Engineers <Was: Infanty TO&E >

John M. Atkinson wrote:

> > Take the comments in context and I believe you will have to agree
that
> > Assault Pioneers; who are infantry soldiers employed in a specialist
role
> >
>
> Right.  Of course, sometimes there aren't.  And Engineers can be
> remarkably effective given their access to all sorts of fun toys.
> Especially in the defensive (Like the Ardennes, where Engineer units
> fought Panzer Kampfgruppes to a standstill, buying time for their
> brethren to blow the bridges that actually stopped the German
> offensive).  But the split is 60/40.	IOW, What we do is about 60%
> common between us and the Infantry, and 40% Engineer specific.  And
>

I guess when I think assualt pioneers I think specifically about troops
like the
specialist German battalions used in Stalingrad. They took engineers and
gave them
specific equipment and training in MOUT. (More than they already had)
They were
employed as formation in their own right not penny packetted out to line
units.
Nor did theuy build fortifications, disarm or implant minefields (Except
in
support of their own operations)

Combat engineers are the more familiar breed that perform the whole
gambit of
combat engineering tasks though are not trained in assault functions to
a fever
pitch as are their Assault pioneer brothers as are their brothers.

All of this of course does not reflect actual policy but just my opinion
of what
an assault pioneer calls to my mind.

> granted it's just a National Guard division, but we (229th Engineer
> Batallion) have a reputation as the best infantry batallion in the
> division--a squad from my company took the Divisional Squad
Competition,
> which was a series of raids this year.
>

Regardless of the quality of your particular unit, in the regular army
line
battalions train day in and day out in their specialty, infantry combat.
They have
more experience in it, more profficiency in it and they should because
that's what
they do all the time. Engineers have their own training and missions to
accomplish
in the combat zone, which is why they must dedicate a certain portion of
their
time to infantry training. If I have a engineer battalion that's the
best infantry
battalion in the division then one of two things have occured. The
divison has a
piss poor battle focused training program for its infantry battalions,
or a piss
poor battle focussed training for its engineer battalion, which is
spending all
its time playing infantry and not spending its training wisely working
on
engineering.  Any decent squad, infantry or not, can win a squad
competition. It's
how companies and battalions perform on the battlefield that matters.

Los
<was two minutes from signing up as a combat engineer before I found out
all the
rest of my high school buddies signed up for airborne infnatry (the last
thing I
ever wanted to do). Being young and dumb I changed my mind and went 11B.
Of course
only me and one other made it to the 82d as infantrmen the rest bolo'd
out or
ended up in other branches along the way (Artillery, armorer, generator
mechanic,
whatever>