RE: DS/SG Engineers

You wrote: 

>This discussion of engineering is quite interesting - J. Atkinson, 
could you >throw together that post on Engineering doctrine?  If nobody 

It's on my list o' things to do. . . 

 national >military doctrine POV are you speaking from?  I don't know 

US Army.

>Could someone (knowledgeable) put up an engineering doctrine from the
>Russian/Warsaw Pact POV?  For comparison, as I tend to play 'eastern' 

I've got some stuff on it, I'll see what's worth posting.

>And to clarify things (& smooth hackles) could someone point out the 
technical >differences between these various groups of lunatics? 
(engineers/assault >pioneers/sappers - from a grunts perspective) What 

Sapper in US is term for Light Combat Engineer, in UK/Commonwealth is 
what you call an enlisted Engineer (Her Majesty's Engineers/With the 
Rank and pay of a Sapper!  Good ol' Kipling!)

are they equipped with, and >what are they expected to do, reasonably.	

ANYTHING.  

Actually, a Combat Engineer unit has five main functions.

Mobility--enhance manuever units' ability to move by removing 
obstacles, both manmade and natural

Countermobility--as above, but in reverse and to the other guy

Survivability--enhancing maneuver units' ability to fight and survive 
by construction fighting positions and other emplacements

Terrain Visualization--enable the maneuver commander to understand the 
effect of terrain on his mobility, through engineer-oriented 
reconaissance.

Fight--Fight as infantry when necessary.

As a field commander, I am sure >that I will find PLENTY of 
unreasonable things for them to do..."You're a >motor-rifle regiment - 
of course you can clear mines.	NOW."

Zhukov's theory on mineclearing was that if he ignored the mines and 
pressed through anyway, he'd take less casualties than if he stopped to 
clear them.

John M. Atkinson