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

Glover, Owen wrote:

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

Ginger Beer?  And the list is doing real good at jerking my chain this
week.  First the Real Romans comment, now this. . . 

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

Nooooooo. . . 
 
> 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.

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

Yes.

John