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

Adrian Johnson wrote:

> 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...

I'm still not sure where it is these guys fit--I guess your doctrine
requires more Engineering support.  Or maybe your Engineers don't like
22 hour days to get the maneuver commanders all squared away.

> 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)...

Hrmph. . .  Flattery is good. . . 

> 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

Right.

> 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.

Right.	It just looked an awful lot like you were sticking us Sappers in
that category.

> 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.

Ah.  I see.  I think.  In the US Army, the Combat Engineers are
considered Combat Arms (and are all-male, at least in the line
companies) but are not one of the Big Three (Infantry, Armor, Artillery,
in that order) from which are drawn most generals and Those Who Make
Budget Decisions.  Which is why Engineers still use 1960s-era garbage
equipment rather than the neat toys that aren't going to hit the field
until 2002 given today's budget climate.

John M. Atkinson