility and survivability support.The Light Engineer (LE) Squadron would be tasked organized with equipment from its parent LE Regiment. These units would be equipped and specifically trained in the Light Role. With the exception of 1 Airborne Field Squadron and possible the Engineer Platoon of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, we have never purposely thought this out.

Presently, its park your vehicles, take what tools and equipment you think you might need to support the Light Bn and get on the helicopters. I believe we would reach a capability gap trying to support an SOG or Light Bn supporting Special Ops if we don't address this issue.

LE would be proficient in marksmenship, demolitions, light infantry skill,s and field-expedient engineering.  The LE would integrate into the Commanders planning process to assist in completing the mission.

Some of the specific LE tasks would include:

A. Mobility- conduct covert obstacle breaching, assault through obstacles, clear and construct PZs, LZs and DZs, clear airfields of mines and equipment, route sweeps (for IEDs), river crossings etc;

B. Counter mobility- create road craters and expedient obstacles, destroy bridges, emplace tactical obstacles, such as wire and minefield ( conventional and scatterable),

C. Survivability- provide structures to minimize the effects of direct and indirect fires, and

D. General Engineer Support- airfield maintenance, lodgment-support facilities, MSR maintenance,.

They would be able to provide the Commander with information of Enemy obstacles, En engineer activities, rivers, LZ/PZ/DZ selection, situational obstacle locations, reserve or direct obstacles (Bridge demo or road craters), and recommendations on FIBUA design and assault techniques.

One might argue that conventional engineers do these tasks and that is correct. However, the tasks list become more complicated to complete with limited resources and tools of a LE. That would require special Battle Task Standards with the limitations of the LE in mind.

I think the fact both the UK and the Americans have Light Engineers to support the type of operations I have discussed should be an indication that perhaps we need them as well. 

 

[McG]

Presently, its park your vehicles, take what tools and equipment you think you might need to support the Light Bn and get on the helicopters.

While I have seen that exact senario played out with Hy Eqpt Ops & Armd Engrs, I know we are past this.  There is a light fd sqn in 1 CER (it is currenlty deployed on the PRT), and the plan for engr transformation will have a light sqn in 2 CER and another in 5 RGC.  However, while this transformation produces a solution for a light fd tp and a light SHQ, it does not provide the solution to the light sp tp.  Instead, the traditional sp tps (hy eqpt, const, ress, & cbt mob sp) are just re-grouped with one in each fd sqn (in garrison) and an ad-hoc composite sp tp formed for operations.

Chimo,
I would agree that a light engr regt would be the best way to develop/sustain such a capability.  However, unless all three light bns are grouped into a light bde, we need to keep this capability decentralized in the various CMBGs.

 

[kj_gully]

Wow, A new thread for me ! I wax nostalgic, but will look to the future ( helo deployed amphibious ops) . I think I state the obvious when I say that without specific training, troops can "play" at a given role, but not fully contribute.The armoured battle group is dead, long live light engineering.Canadian Engineers are definitely adaptable, but without proper equipment, doctrine, SOP and Training, there skills are not effectively put to the fore. Fortunately there remains a core of experience within the trade to provide vision and direction, a "lessons learned" department. Hopefully they embrace their mission, and go forward, and not flash coins @ each other... I think the job of a light engineer in the new battlefield would be like a "pioneer +", expert @ demolition, light obstacle emplacement, all those other things that were aforementioned with a heavy dose of RECCE thrown in the mix. Shame on youall for missing the most important, and most engineer specific task that will be required in the new reality. No-one else will be able to provide commanders with an accurate picture of what follow on forces will have to contend with than a Sapper on the ground. Be that beachhead obstacles, Route suitability, bridge load class, minefield depths and composition, suitability of existing infrastructure.... these will be done by the SME, the Engineer. I hope the future is as exciting and bright as I think it should be, and youall get out of the Badgers, Bibers, and anything else with tracks!

Gully
 

 

[geo]

Hmmm.... where's "airborne sapper" when you need him?

 

[Infanteer]

Two questions:

1)  What does a Light Squadron look like?  How is configured and how does this look different than a "normal" squadron.

2)  Does "Assault" factor in on a Light Engineer tasks (as KJGully said - pioneer +); I'm just looking at Engineer articles in the Marine Corps gazette, and they seem to be in heavy demand as "assaulter experts" when going into Fallujah or some other complex terrain.  It seems that Engineers could bring things like FAE/Thermobaric explosives, flamethrowers, and other general mayham to the Light Forces battle.  It appears that Recce would go hand in hand with assault.

 

[Part-Timer]

Chimo - excellent thread!

 

[Part-Timer]

must - not - hit - wrong - key

What I meant to add was that the "Light Engineers" capabilities will IMHO overlap to some extent with the skillset of the Light Infantry and the SF-types (demo, mine warfare, etc), but will definitely add to and amplify those capabilities.

 

[043]

Kent,

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Lessons Learned. Too often we employ lessons noted, and not lessons learned!!!!!!!

Chimo!

 

[Spr.Earl]

I say yes,is this not what we had with in the Air Borne?A light Eng.Sqn.

 

[Spr.Earl]

In response to Chimos question what would it take to start a Light Eng. Sqn.?
Obviously all Jump qual.
What else in this so called modern age?
Demo right off the bat.
What else?

 

[geo]

provide mobility.....
Light bridging & boats

 

[043]

Now does Light necessarily mean Airborne?? I am not convinced of the fact. I know everyone assumes that but really, once on the ground, what requirement does a Jumper have different from a Leg? I think Light should encompass Air Assault as well. Once on the ground, everyone would be on an equal footing.

What is the textbook definition of "Light" in this context anyways?

Chimo!!!!!!!!

 

[Chimo]

I think I state the obvious when I say that without specific training, troops can "play" at a given role, but not fully contribute.The armoured battle group is dead, long live light engineering.Canadian Engineers are definitely adaptable, but without proper equipment, doctrine, SOP and Training, there skills are not effectively put to the fore. Fortunately there remains a core of experience within the trade to provide vision and direction, a "lessons learned" department
Gully
 

Gully makes some good points. Without a doctrine, role and specific equipment and most importantly training, we as Engineers will always be behind the power curve and we will not be able to provided the capability to its maximum potential. Some may argue that we are doing just fine in the "light" role as we are doing it now. I would ask those to consider how well we could do the light role, if all our training and resources were geared to reach the end of supporting the light fighter.

The question on definition isn't as easy as it seems. Is light forces without armour? Or is is something more or less. Should they be airborne or airmobile? I personally believe that airborne operations although suitable in many circumstances have limited employment capabilities It does give the commander another tool in the tool box. I believe, the soldiers of our Light Engineers should be airborne qualified because there are few courses in our forces that offer that type of gut check. I believe our doctrine, training, tactics and procedures need to be developed around airmobility.

I see this as a requirement to quickly deploy troops in a fighting formation. It also airmobility has the ability to deliver our resources and equipment on site and on time. I see airmobility as the airborne of this century. So much for what I think...what do you think? 

 

[kj_gully]

I think it would be to easy to dust off 2CERs SSF orbat and say this is what an Airborne/light engineer sqn should look like. I think a better plan is to dust off that orbat, and see what portions would be actually used. For example, Airborne water supply....maybe not. Airborne heavy equipment, maybe( if only to improve a beachhead for follow on forces). Bring back the pionjaar, and det caps in breast pockets. I am sure that the boys humping around on Op Anaconda have some new milennium ideas about training and outfitting light sqn. For the purposes of this post Airborne should be used interchangeably with Airmobile.Ensure that the troops know how to strip down a ration pack, and that sleeping bags go in the ruck only after the ammo, demolitions, and other mission essential kit, if there's room. That's what I learned about soldiering as a light engineer, along with that sometimes you are the engineer SME, even if you're a corporal, and the company commander will listen to you, if you look him in the eye and speak the truth with conviction. I'm not sure that is so important in a mech brigade. I loved it.

Gully