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

>> 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.

I'm not sure of the historical reasons why we developed Assault Pioneers
-
in the end, however, the Canadian Forces don't have many Combat
Engineers,
so we need the support of the Pioneers.  Maybe some of the Australians
on
the list can explain further what Assault Pioneers are about.

>
>> 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.

To be honest, I think one of the main reasons our Combat Engineers were
redesignated part of the "big three" (now four) is that the actual
number
of personel in our combat arms units was so pathetically low, and the
government was receiving criticism for sending the same small group of
people on stressful overseas deployments, that they redesignated Combat
Engineers, and that in one fell swoop increased the numbers of "combat"
troops.  The government looks like they have been "reforming the
military"
to "change the balance of administrative personnel to operational
personnel" etc etc etc.  The poor Engineers are caught in the middle of
all
this, with their 1960's era garbage equipment, etc etc.  Sound familiar?

As a side note, the Canadian Forces officially went "co-ed" in all units
(except, I believe, submarine crews).  Theoretically, we can have women
in
all of our front line units, though there have not been that many who
have
made the attempt, passed the training, etc. (I don't want to open a
sociological/political discussion on why this is the way it is - this
was
more of a FYI than anything else...).  I read an interesting account of
a
woman who was an Infantry Platoon commander in Bosnia, and the reactions
she had to deal with not just from allied forces, but from the locals.
Very interesting.  

Adrian