Combat Engineer Battalion: A Time For Change AUTHOR Major Larry W. Berquist, USMC CSC 1990 SUBJECT AREA Strategic Issues EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION: A TIME FOR CHANGE THESIS: The Combat Engineer Battalion of the 1990's must be equipped and organized to meet the increased mobility and survivability requirements of the battlefield of the future. ISSUES: In the decade of the 1980's we saw a period of significant evolutionary change in the Marine Corps. Many changes have increased the lethality and effectiveness of weapons systems we will face at all levels of conflict in the future. Extended ranges and improved accuracy of these systems has brought about a corresponding need for greater mobility and survivability on the battlefield our forces will fight on in the future. The unit that will have the task of improving tactical mobility will be the Combat Engineer Battalion (CEB) of the Marine Division. The disconnect is that the current structure and equipment of the CEB is not oriented on its primary mission; that of close combat support. The principal functions to accomplish this mission include: mobility, countermobility, survivability and general engineer support. Much of the general engineering support function falls into the category of combat service support, which can be provided by the Force Service Support Group. To accomplish these general engineering tasks, the CEB has had to hold large quantities of utilities equipment and heavy equipment of commercial design, with limited mobility and survivability characteristics. The CEB of the 1980's still looks much as it always has and needs mobile, survivable equipment to accomplish its mission on the future battlefield. The need for engineers arose out of the Marine Corps mission of securing advanced naval bases. The engineer's were equipped largely with commercial equipment and completed construction type tasks. WWII, Korea and Vietnam all produced different missions and tasks for the engineer to complete. Usually the engineers organized and were attached to the maneuver unit to perform specific tasks, e.g. assault breach, minesweeps, demolitions. Not until 1976, did the divisional engineer battalion get its name of "Combat Engineer Battalion". The last two annual engineer conferences have focused on the missions, structure, equipment and requirements of the combat engineer battalion, particularly what it should look like by the year 2000. The overall conference objectives were to produce an integrated package of improvements to the engineer field from a MAGTF perspective. The results pertinent to the CEB were: reduction in CSS role, minimum capabilities required of the battalion, and prioritized equipment issues. These efforts have taken the first step at putting the "Combat" back in the CEB. Enclosed in this article is a review of current and proposed equipment developments ongoing at the Marine Corps Research Development and Acquisition Command. CONCLUSION: In the last two years the Marine Corps and the Engineer community have quantified the problem and set a course to meet future commitments. Engineers and others of the Ground Combat Element must support these changes in the CEB. We can not "constructively" wish this current deficiency away; make the Combat Engineers a true contributor to the GCE. COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION: A TIME FOR CHANGE OUTLINE THESIS STATEMENT: The Combat Engineer Battalion of the 1990's must be equipped and organized to meet the increased mobility and survivability requirements of the battlefield of the the future. I. Combat Engineer Battalion Capabilities A. Mission. B. Organization and Equipment. II. Evolution of the Marine Engineers. III. Future Combat Engineer Developments. A. Reduction of CSS Role. B. Changes to Engineers Organization in the GCE. C. Minimum CEB Capabilities. D. Recommended Equipment Issues. E. Future Equipment under Development. V. Changes to the CEB are important to the GCE. COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION: A TIME FOR CHANGE In the decade of the 1980's we saw a period of significant evolutionary change in the Marine Corps. These changes stretched across the entire spectrum of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), affecting personnel, structure, equipment and doctrine. In particular the Ground Combat Element (GCE) benefited from many of these changes. The infantry battalions and regiments of the Marine division have undergone structure changes and received many improved weapons systems. We have added the Light Armored Infantry(LAI) battalion, and improved our armor, anti-tank, and artillery weapons systems. This improved lethality and effectiveness of modern weapons systems has increased the need for mobility and survivability on the battlefield of the 1990's. This increased emphasis on mobility and survivability will effect the ground combat element of the MAGTF in future operations. The unit that will enhance mobility and increase survivability is the combat engineer battalion of the Marine division. The engineer battalion will be task organized with other units of the ground combat element to apply combat power at the decisive point and time on the battlefield to ensure successful accomplishment of the MAGTF's assigned mission. This mission for the combat engineer battalion has and will continue to be valid well into the 1990's. The disconnect in the equation is that the current structure, organization and equipment of the combat engineer battalion is not focused on its primary mission of close combat support. The combat engineer battalion of the 1990's must be equipped and organized to meet the increased mobility and survivability requirements of the battle field of the future. The intent of this paper is to introduce to the reader, particularly those in the GCE, the combat engineer battalion they will or should be dealing with in the future. COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION CAPABILITIES MISSION. The mission of the combat engineer battalion is to render close combat engineer support to the GCE and its subordinate elements. The principal functions to accomplish this mission include: mobility, countermobility, survivability, and general engineer support.(1) The figure below lists tasks under each function:(2) Click here to view image As can be seen from a quick scan of these tasks by functional area, many of these tasks will be preformed in the proverbial "head knocking area" of the battlefield. Being exposed to direct fire and observed indirect fire weapons will require the engineers of the future to possess a great degree of mobile, survivable equipment for them to successfully accomplish the desired results of the GCE element. It should be noted that the general engineering support function is combat service support in nature, and in my opinion has greatly influenced the organization and equipment quantities within the current combat engineer battalion. This will be discussed under organization and equipment. Table A contains a detailed list of tasks as they will appear in the proposed draft of Operational Handbook (OH) 13, Engineers in the MAGTF.(3) The warfighting center, Marine Corps Combat Development Command(MCCDC) is planning on releasing this OH during the summer of 1990. In summary, with the exception of the general engineer task of utilities support, which could be provided by the engineer support battalion of the Force Service Support Group(FSSG)(4), the mission assigned the combat engineer battalion supports the needs of the GCE. ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT: The ground combat element and its subordinate units are task organized based on the situation to achieve the synergism of combined arms.(5) The Combat Engineer Battalion(CEB) provides both tactical and logistical support for the division. The CEB has a headquarters company, engineer support company and four engineer companies. At present the forth engineer company is in cadre status. This provides the division with one engineer company per infantry regiment. Operations of these companies supporting forward elements will normally be decentralized. The engineer companies that support the regiments receive equipment support from the engineer support company. The engineer support company consists of three platoons: motor transport, engineer equipment and utilities. The CEB will allocate equipment such as dump trucks, HMVS, and engineer equipment to the letter companies to best support the division scheme of maneuver. The CEB has limited motor transport assets and normally the supported unit will provide transportation of personnel, equipment and class four(IV) material needed by the engineers. The engineer equipment platoon is the only provider of heavy equipment support within the division. All other engineer equipment support normally is augmented from the engineer support battalion of the Force Service Support Group. Consequently the continual need exists to prioritize and maximize the usage of this limited equipment. As an example, the division has available two blade teams of D-7 dozers to conduct assault breaches or construct anti-tank ditches within the division's zone of action. Overall the battalion is equipped to complete fighting and bunker positions, but is limited by lack of mobile, survivable equipment for offensive mobility functions (e.g. assault breach operations). Additionally none of the engineer equipment can keep up with mechanized forces and none of the equipment provides armor protection to the operator. The utilities platoon contains vast quantities of mobile electric power and water production assets. In my opinion, all these functions should be provided by the CSS unit in support of the division. I feel this mission of the utilities platoon should be to a large degree shifted to the engineer support battalion. Removal of this equipment from the CEB would significantly reduce the battalions footprint and make it the mobile outfit it needs to be. During my last assignment with the First CEB at Camp Pendleton our battalion constructed a soviet company strongpoint defensive position. The battalion equipment was used to construct weapons positions and bunkers, but a commercial excavator had to be rented to complete the hundreds of feet of trenchline. The Marine corps has no tactical excavator capable of digging trenchlines at the rate needed for this project nor in my opinion in any tactical defensive situation. This project was excellent training for the battalion in testing our equipment and personnel in completing survivability tasks. The greatest benefit from the project was that now the infantry battalions could practice assaults on deliberate defensive positions, including an obstacle belt system. This training proved invaluable to all elements of the GCE, in that obstacle breaching SOP'S were written and they were tested in field training exercises. The principal engineer equipment used in this training evolution was the D-7 dozer, the line charge trailer, and the towed assault bridge. It should be noted the latter piece of equipment was experimental. Variations of these pieces of equipment are still being fielded and to date the only piece fielded is the ASSAULT VEHICLE LAUNCHED BRIDGE(AVLB), and it has been given to the tank battalion. Each GCE assaulted the barriers with different techniques and equipment. It was one of the first training evolutions that provided the GCE a problem they could not handle constructively; they had to conduct an assault breach. These exercises should be improved upon and conducted in the future. The CEB of the 80's still looks much as it always has and needs mobile, survivable equipment to accomplish its mission on the battlefield of the 90's. EVOLUTION OF THE MARINE ENGIGEERS(6) The need for engineers arose when the Marine Corps assumed the mission of seizing and defending advanced naval bases around the turn of the twentieth century. The intent was to provide the Marine Corps with its own construction, maintenance, and general service capability. The first engineers were blacksmiths, railroad engineers, tinkerers, construction workers, and common laborers. From 1927 until 1935 engineers performed primarily base services and support functions. In 1935 with the development of the fleet Marine Forces, the first "force" engineer company was formed. Its equipment, training and organization followed that of the Army Corps of Engineers. Even today much of the Marine Corps equipment and doctrine is still developed by the Army Corps of Engineers. As the Marine Corps began its huge expansion immediately prior to WWII, it was resolved that each Marine division would have an organic engineer battalion and an organic pioneer battalion. Units were constantly changing through-out the war, task organizing for particular battles. In the later stages of the war, the short lived engineer regiments were formed within the five divisions.( These engineer regiments still affect the FMF structure. Their numbers, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th are not assigned to units in todays Marine Corps, whose sequence runs from 1st to 29th Marines. During WWII, with the exception of the engineer assault companies, the employment of the engineer battalion in a purely combat support role was not considered. As a consequence no combat-oriented doctrine, training, equipment or organization was specifically developed. The Marines of these assault engineer companies directly supported the maneuver units. They provided mainly demolitions expertise to the maneuver units for the reduction of obstacles. In Vietnam, even the divisional engineer battalions primary role was considered to be of a non-combat nature. They performed general combat support such as deliberate road sweeps, direct combat support to a specific infantry unit for such missions as search and destroy, and combat service support for such missions as base camp or landing zone construction. In 1976, the name of the divisional engineer battalion was changed: this time to "combat engineer battalion", to distinguish it from the engineer support battalion and for the battalions `combat' nature. The combat engineer battalion of the 1980's is still equipped with commercial construction equipment, much as it has been in the past. As one can see, the past evolution of the Marine Engineer has had a significant impact on the doctrine, equipment, and organization of the Combat Engineer Battalion of the 1980's. In the future, while we can learn from the past, we must be innovative and creative in our developments of the future. FUTURE COMBAT ENGINEER DEVELOPMENTS The last two annual engineer conferences have focused on the missions, structure, equipment, and requirements of the combat engineer battalion of the 1990's. The 1989 conference was the first such conference sponsored by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command(MCCDC), in its capacity as the MAGTF warfighting proponent. The overall conference objective was to produce an integrated package of proposed improvements to the engineer field from the MAGTF perspective. To accomplish this task, engineer support was analyzed within the framework established by the MAGTF Master Plan(MMP). The second goal was to provide additional input to the MMP and finally to prioritize the actions to make the most significant improvements to the MAGTF capabilities. The issues discussed in the remainder of this article are a summary of the two annual conferences and a start at answering the question; What is needed to "fix" the CEB for the 1990's and beyond? REDUCTION OF CSS ROLE One of the main issues addressed by the field was that too much emphasis is placed on the Combat Service Support(CSS) role of the CEB. The CEB currently holds a large number of assets related to a CSS role(mobile electric power(MEP), water production and commercial engineer equipment). These assets should be treated as a logistics commodity and be under CSS control. Recommendations: The CEB should be a level one holder of utilities, rather than a provider of utilities support to other units in the division.(7) Equipment such as 30T cranes, compactors and scrapers should be removed from the CEB and equipment must be developed that lends itself to a high degree of mobility and survivability for the CEB mission.(8) Additionally the current FMFM 3-1 places the divisional engineer staff officer under the staff cognizance of the division G-4. This association with the G-4 presumes a logistic or CSS capacity for the division engineer staff officer. The engineer staff officers duties are largely operational in nature, and he must be able to effectively serve as an advisor to the commander. Recommendation: The division engineer officer should be a special staff officer under the chief of staff.(9) CEB ORGANIZATION. The fourth engineer letter company is intended to provide support to the tank battalion, the AAV battalion, the LAI battalion, the artillery regiment and the division headquarters. Its is considered paramount that close combat support be provided to these other units in the GCE as well a having the capability to reinforce other engineer companies of the battalion. Recommendation: The fourth letter has been manned in each active CEB.(10) MINIMUM CAPABILITIES. Although the equipment in the CEB is capable of completing actual engineer tasks, e.g. digging, road repair, they posses a low degree of mobility and survivability. The following minimum capabilities are considered key to the CEB accomplishing its assigned missions:(11) Battlefield mobility Assault Obstacle Breaching Battlefield Survivability Organic Assault Gap Crossing Capability RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT ISSUES. An overriding concern in the development of any piece of equipment must be that it provides mobility and survivability equal to the unit it is supporting. To meet the above minimum capabilities the CEB studies recommended and prioritized the following equipment issues related to the CEB:(12) Combat Excavator: A vehicle to perform earthmoving operation's in direct support of the GCE. Breaching Equipment Platform: reduction of obstacles with specialized explosives, exposing minimum personal an equipment. Standoff Mine Detection Equipment: ability to remotely detect minefields, increase tactical mobility. Assault Bridging, Less Than 50 Meter Gap: current AVLB is inadequate in numbers and ability. Rapid Field Fortification Material: procurement of light- weight, pre-fab, multi-purpose materials to increase survivability and reduce manpower time in the construction of fighting positions, bunkers and command posts. Conventional Minelaying System: ability to rapidly lay mines in a armor threat environment. Cleared Lane Marking System For Minefields: marking of cleared lanes through obstacles. Combat Engineer Vehicle: armored vehicle for combat engineers. protection of equipment and tools and the ability to keep up with maneuver forces. will not degrade infantry by taking space in AAV or LAI. EQUIPMENT IN PROCUREMENT PIPLINE. Though many pieces are still in the developmental stages, we have begun to fill the tremendous shortfall in the CEB's ability to perform its assigned missions.(13) Battlefield Mobility: The combat excavator is a highly mobile, tracked, armored earthmover designed for use in the CEB. Currently the M9 ACE is in the procurement process, with the first vehicle scheduled for delivery in 1993. This vehicle is capable of high off road speeds and offers the driver protection in a NBC environment. It is capable of be loaded into all current MAC aircraft and existing U.S. Navy amphibious shipping. See page (14) photograph. Assault Obstacle Breaching: The Counter Mobility Vehicle(COV) is a highly mobile, tracked, armored counter obstacle vehicle designed for the CEB. Equipped with a track width mine plow, one hydraulic excavator arm and a blade (vee or straight), this vehicle will provide the GCE a mobile, survivable obstacle breaching capability. Projected delivery around year 2000. See page (15) photograph. Battlefield Survivablity: The Small Emplacement Excavator(SEE) is a lightweight rubber-tired tractor equipped with a front-end loader and backhoe excavator. Its primary function is to provide GCE units the ability to rapidly dig fighting positions, weapons emplacements and command posts. Currently the Marine corps has 12 at the engineer equipment school for training and are forth coming to the FMF. See page (16) for photograph. Other equipment in development: M6O mine plow adapter kits. Fy 90 Catapult Launched Fuel Air Explosive(CATFAE) mounted in AAV to replace current line charge kits. Fy94+. LAV-Engineer for unit mobility. Fy97 Mechanical Sandbag Filler. Fy98 MK154 MOD) Mine Clearance System AAV Mounted. FY90 CONCLUSION In a future of decreasing budgets in the military, it is impossible to say whether these specific items of equipment will eventually reach the Fleet Marine Forces. What is important, is that in the last two years the Marine Corps and the Engineer community have recognized the problem, began to study it, and set a course to meet future commitments. It will be some time before many of the minimum capabilities and needed equipment issues are realized. This will have an impact on the MAGTF's ability to maneuver on todays lethal battlefield. Regardless of what happens in the future, the procurement of equipment should be prioritized, continuing to to meet the minimum capabilities required to accomplish the assigned mission of the CEB. Continued use of commercial equipment in a combat mission such as the CEB's has proven not to work in the past and only degrades the capabilities of the CEB. Engineers and other members of the Ground Combat Element must see support the needed changes in the CEB structure and equipment. We really must put the "Combat" back into the CEB, making it a contributor to the GCE. Click here to view image TABLE A Mission. The CEB's primary mission is to enhance the mobility, countermobility, and survivability of the Marine division through close combat engineer support. It also provides limited general support to the Marine division. The CEB is responsible for the following tasks: 1. Conducting engineer reconnaissance and supporting intelligence collection within the division zone of action or sector of defense. Support is required in areas not under division control. 2. Augmenting other division elements conducting reconnaissance missions that include requirements for engineer intelligence. 3. Planning, organizing, and coordinating the assault breaching of explosive and nonexplosive obstacles from the high watermark inland. 4. Employment assault bridge systems. When augmented, employing other standard bridge systems. 5. Providing expedient repair and reinforcement of existing bridges. 6. Constructing expedient, short-span bridges from local materials. 7. Providing temporary repair of existing roads and limited new construction and maintenance of combat roads and trails to support combat operations of the division. 8. Planning, organizing, and coordinating construction of simple and compound explosive and nonexplosive obstacle systems. 9. Planning and constructing obstacles beyond the ability of other division units. 10. Performing demolitions missions beyond the ability of other division units. 11. Providing assistance beyond the capabilities of the other division units. 12. Providing essential temporary construction support to meet minimum combat requirements. 13. Provide utility support to the division. 14. Constructing and improving the expedient vertical take-off and landing sites in support of the division operations. ENDNOTES 1. Operational Handbook(OH) 6-1 pg.2-16 2. FM 5-100 pg. 9 FM 5-101 pg. 1-10 FM 5-102 pg. 14 FM 5-103 pg. 1-11 3. Operational Handbook(OH) 13 pg. 5-7 4. IP 4-4 pg. 1-13 5. OH 6-1 pg. 2-15 6. FMFRP 12-52 pgs. 2,5,6,19 7. CEB study 1989 pg. 20 8. CEB study 1988 pg. 3-3 9. CEB study 1989 pg. 6 10. CEB study 1989 pg. 8 11. CEB study 1988 pg. 7 12. CEB study 1989 pg. 13 13. MCRDAC Horizons pgs. 13,31,34 BIBLIOGRAPHY Headquarters, Department of The Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-100, "Engineer Combat Operations", Nov 88. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-101, "Mobility", Jan 85. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-102, "Countermobility", Mar 85. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 5-103, "Survivability", Jun 85. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, IP 4-4, "Engineer Operations", Nov 85. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Operational Handbook (OH) 6-1, "Ground Combat Operations", Jan 88. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, FMFRP 12-52, "Engineer! Comments on the Development of the Marine Engineer", Advance Copy. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Operational Handbook (OH) 13, "MAGTF Engineer Operations", Draft United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, "Combat Engineer Battalion Study", 1988. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, "Engineer Conference Study Report", 1989. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, MCRDAC, "Horizons", Vol 3, Issue. No. 1, Nov 89.
