Re: Infanty TO&E was[DS and SG] Regt's of the Crown

>> who have been cross trained in some of what the engineers do.  Their
>> battlefield roles include mine clearance, demolitions, etc.	This
gives the
>
>In other words, the stuff we normally just attach a squad of engineers
>down to an infantry company to handle.  Do they do complex obstacles,
>engineer recon, obstacle instalations?

I don't think so.  Their job is more limited - again, we have engineer
units who do that kind of stuff, and have the equipment/training needed.
The assault pioneers are there to supplement the engineers, provide an
extra source of "trained" manpower, and provide a base level of
expertise
when actual engineer units are available - organic to the infantry
units...

>
>> infantry company and battalion commanders an integral unit of troops
at
>> their disposal who can react quickly in battle when they need a path
>> through a mine field, etc etc.  They also act as a battalion reserve,
and
>> are fully capable combat troops.  The Combat Engineers call them
wannabe's
>> who couldn't make it as a real engineer, but that's another story...
>
><cold scorn>Are you in any way implying that Combat Engineers are not
>fully capable combat troops? </cold scorn>

Keep your hat on.  No, I'm not - we all know that there are innumerable
instances of Combat Engineers demonstrating their combat prowess - hey,
even the commanding officer at Rourke's Drift was a Brit. Engineer
officer
(who were often the most professional and best trained officers in the
British army)...

I don't know about the US military, but in many others the pure combat
training for supporting elements is not as intense as it is for the line
units.	In the Can. forces, Service Battalion personnel are expected to
be
combat qualified, but don't get the same intense training that the line
infantry units do.  This is, I believe, generally true in most
militaries.
There are lots of specific examples where there are exceptions to this
(airborne service/support types, for example), but as a broad
generalization, it should be ok.  Combat Engineers take their name
because
they are COMBAT engineers - they fight.  In the Canadian army, Combat
Arms
consists of FOUR branches (Infantry, Armour, Artillery, and Combat
Engineers), not three as in many other armies - our Engineers take
fierce
pride in their professionalism and ability to kick ass.  All I meant
about
the "fully capable combat troops" comment was that the Assault Pioneers
are
not part of the lesser-trained support elements of the force they are
in.
This wasn't meant as a slam on the Engineers.