Engineering Regiment Breakdown

[cantley091]

Any word about 2 CER??

 

[McG]

Any word about 2 CER??

I would not expect much has happended in 2 CER as of yet, but I did not expect 5 RGC would have started any transformation yet either.   Both regiments were supposed to have been last to transform according to what I had seen and heard.

 

[Sapper Bloggins]

CWO Lacharite,

Thanks for the clarification.
Airborne, Chimo.

 

[392]

I would not expect much has happended in 2 CER as of yet, but I did not expect 5 RGC would have started any transformation yet either.   Both regiments were supposed to have been last to transform according to what I had seen and heard.

In 2CER, 24 Fd Sqn has always pretty much been the *unofficial* light squadron (yes even with our M113's  ), being their affiliation is with 3RCR, and 23 is mechanized with 1RCR. The last CO's brief to the regiment this spring pretty much stated 2CER will not move above 2 Fd Sqn's because 2CMBG only has the 2 Inf Bn's, and 4ESR is responsible for 2RCR in G'town. IIRC, the plan for 2CER, as shown on the slideshow we were given, is that one of the Fd Tp's in 24 would eventually go "light" completely, with the other going to a LAVIII based organization.

The thing I found to be amusing, was that most of the options given for the transformation of 2CER, were almost identical to the regimental plan 9 years ago. Of course, like the old saying goes, "If you don't like it, wait five minutes 'cause it'll probably change."

Anyway, I don't think you'll see much transformation in 2CER until next Feb at the earliest when both Fd Sqn's are back on the ground and the Regiment has a chance to shake out as a complete unit again.

 

[McG]

The last CO's brief to the regiment this spring pretty much stated 2CER will not move above 2 Fd Sqn's because 2CMBG only has the 2 Inf Bns

But, 2 CMBG also has an armoured regiment.   This is why the transformation plan that I saw had 2 CER "growing" to three squadrons while "shrinking" to only three fd tps:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22585.0;attach=1781;image

 

[392]

I don't know where you saw / got that (not saying it's not true or nothing) but the presentation given to us by our CO made no mention of growing another Fd Sqn. Not to mention we just do not have the numbers to do it....

 

[McG]

Not to mention we just do not have the numbers to do it....

The positions for a new fd sqn would come from the established positions of the fd tp that the unit will loose.

 

[Yeoman]

well hey I've got to admit here, I'm not *as* lost on how you engineers work out your orbat.
still kinda, but at least I've got a rough idea.
now all I gotta do is understand how the armoured and artillery works  :
Greg

 

[Infanteer]

The first big step happened Yesterday.  1 CER did the transformation to four fd sqns of a fd tp and sp tp each.

MCG, is the Sup Troop of each of the four Squadrons equal in organization or does each one have a seperate tasking (Contruction, Heavy Eq, Res, etc, etc) like the diagram you put up before?

 

[McG]

MCG, is the Sup Troop of each of the four Squadrons equal in organization or does each one have a seperate tasking (Contruction, Heavy Eq, Res, etc, etc) like the diagram you put up before?

Yes & No.  The function ogranized Sp Tp is the garrison "standard" (11 Fd Sqn has Hy Eqpt Tp, 12 Fd Sqn has Const Tp, 13 Li Sqn has Ress Tp, and 14 Fd Sqn has Armd Tp).  However, at that time we looked more like 11 Fd Sqn with Hy Eqpt/Ress Tp, 12 Fd Sqn with Const Tp, 13 Li Sqn with a msn tailored Sp Tp for the PRT, and 14 Fd Sqn with Armd Tp.

 

[Infanteer]

Ok.  Does this not present a problem with the fact that each squadron is "matched up" to one of the Manuever units of the CMBG?  What if 12 Field Squadron deploys somewhere with 2PPCLI (implying that the construction troop is taken along with the Field Troop) and suddenly 1PPCLI is required to deploy somewhere else - is it hooped for Construction troops if it needs them (it's field squadron has the Hvy Eq/Res)?  What if it doesn't need heavy equipment/Res engineer assets for the particular mission it is deploying on?

It seems that if we are to "match" field squadrons to maneuver battalions, unique resources within the CER (The various support troops) must be either parcelled out evenly amonst the Support Troops of the Field Squadrons or kept in a Support Squadron and deployed as needed.

Does this make sense?

 

[McG]

Ok.   Does this not present a problem with the fact that each squadron is "matched up" to one of the Manuever units of the CMBG?  

No.
Composite sp tps are established for exercises & operations.  11 Fd Sqn is now ramping up to join the 1 PPCLI BG.  It has representation from three of the sp tps (no armoured) and even a section comprised of specialists which cannot be found in any CER.  There is no functioning hy eqpt tp at the moment (all the operator positions are in the 13 Sp Tp or the 11 Sp Tp) and many of the Ress functions are temporarily residing in other sqns (such as dive in 14 Fd Sqn) but will regroup in 13 Fd Sqn when it returns from the PRT.

The constant regrouping of sections in the Sp Tp is an ugly process.  However, the regrouping exists regardless of placement of Sp Tps in a Sp Sqn or across the Fd Sqns.  At least this structure ensures that the Tp Comd, Tp WO, and Tp Recce will have trained with and will know the sqn that they sp (regardless of the composition of the sections).

 

[Infanteer]

Ah, I see.  The placement of different support troops is largely administrative then, correct?  When gearing up for deployment, a Field Squadron will "plug and play" its supporting assets from across the Regiment according to the mission requirements.  The HQ structure of the Support Troop is kept in place to minimize this disruption.  Am I correct here?

A question though.  Would four even composite support troops be a better idea to maintain cohesion and familiarity at the Field Squadron level, or is this simply unobtainable due to the wide array of support functions and limited resources/manpower available to the Engineering Regiment?

And another question; is a single Field Troop the standard now?  Is this not a pretty small amount of combat engineers to support a Task Force/Battlegroup on operations?

 

[McG]

Ah, I see.   The placement of different support troops is largely administrative then, correct?  

Correct.

Would four even composite support troops be a better idea to maintain cohesion and familiarity at the Field Squadron level, or is this simply unobtainable due to the wide array of support functions and limited resources/manpower available to the Engineering Regiment?

No.  Some capabilities cannot be sustained below tp level, and other capabilities cannot be divided across three to four sqns (there is only one ROWPU, one FEL, two ZL, two dozers, one bridge-reload trl, etc).  Additionally, we cannot predict what the correct "balanced" sp tp will look like before we get a mission.  An ATHENA Sp Tp is not a PALLADIUM Sp Tp.

is a single Field Troop the standard now?   Is this not a pretty small amount of combat engineers to support a Task Force/Battlegroup on operations?

One Fd Tp is standard, but this is not a standard that has gone unquestioned.   From my own observations, a single fd tp is insufficient to sp a BG in combat operations unless we are prepaired to limit close sp to one section per company or we are prepaired to deny close sp and hold everything centralized.

 

[Kirkhill]

McG:

Does it make any difference if we are talking about mobile operations vs static operations, the first roto vs roto 5?

 

[Infanteer]

Correct

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

No.   Some capabilities cannot be sustained below tp level, and other capabilities cannot be divided across three to four sqns (there is only one ROWPU, one FEL, two ZL, two dozers, one bridge-reload trl, etc).   Additionally, we cannot predict what the correct "balanced" sp tp will look like before we get a mission.   An ATHENA Sp Tp is not a PALLADIUM Sp Tp.

Ok thanks - I guess this begs the next question.  Do you think a CER is properly organized if it cannot supply certain capabilities for more than one TF/BG?  The resources you mention seem to fit into the context of Brigade level operations, but we've seen in the last 15 years that we've been focused on TF/BG operations - the Brigade at times has 1 or 2 concurrent TFs operating abroad.

What if Brigade is tasked to provide more than one task force at a time, both requiring ROWPU assets?  Is it forced to shop in another Brigades CER for help?

One Fd Tp is standard, but this is not a standard that has gone unquestioned.   From my own observations, a single fd tp is insufficient to sp a BG in combat operations unless we are prepaired to limit close sp to one section per company or we are prepaired to deny close sp and hold everything centralized.

I think I agree with you here.  I recall reading a article in the Gazette about the level of support Marine units needed from their Sappers in various operations in Iraq throughout the spectrum of conflict; 3 Troops seems be ideal, but at least 2.  Obviously, 1 is a pill we have to swallow right now....

 

[McG]

Do you think a CER is properly organized if it cannot supply certain capabilities for more than one TF/BG?  The resources you mention seem to fit into the context of Brigade level operations, but we've seen in the last 15 years that we've been focused on TF/BG operations - the Brigade at times has 1 or 2 concurrent TFs operating abroad.

What if Brigade is tasked to provide more than one task force at a time, both requiring ROWPU assets?  Is it forced to shop in another Brigades CER for help?

It is important to recognize that just because we do not have enough kit to support 4 BGs, does not mean we cannot train enough pers.  You could train a 12 mbr section with one ROWPU and provide a three mbr det to each BG.

The same is true with the shopping list of hy eqpt.  The troop will rotate operators to ensure they get "stick time" on all the basic equipment, and those qualified on specialist eqpt will get stick time there as well.  So, a whole list of ones & twos trains a full troop.

Ress Tp holds kit that trains the whole regt.

When a Sp Tp goes overseas, it will use Op stock ROWPU, trucks, hy eqpt, etc.

However, despite this potential, our Sp Tps are under-manned to meet this.  Fortunately, Engr transformation was intended to correct this by pumping more manpower into the Sp Tps.

I think I agree with you here.  I recall reading a article in the Gazette about the level of support Marine units needed from their Sappers in various operations in Iraq throughout the spectrum of conflict; 3 Troops seems be ideal, but at least 2.  Obviously, 1 is a pill we have to swallow right now....

I'll have more on this later.

 

[Infanteer]

It is important to recognize that just because we do not have enough kit to support 4 BGs, does not mean we cannot train enough pers.   You could train a 12 mbr section with one ROWPU and provide a three mbr det to each BG.

The same is true with the shopping list of hy eqpt.   The troop will rotate operators to ensure they get "stick time" on all the basic equipment, and those qualified on specialist eqpt will get stick time there as well.   So, a whole list of ones & twos trains a full troop.

Ress Tp holds kit that trains the whole regt.

When a Sp Tp goes overseas, it will use Op stock ROWPU, trucks, hy eqpt, etc.

However, despite this potential, our Sp Tps are under-manned to meet this.   Fortunately, Engr transformation was intended to correct this by pumping more manpower into the Sp Tps.

Ok - that makes sense.   The same thing was done by 3PPCLI when it switched its para-designated company.   Although the battalion was only alloted a single parachute sub-unit, rotating that allotment to attempt to qualify as many of you pers is a smart move.

It seems to me that an option may be to rationalize a generic "Support Troop" for the Field Squadron, essentially a "skeleton crew",  that can offer to a TF/BG engineering support.  This "skeleton crew" can be provided with the necessary cross training and stick time (perhaps with some assets kept at the unit level?).   When the time comes to deploy, the support troop "skeleton crew" will probably deploy largely intact while taking on extras demanded by the mission requirements (either from another sub-unit or from a unit reserve).   Would this not keep turbulence low and cohesion at the best level it can?   Just a thought, but the realities of manning keep things tethered to the ground I guess.

I'll have more on this later.

Roger.

 

[McG]

It seems to me that an option may be to rationalize a generic "Support Troop" for the Field Squadron, essentially a "skeleton crew",   that can offer to a TF/BG engineering support.   This "skeleton crew" can be provided with the necessary cross training and stick time (perhaps with some assets kept at the unit level?).   When the time comes to deploy, the support troop "skeleton crew" will probably deploy largely intact while taking on extras demanded by the mission requirements (either from another sub-unit or from a unit reserve).   Would this not keep turbulence low and cohesion at the best level it can?   Just a thought, but the realities of manning keep things tethered to the ground I guess.

The structure we have addopted is probably the closest we can get to this.   The Tp HQ is the "skeleton," and all other elements (less unique national assets) are held in the regiment within one of the function based Sp Tps.  

The rotation of personnel, which I referred too, is less macroscopic that assigning new roles to a sub-unit.   The RSM and SSMs manage rotating eqpt operators between fd tps and HET, rotating ROWPU or HESV/HLVW guys between fd troops and ress tp, etc.   So, buy keeping it all in the regt, we don't need to involve career managers to rotate guys between fd and sp jobs.   Additionally, there is almost daily rotation in some Sp Tps between eqpt and tasks.

On the notion of one Fd Tp supporing a BG in offensive operations.   Imagine attaching every element of the Sp Tp less Tp HQ to SHQ.   Then attach two Fd Sects to Sp Tp from the Fd Tp.   In effect you create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps and a collection of independent Sp Sect.   Each "mini-troop" would be used to sp a Coy Gp.                                                     . . . and one more thing, this is just a tac grouping, not a permanent structure.

 

[Gobsmacked]

The Tp HQ is the "skeleton," and all other elements (less unique national assets) are held in the regiment within one of the function based Sp Tps. 

On the notion of one Fd Tp supporing a BG in offensive operations.  Imagine attaching every element of the Sp Tp less Tp HQ to SHQ.  Then attach two Fd Sects to Sp Tp from the Fd Tp.  In effect you create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps and a collection of independent Sp Sect.  Each "mini-troop" would be used to sp a Coy Gp.  . . . and one more thing, this is just a tac grouping, not a permanent structure.

CWO,

Pardon my ignorance, or maybe my 'Civie to Military Matrix Translator' hasn't kicked in yet,
[Uhura, pls chk the Universal Translator  ;D]
but previously you noted that:
(1x) [FG] Fd Tp w\
- Tp Comd: Lt/Capt, LAV III & Driver: Spr/Cpl, Gunner: Spr/Cpl
- Tp WO: WO, M113 & Driver: Spr/Cpl
- Tp Recce: Sgt, LAV III & Driver: Spr/Cpl, Gunner: Spr/Cpl
- M-113A2 Fitter Veh/MTVF
(3x) Field Sections consisting of:
- Sect Comd: Sgt/MCpl, M113A2 Pioneer Dozer/MTVE w\1m Turret & Driver: Spr/Cpl, Sect 2 I/C: MCpl/Cpl, Sect Strmn: Spr/Cpl, Sect C-9: Spr/Cpl, Sect M203: Spr/Cpl,
Sect Mbr: Spr/Cpl, Sect Mbr: Spr/Cpl
and a fourth section to be provided by the reserves for [FE] operations.

How does  "two Fd Sects from the Fd Tp . . . create a Fd Sqn of two identical half-sized Fd Tps" for FE ??  :-\
Each 'half-sized Fd Tp' is only 1/4 the size of the FE sub-sub-unit.
Or did you mean 2 Fd Sects, incl. added reserve Fd Sect, per identical half-sized Fd Tp ??