A doubt about Engineers / Sappers

[Marc]

I'm working in some of our contents for our future website. Now I'm rewriting my adventures related to our Pre-Kalisz campaign while improving some things under the light of the experience of two groups that have played them. One of the things I'm trying to improve is plausibility.

So, I need some suggestion from anyone familiarized with the US Army. The group of characters are members of a newly formed "special sapper unit", and they, theoretically, were chosen from the units integrating the 5th Infantry Division. In the listed unis integrating the 5th ID appears the 7th Combat Engineer Battalion but it seems more specialized in heavy special purpose vehicles (CEV's, AVLB, etc.). I want the kind of combat engineers acting as infantry but trained in destruction of fortifications, breach opening, etc (the example of German engineers/paratroopers in Eben Emael comes to my mind). So, for my campaign background information, where can I find these men and women in the 5th ID? Will they be members of the 7th Combat Engineer Battalion or must I search them in some other place?

Mmmm... I hope I explained it well...In fact part of my problem is that I know that in Spanish, the terms Ingeniero (Engineer) and Zapador (Sapper) divide the two very different jobs of the same arm. I don't know if the same difference works in English but I've been unable to find a "Sapper Company" in the 5th ID.

Thanks in advance.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Marc

I'm working in some of our contents for our future website. Now I'm rewriting my adventures related to our Pre-Kalisz campaign while improving some things under the light of the experience of two groups that have played them. One of the things I'm trying to improve is plausibility.

So, I need some suggestion from anyone familiarized with the US Army. The group of characters are members of a newly formed "special sapper unit", and they, theoretically, were chosen from the units integrating the 5th Infantry Division. In the listed unis integrating the 5th ID appears the 7th Combat Engineer Battalion but it seems more specialized in heavy special purpose vehicles (CEV's, AVLB, etc.). I want the kind of combat engineers acting as infantry but trained in destruction of fortifications, breach opening, etc (the example of German engineers/paratroopers in Eben Emael comes to my mind). So, for my campaign background information, where can I find these men and women in the 5th ID? Will they be members of the 7th Combat Engineer Battalion or must I search them in some other place?

Mmmm... I hope I explained it well...In fact part of my problem is that I know that in Spanish, the terms Ingeniero (Engineer) and Zapador (Sapper) divide the two very different jobs of the same arm. I don't know if the same difference works in English but I've been unable to find a "Sapper Company" in the 5th ID.

Thanks in advance.

In our language the same type of troops are called Engineers.

They do bridgelaying,construct fortifications,lay mines etc .But they also do the opposite -blow these up ,clear minefields etc .

might there be something in the Anglo armies that go by combat engineers ?

[pmulcahy11b]

It's basically the same thing in the US Army -- you have Combat Engineers, who are the guys who blow up bridges, dig the really big strongpoint positions, etc. They also build mobile bridges, construct heavy vehicle obstacles, lay minefields, and suchlike. Those are your Zapador. Then you have Construction Engineers, who do the...well, building of stuff. Those are your Ingeniero. Combat Engineers are considered a Combat Arms profession, up there in the front with Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Scouts, and Combat Aviation. The Construction Engineers are considered REMFs (Rear-Echelon Mother Fuc***s) -- but that doesn't mean you do without them either.

Now, will find them on most ORBATs in the T2K books? Unfortunately, no. But in most US Army Infantry and Armor divisions, there is a Combat Engineer brigade, and a brigade of Construction Engineers.

[simonmark6]

You may well have looked this site up already, if you have, I apologise for doubling up information.

This site:
http://perso.numericable.fr/~yvesjbel/polk_org2.html

Has a general breakdown of the 5th as it existed beetween 1984 and 1992, they have the 7th Engineer batallion as:
7th ENGINEER BATTALION

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Engineers
"A" Combat Engineer Company (5 Officers, 154 EM)
- Company Headquarters
- 3 Engineer Platoons (M113A1)
"B" Combat Engineer Company
- (idem)
"C" Combat Engineer Company
- (idem)
"D" Combat Engineer Company
- (idem)
"E" Bridge Company (5 Officers, 146 EM)
- Company headquarters
- Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge Platoon
- 2 M4T6 Bridge Platoons (or Mobile Assault Bridge)

Given the very brief TOE, there's plenty of room to have a unit like the one you describe, especially given the attrition that the batallion will have suffered.

In the British Army all enlisted members of the Royal Corps of Engineers are called Sappers. Their training appears to be as Combat Engineers first and then they are given a trade that seems to reflect the civilian construction industry. In addition, there are Commando Engineers that support the Royal Marines and Parachute Engineers that (you may have guessed) support the Paratroopers, these seem to specialise in combat engineering under fire.

Just to complicate things, the British army also have units of Pioneers, these troops are also trained in light engineering and construction as well as preparing combat positions. I'm not sure what roles they had initially, but from my reading of information and the fact that they are in the Royal Logistics Corps, they now tend to handle less combat oriented roles than they used to.

The Pioneers appear to pride themselves on being equal parts fighter and engineer so this may not be the case.

I like the concept you have for your gaming party, I'd suggest not worrying too much about fitting them perfectly into an ORBAT, it's not stretching the realms of credibility to suggest that a commander gathered a group of tough and skilled individuals together in order to get the job done when equipment and supplies started to dry up.

Good luck in your endeavors.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Just to complicate things, the British army also have units of Pioneers, these troops are also trained in light engineering and construction as well as preparing combat positions. I'm not sure what roles they had initially, but from my reading of information and the fact that they are in the Royal Logistics Corps, they now tend to handle less combat oriented roles than they used to.

The Pioneers appear to pride themselves on being equal parts fighter and engineer so this may not be the case.

The Australian Army has Assault Pioneers that sound the same.

[Graebarde]

During the period just before the Twilight war, the RL US Army established an engineer BRIGADE in each division IIRC, at least on paper. There were THREE battalions, though I'm not sure they were each five companies. I think they were three company with headquarters. Depending on how large you wish to make your 'provisional' assault company, I'm sure you could glean some 'volunteers' from each company in the brigade. It would have to have the brigade commanders blessing, and perhaps was his 'pet project' to test.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm not sure if those Combat Engineering Brigades ever got filled out in the late '90s divisions. For the purposes of T2k, I would stick to the battalion.

I'll repeat the above, the US Army lumps nearly all engineering tasks in the CE battalions of the divisions. A corps would then have a brigade (at least one) with more engineering assets for bigger projects. Some battalions' companies are specialized for bridging, most are generalists. I've played a lot of WW2 games, and the US Army seemed to have a lot of engineer brigades, combat or other.

For the purposes I think you are looking for, it would seem you want a specialized company of the 7th CE Battalion, or something attached from XI Corps' brigade. Just say the battalion CO has designated this company or platoon for that designated task. By July 2000, I would be sure that such has happened in many areas. There may be some "volunteers" from Navy or Air Force engineer units that aren't needed so much, like former airfield construction & maintenance groups.

[Webstral]

You have a lot of room for latitude. By 2000, engineer battalions might well have been reorganized into composite formations. I served in the 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division. The 4th was a combat engineer formation; we had a lot of equipment that could be used for survivability as well as mobility. Some of that same gear will be found in a construction battalion. It’s entirely plausible that the 7th Engineers would have been organized into a composite outfit, since the 5th ID was setting out more-or-less on its own and would need the heavy junk engineers just as much as the combat engineers. Alternatively, the combat engineers might have been made organic to the brigades or even battalions they served.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

The Australian Army has Assault Pioneers that sound the same.

Having actually been an Assault Pioneer back in the day, I feel somewhat qualified to comment.
A pioneer is essentially a senior infantryman trained in mine and flame warfare, booby traps, demolitions, watercraft (boats), and construction. The heaviest equipment used is a "cobra" - petrol driven, man portable (barely), hand held jackhammer. Virtually all tasks are done by hand, up to and including bridge building and bunker construction using locally sourced materials (trees, rocks, knocked down buildings, telegraph poles, roofing iron, whatever).

Exact organisation may have changed since the mid 90's, but back then there was one plattoon (roughly 30 men) of Assault Pioneers in an infantry battalion (approx 750 men) and attached to the Support company (mortars, SFMG, anti armour + pioneers).

It's a VERY tough job especially when you consider they also act as infantrymen!
Fortunately for the bigger jobs, the pioneers usually act as the skilled tradesmen, supervising and advising the infantry plattoons.

Obviously the US army does things a little differently, but I'd think this organisation would suit T2K better than seperate battalions, etc.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Having actually been an Assault Pioneer back in the day, I feel somewhat qualified to comment.

Respect.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Obviously the US army does things a little differently, but I'd think this organisation would suit T2K better than seperate battalions, etc.

In the US Army, we've decided to slap on a measure of red tape and you have to get permission from division to have Combat Engineers attached to your unit. I've long thought that a couple of squads of Combat Engineers would be a good addition to an infantry HHC (Headquarters & Headquarters Company, where you find folks like the Scout Platoon and the Mortar Platoon amongst others), but like most parts of the US Government, the Army loves its bureaucracy...

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

In the US Army, we've decided to slap on a measure of red tape and you have to get permission from division to have Combat Engineers attached to your unit. I've long thought that a couple of squads of Combat Engineers would be a good addition to an infantry HHC (Headquarters & Headquarters Company, where you find folks like the Scout Platoon and the Mortar Platoon amongst others), but like most parts of the US Government, the Army loves its bureaucracy...

not everyone can be an assault pioneer-some of us others have to make a living to..what would WE do without buearucracy ?

Seriously - the ratio of fighting men to logistics type personnel is a theme in Heinleins book Starship Troopers ( not a bad read ) .

Can anyone give some info on that ? Maybe it should be a seperate thread if it is of interest..

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Exact organization may have changed since the mid 90's, but back then there was one platoon (roughly 30 men) of Assault Pioneers in an infantry battalion (approx 750 men) and attached to the Support company (mortars, SFMG, anti armour + pioneers).

I can't add to what's been said regarding the Americans, but this ^ was the case with the Canadians as well. So I'd guess it applies to most other British/commonwealth type armies too.

Like mortars, having a pioneer platoon keeps a battalion easier to field - independent of others arms (even if they are more limited in their abilities).

[Marc]

Thank you very much for your suggestions and explanations, guys. They will be very useful for me to polish up the details about the campaign. I hadn’t visited the site posted by Simonmark6, so, here I have a bonus goal.

It seemed reasonable for me that such type of unit could be created if needed, and now, with your suggestion, I can give a little and plausible explanation in the initial background about the main origin of the sappers. The type of job described for the Assault Engineers is what I want for the playing characters. It’s the type of work I have seen carried out by the Parachute Engineers Company (Unidad de Zapadores Paracaidistas, UZAPAC 6) while in the army. They are a single company tied to the Headquarters Battalion, though a few years before I enlisted, they formed a "Mixed Engineers Battalion" with the Signals Company.

Again, thanks.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by headquarters

not everyone can be an assault pioneer-some of us others have to make a living to..what would WE do without buearucracy ?

Seriously - the ratio of fighting men to logistics type personnel is a theme in Heinleins book Starship Troopers ( not a bad read ) .

Can anyone give some info on that ? Maybe it should be a seperate thread if it is of interest..

I can't give you a reference off the top of my head, but I dimly remember a lesson in ROTC where MSG Chinn told us the "teeth to tail" ratio in the US Army is about 1-to-10. (That was in 1983, however.) Which is disturbing in my mind...

That same subject is also brought up in The Forever War. The main character, William Mandella, also makes the comment that as an army gets older, the ratio of officers to enlisted men and NCOs tends to go up. Joe Haldeman is a vet and a student of military history, so he has a good idea of what he's talking about.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I can't give you a reference off the top of my head, but I dimly remember a lesson in ROTC where MSG Chinn told us the "teeth to tail" ratio in the US Army is about 1-to-10. (That was in 1983, however.) Which is disturbing in my mind...

That same subject is also brought up in The Forever War. The main character, William Mandella, also makes the comment that as an army gets older, the ratio of officers to enlisted men and NCOs tends to go up. Joe Haldeman is a vet and a student of military history, so he has a good idea of what he's talking about.

According to this paper:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo...grath_op23.pdf

"The Long War Occasional Series Paper 23, The Other End of the Spear: The Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations"

The T3R ratio in Iraq in 2005 is 1 : 2.5 - MUCH less than I thought. Numbers could be misleading though, as it doesn't seem to take into account non-theater forces, most of which are non-combat arms, I'd imagine. This is a fascinating topic to me, perhaps we should split this off to a separate thread?

EDIT: 1 :4 ratio, when you include in-theater contractors....

[m47dragon]

I've been with units that have had Marine Corps CE's attached to it and with units that have had Army CE's attached to it. I don't know what the MOS task breakdown is for CE's, or if it differs between the two branches of service, but the Army seemed to have a lot of nice heavy equipment whereas my fellow Marines ran with we grunts (they were masters at breaching obstacles, demolitions, mines, etc. They also were trigger pullers. The Army CE's were great at digging your fighting positions very rapidly and getting you the materials for overhead cover.) As far as the USMC is concerned, the infantry MOS of 0351 has as its secondary specialty that of demolitions and breaching. We were well trained on field expedient demolitions, blasting, cratering, cutting (with C4 and TNT) creating obstacles, FODing potential runways, breaching wire-minefields-doors, etc. Bangalore torpedo rushes were on our training menu (as was making field expedient Bangalore torpedoes...and claymores...and other party favors.)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

According to this paper:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo...grath_op23.pdf

"The Long War Occasional Series Paper 23, The Other End of the Spear: The Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations"

The T3R ratio in Iraq in 2005 is 1 : 2.5 - MUCH less than I thought. Numbers could be misleading though, as it doesn't seem to take into account non-theater forces, most of which are non-combat arms, I'd imagine. This is a fascinating topic to me, perhaps we should split this off to a separate thread?

EDIT: 1 :4 ratio, when you include in-theater contractors....

Does it also take into account that most REMFs these days are...well, not really REMFs anymore? The Army's come a long way from the days when REMFs didn't know one end of an M-16 from the other and looked at Claymore mines in complete confusion.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Does it also take into account that most REMFs these days are...well, not really REMFs anymore? The Army's come a long way from the days when REMFs didn't know one end of an M-16 from the other and looked at Claymore mines in complete confusion.

Very good point. I only skimmed the document, haven't had a chance to sit down and read it yet. The line between REMF and front-line soldier is blurred, that's for sure. I'd bet that they look at the combat rated MOS's (11, 12, 13, 18, 19 series, plus some I'm forgetting), vs. all others. I'd like to see a breakdown by the whole force, not just one theater.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

I'd like to see a breakdown by the whole force, not just one theater.

That will probably jack it up a bit. I remember reading about the 1:10 T3R (love that acronym!) before. One needs to remember that the Cold War US Army (and other services) maintained a higher "overhead" than other armies for at least two reasons. One is to keep the possibility of disciplined expansion in the case of WW3 (learned some lessons from the chaos of WW1); and the other is to be able to project and support forces on other continents. Others include the need to maintain modern weapons and provide comforts to peacetime levels.

Heck, if air forces consider only their aircrew as "teeth," their T3R is way high!

I have some stuff on the '80s Army TO&Es, I will see if I can dig up the engineer battalion things.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

Very good point. I only skimmed the document, haven't had a chance to sit down and read it yet. The line between REMF and front-line soldier is blurred, that's for sure. I'd bet that they look at the combat rated MOS's (11, 12, 13, 18, 19 series, plus some I'm forgetting), vs. all others. I'd like to see a breakdown by the whole force, not just one theater.

P.113 of the above document shows the breakdown of units that the author considered. He did mention, for instance, that MP units running convoys would be "combat," while those guarding PWs were considered "logistical."

I didn't read it thoroughly, more of a deep skim. He found that the T3R averages 1:3, over the 20th century.

I also skimmed through my old Assault-series games (awesome GDW game of battalion- to brigade-level combat in the 1980s), to look up engineers. It confirms that a US divisional engineer battalion would have 4 companies of mixed assets (mine-laying, mine-clearing, dozers, bridges and obstacles) and one of bridging. That way, the divisional CO could push one company down to each of three brigades, and keep one in reserve.

[Webstral]

In the early 90's, heavy divisions had an engineer brigade (DIVENG) that included one battalion for each brigade. Each maneuver battalion thus had its own engineer company. Light divisions had to make do with one company per brigade.

Webstral

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Webstral

In the early 90's, heavy divisions had an engineer brigade (DIVENG) that included one battalion for each brigade. Each maneuver battalion thus had its own engineer company. Light divisions had to make do with one company per brigade.

Webstral

I wonder if these were fresh-raised battalions, or were they re-assigned from the brigades already assigned to Corps or Armies? Given that the '90s, the US had 8? heavy divisions, that's 16+ new battalions and their brigade HQs, at a time when the Army was being cut back.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Does it also take into account that most REMFs these days are...well, not really REMFs anymore? The Army's come a long way from the days when REMFs didn't know one end of an M-16 from the other and looked at Claymore mines in complete confusion.

Well the Maintenance Company making a wrong turn during the run to Baghdad was a long over due wake up call for the Army. Now think about the way they used and throw in a well placed Airborne/Air Assault landing on top of them. It makes me cringe to think about back then. Even by today standards, I wouldn't have a warm and fuzzy feeling either, but they would be more like to put up resistance than before.

Just my humble opinion.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

Very good point. I only skimmed the document, haven't had a chance to sit down and read it yet. The line between REMF and front-line soldier is blurred, that's for sure. I'd bet that they look at the combat rated MOS's (11, 12, 13, 18, 19 series, plus some I'm forgetting), vs. all others. I'd like to see a breakdown by the whole force, not just one theater.

Also remember that most Artillery and Armored units if they don't deploy in Infantry role, they serve dual purpose, where part of the time they are filling their primary role and other their new founded but I ain't no infantryman role too. Also remember in several Brigades some troops change MOS via on the job training from Infantry or Armored to Cavalry Scout too during the conversion to the much improve Modular Army. Please excuse the sarcasm.

Just make laugh to think that after operations since the Vietnam war, they finally figured out that they probably will never send an Army Combat Division into combat complete like they once were able to do. Even during Desert Storm the only units that were over there with their entire assets were the 82nd and 101st. All other Army Division were hodge podge of assets through out the army.

Even in Vietnam the 23rd Infantry Division was organized around 3 Brigade that were independent organization. The 101st went over in piecemeal stages and the 82nd sent one brigade.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I wonder if these were fresh-raised battalions, or were they re-assigned from the brigades already assigned to Corps or Armies? Given that the '90s, the US had 8? heavy divisions, that's 16+ new battalions and their brigade HQs, at a time when the Army was being cut back.

No many of these Battalion were stripped from Combat Engineer Brigades that were Corps level assets. One of the many lessons that the US Army should of learned during WWII but never realized until then, was that the Divisions in combat usually have several Attachments. The last 8 years or so the Army has been re-learning lessons and slowly applying them.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

No many of these Battalion were stripped from Combat Engineer Brigades that were Corps level assets. One of the many lessons that the US Army should of learned during WWII but never realized until then, was that the Divisions in combat usually have several Attachments. The last 8 years or so the Army has been re-learning lessons and slowly applying them.

IMO, it's a sort of cycle. There was a TO&E immediately after WW2 that added a lot of attachments permanently to the regimental combat team (like a tank company, cannon company, etc.) These were stripped out for the ROAD division after the Pentomic fiasco, and re-concentrated at the division level. Tanks and artillery didn't need to be down at the lower levels in Vietnam, after all.

Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don't.