Replacing Pioneers and Assault Troops

[McG]

I don't think that we are in any position to stand up any additional SQN's.

Unfortunately, it looks like we will get the additional squadrons, but we will not have any additional field troops. (See here for explanation)  In fact, 2 CER will even have few field troops.

It is also likely that the field troops will have a smaller establishment than they do now (likely this will just officially bring the authorised number down to what we have seen to be a reality).  This change is the most concerning in being able to replace pioneers and assault troops.

 

[043]

... I am a great fan of our Sappers: I don't blame you guys for the fiasco over us losing Pioneers. (You guys didn't have anything to do with that--right?......Right?) so I'm happy to see you get new gear.

PBI,

I have been a sapper for 18 yrs and I have to admit that during my early years I used to be bitter towards the Pioneers because I alway thought they were treading on our toes. It took me awhile to understand the usefullness of them within the Bn's. The Assault Pioneers that I new were exceptional at certain aspects, most notably the construction of field machines, rope bridging, etc. What used to bother me however was the fact that some of them used to think that they were Mine Warfare experts. I know that it was not all of them and I can't blame the individual for wanting to be the best that they can be.

Sadly, I do think that they were a necessary part of Bn however, I am sure like everything in the military, the Inf Bn will survive. But then again who knows..........once the results of the Light Force Working group are sorted out, maybe they will come back or perhaps there will be an Engineer element attached. Right now we have our affiliated Bn's however with the op tempo, it is difficult to achieve cohesion.

My view today, tomorrow I may have a different opinion on the matter!

Chimo!!!

 

[pbi]

Mike: In the later years that we still had them, it was generally recognized that our Pioneers were not mine warfare experts, and on ops they were generally not permitted to do any countermine work-this was left to the attached Sappers. The Pnrs did not like this (nor did I, at the time) but in retrospect, and after seeing first-hand the very high skill levels of our Sappers, I guess I understand it now.

To me, the ideal solution would be to bring back an 031 Pnr Pl. Not just for the capabilities they gave us, but for the very important broadening that the Pl (along with Mortars and AArmour, which we have also lost...) gave to all ranks. It was great to have 031 NCOs in your Pl or Coy who had been in Pnrs-they were extremely useful, and I believe they were better soldiers for it. People in other branches think that we Inf are selfish about the loss of these functions, but you cannot imagine the very deep misgivings that these losses have created in the hearts of many of us. One of our greatest strengths as Inf on the world stage was the broadness and flexibility of our soldiers, espcially our NCOs. This appears to have been lost.

The second solution I could buy is that we would have a field troop permanently posted in, just as Maint Pl is. This would fix the capability problem but would do nothing for the loss of experience for our NCOs. It would, however, be a hell of a lot better than have a troop attached"now and then" (and let's be honest that's how it would probably work...). An Inf bn works best as a team of people who know and trust each other. IMHO we have now damaged that, very badly. Of course you are right to say that we will "survive", but we want to do more than just "survive".

Cheers.

 

[McG]

Could we not gain the same flexibility through fixed Sqn-Bn affiliations (and ensuring the Fd Sqns have additional Tps to make up for the lost Pnr Pls) and regular level 4+ training?   Obviously, this would not work for 2 PPCLI which is not geographically located with a CER or ESR, but other battalions could make it work.  

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I never thought we were the be all on mines but I bet that it would be helpful in a mine rep to have some idea as to what your talking about to give the Engr on the other end of the line a better idea of what to expect.  I also found we were better at wire obstacles, abettes (sp) and field expedient machines because that is what we did and didn't have to worry about all the other tasks Engrs did.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Pnr Pl Comd (2 VP) was the best job I ever had.  As to the difference between engineers and pioneers, I always saw the engineers as pioneer wannabees...

The essential difference between a Pnr Pl and an attacged Engr Tp is what I like to call the choke out factor.  If a CO doesn't get his intimate mob/c-mob/prot support, he can choke out the Pnr Pl Comd.  That is harder to do when the Pl/Tp Comd in question belongs to someone else...

Dave

 

[pbi]

Could we not gain the same flexibility through fixed Sqn-Bn affiliations (and ensuring the Fd Sqns have additional Tps to make up for the lost Pnr Pls) and regular level 4+ training?   Obviously, this would not work for 2 PPCLI which is not geographically located with a CER or ESR, but other battalions could make it work.  

Not as long as the troop was only with the battalion at the sufferance of the Bde Comd: if he got a Bde or higher pri, the Sappers would pack up and go, regardless of how important their task was to the losing bn. It would suck to be bottom of the pri list. The beauty of pioneers was that they were "ours" and were almost always busy-no danger of losing them to other priorities. If we are going to have Sappers instead of Pioneers, post in the troop, just like we post in the EME guys in Maint Pl. If  we have to recruit more Sappers to do that, so be it. Cheers.

 

[McG]

If we are going to have Sappers instead of Pioneers, post in the troop, just like we post in the EME guys in Maint Pl. If we have to recruit more Sappers to do that, so be it. Cheers.

This is certainly a workable option if the engineers are given sufficient PYs that none have to be robbed from the CERs.  Regular rotation through sapper platoons could also produced a raised level of awareness/competency, through out the branch, with respect to supporting the infantry.

 

[SprCForr]

...If we are going to have Sappers instead of Pioneers, post in the troop, just like we post in the EME guys in Maint Pl. If   we have to recruit more Sappers to do that, so be it...

It would certainly expand our horizon and give us a new perspective on things. I liked being attached (as part of 2 Tp Engrs) to 3VP and 1 VP in Yugo. It made me appreciate a different point of view, and helped me to find different solutions to field problems. This cross-pollination sounds interesting. Only if we had the manpower to try.  :-\

 

[McG]

Well, I've stumble across a new solution to the pioneer problem that is being presented as doctrine through learning material out of Kingston.  I certainly hope this is wrong because it will only result in problems for cohesion and sustainability.  The solution was that each cbt sp coy would have a fd tp that was force generated from another brigade.  If a PPCLI bn were to require a pioneer platoon, it would get a fd tp from 5 RGC, 2 CER, or 4 ESR.  The reasoning behind this is that 1 CER would be tapped out by providing the fd sqns to the bde.  However, it would drain the ability of the sp bde to provide its own engrs (not to mention finding pioneers for it).  This would also mean that the bn would only train with its integral fd tp during TMSBP.

I hope this is just bad information being incorporated into the CMBG model and not a reflection of how the army intends to do things.  If we ever want these troops overseas, they need to exist here in Canada first.  This means doubling the number of field troops (regardless of placement in CERs or in manoeuvre units).  If we do not want to do that, then we must accept in doctrine that the tps do not exist (and not invent frivolous ways to explain them in a trg model). 

 

[Infanteer]

No kidding McG, this concept is pretty silly.

Someone in NDHQ decided to throw the concept of "cohesion" out the window....

 

[Matt_Fisher]

This is another superb example of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" thinking that exists in the CFs.  What must be done is that with the increase of PYs, permanent fielding of people into these positions so that the current system of robbing parent units is overcome.

I would venture to say that the end result of this proposed system is that the only time the 'attached' eng. and mortar platoon/troops see the bn. they're posted to is during the actual operational cycle, or a few weeks prior to embarkation. 

pbi's idea of having the engineers posted to the regiments makes the most sense.  Do the same with the artillery providing the mortars.  While the infantry's scope of capabilities becomes more limited, at least they've got the combat support inhouse that they need.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What about taking these members and rerolling them into the Inf BN's permanently (similar to TUA coy with the armoured) or heaven forbid start up the Pioneer and Mortar platoons again (yeah I know wishful thinking).

 

[AEH]

I think attaching an Inf Coy to an engineer Tp is an excellent idea.  With the expertice required to be an engineer it won't work the other way.  Don't be locked into the way things were done in the past.  We are in for more changes than you can imagine in the next few years.  Look to be posted to a TF for several years, because managed readiness won't work.  Hold on tight, it's going to be a rough ride.
AEH

 

[McG]

There's still a need for pioneers, as well as engineers.  The whole idea is that a pioneer gives you a guy who has some of the technical knowledge, but is infantry first, because we really need to remain focussed on our skills first.  We can all be adult about this- the removal of pioneers from the battalions was a budget related decision, not a doctrinal one.

I don’t know.  Regardless of filling a Pioneer roll or not, I think we need the ability to fight as infantry beside Infantry.  As long as we’ve met this requirement, what other trg/skill maintenance burden is there?

 

[Echo9]

Nobody's disputing the ongoing (and perhaps the increased) requirement on the part of engineers to be able to fight as infantry when required.

Unfortunately, when we do, there ends up being altogether too much square peg in round hole going on.  Now, can we do it?  Sure- the feedback from others has indicated that we're pretty good soldiers and able to keep up with just about any demands.  The problem comes in arising from the fact that we are specialists, and as noted previously in the thread, are a Bde level resource which needs to be allocated according to Bde/ TF priorities.  Simply put, there's not enough of us to allow ourselves to play Johnny Pongo too much.  ;D

the other skills burden has been noted in the Afghanistan experience thread-
1.  Mine warfare- the number and complexity of mines in increasing substantially
2.  EOD and CMD- which had been largely relegated to the ammo techs
3.  Survivability tasks
4.  General Support functions- you took issue with my comments regarding bridging, water sup and hy eqpt.  Those support trades are certainly not becoming less relevant, but instead are the victims of the increasing focus that the CERs are putting onto our secondary role.

I'm not going to argue that we can or can't do any particular set of tasks.  We can do just about anything.  But, we have to prioritize, because if we try to do it all, then we're going to be stuck in the middle and not be the specialists that we need to be. 

I'd even make the argument that at least part of the swing to use engineers more in the secondary role is an indirect impact of those battalion commanders not having their pioneers anymore.  Is that a good thing for the engineers?  Maybe, but it's going to have its downsides.

 

[McG]

Nobody's disputing the ongoing (and perhaps the increased) requirement on the part of engineers to be able to fight as infantry when required.

...

the other skills burden has been noted in the Afghanistan experience thread …

I'm not going to argue that we can or can't do any particular set of tasks.  We can do just about anything.  But, we have to prioritize, because if we try to do it all, then we're going to be stuck in the middle and not be the specialists that we need to be. 

I'd even make the argument that at least part of the swing to use engineers more in the secondary role is an indirect impact of those battalion commanders not having their pioneers anymore.  Is that a good thing for the engineers?  Maybe, but it's going to have its downsides.

I recognize there is a training requirements to cover all of the common and specialist skills within the branch (this is not what I am arguing).  What I believe is that we require the same capacity to fight as infantry in order to backfill pioneers or to just do our job as it traditionally is.  Therefore, backfilling pioneers does not introduce infantry skills as a new training burden.  All training requirements related to backfilling pioneers are covered by just meeting our own engineer requirements.

Additionally, I do not think one pioneer platoon can meet the needs of a BG in the very dispersed battle space that we are seeing in counter insurgency.  Further, it is our EOD skills that the infantry now require in close support.  We need to be there.

Yes, we may have gotten there because the Pioneers are gone, but we are bringing skills that the Pioneers never had and which BGs now require.

 

[Echo9]

Interesting item.  I came upon the ROD for a recent CLS meeting (might have been army council- it's not at my fingertips), but one of the resolutions was that the pioneer specialty be revived within the infantry, specifically to allow engineers to put greater focus into horizontal/ vertical construction, and explosives.

It will be interesting to see how this rolls out....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

It will be interesting to see how this rolls out....

1 VP is running a Basic Pioneer course shortly - we are leaning ahead a bit.

The fact that I used to be Pnr Pl Comd has nothing to do with it 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

oh oh, need any storemen.  Oh wait I'm out of the country.