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

Oh dear we have prickled the Ginger Beer's favourite subject again.

OK, so the use of "combat capable" was probably not the most accurate
term.

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
(as are Mortar Platoon, Signals Platoon, Anti-ARmour Platoon and Recon
Platoon), will , by definition, have better infantry combat skills than
any
other branch. Engineers are a specialist Corps, so employing them in a
role
that is best suited to Infantry is a misuse if there are infantry
available.

Is your "<cold scorn>" a professional appreciation or a personal
expression?

Cheers,

Owen G
-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Atkinson [mailto:john.m.atkinson@erols.com]
Sent: Monday, 26 October 1998 11:55
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Infanty TO&E was[DS and SG] Regt's of the Crown

Adrian Johnson wrote:

> 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?

> 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>

John "Combat Engineer and damn proud of it" Atkinson