Military

Strength Requirements For Combat Engineers

 

CSC 1995

 

SUBJECT AREA - Manpower

 

 

 

 

 

                             EXECUTIVES SUMMARY

 

Title: Strength Requirements for Combat Engineers

 

Author: Major Darryl E. Knight, United States Marine Corps

 

Thesis: The Marine Corps' current criteria for physical testing does not adequately

address the requirements for the military occupational specialty (MOS) of combat

engineer.

 

Background:   The Marine Corps has no MOS specific physical standards. The physical

fitness test (PFT) is the benchmark for all Marines. The physical requirements of

individual MOS's like the combat engineers are ignored, although several require a greater

capacity for physical strength than others. Lifting bridge components overhead requires

more strength than kipping three times over a pull-up bar. The requirement for strength

needs identified and included in MOS qualification. The addition of women into the

combat engineer MOS magnifies this existing shortfall. Numerous studies have identified

the physical demands of the combat engineer MOS. Likewise, other studies show that

most women are unable to meet these physical demands.

 

Recommendations:   The Marine Corps should adopt physical standards for the combat

engineers based on individual MOS tasks and unit missions.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

       Assessing a unit or individual in the Marine Corps requires using standards to

 

gauge that assessment. A fair evaluation requires the use of known, consistently applied,

 

and achievable standards. Currently there are only two physical standards used to

 

measure Marines. The physical fitness test (PFT) and the battle skill's standard of a fifteen

 

mile forced march.1 The Marine Corps bases these standards on the premise that every

 

Marine is an infantryman, thus requiring the same physical standards of all Marines. This

 

thesis will address the need for physical standards within the combat engineer military

 

occupational specialties (MOS), due to integrating women into the combat engineers.

 

This paper will further review male/female differences, assess Marine Corps physical

 

standards, survey sister services and foreign country policies, and identify combat engineer

 

requirements due to their unique mission and equipment. Finally, I will submit courses of

 

action based on analysis.

 

       For the second time in Marine Corps history, the integration of women into the

 

combat engineer MOS will take place.2 The attempt in 1977 at integrating the MOS failed

 

for three reasons. The first reason was failing to integrate the enlisted combat engineers

 

(1371). By integrating the enlisted combat engineers along with other MOS's in the

 

Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW) and Force Service Support Group (FSSG) engineer units, a

 

thorough performance evaluation of women would have been achievable. By integrating

 

only the combat engineer officer (1302) MOS, the Marine Corps did not provide enough

 

female combat engineers to evaluate their performance. The second reason for failure

 

dovetailed into the first. Female officers did not deploy with their platoons due to a lack

 

of berthing space on amphibious shipping.3 The third stumbling block to success lay in

 

socialization. The female combat engineer officer entered the unit singularly, usually with

 

no other female officer or staff noncommissioned officer available for support.4

 

Fraternization and pregnancy became perception problems. Due to the low density of

 

females, a mistake by one reflected poorly on the group.5

 

       This paper will not address the issues for the unsuccessful gender integration listed

 

above. They are no longer relevant, as all of these issues are considered correctable

 

through planning and leadership. This paper aims at ensuring gender integration does not

 

result in the degradation of combat readiness of engineer units. By admitting only

 

mentally and physically qualified females and males into the combat engineer MOS,

 

engineer units should remain combat ready.

 

MALE/FEMALE DIFFFERENCES

 

       There is great debate about physical strength requirements in the military. Some

 

argue that today's military depends much less on brawn in favor of smart, educated,

 

technically trainable people.6 This is true in some branches of the military and even in

 

some MOS's in the Marine Corps. However, even on today's technological battlefields,

 

the requirements for strength and endurance in closing with and destroying the enemy by

 

close combat exist. It doesn't matter that the billets requiring extreme vigor and physical

 

exertion may have decreased (down from ninety-five percent in the Civil War to sixteen

 

percent today).7 What matters is that the requirement for brawn is vital in certain MOS's

 

to ensure victory on the battlefield.8 Combat engineering is one of the MOS's requiring

 

brawn.

 

       Some women can exceed the average man in physical strength and endurance.

 

Athletes such as Florence Griffith Joyner are proof that women can excel far beyond the

 

average male.9 However, comparing trained female athletes with the average male serves

 

no purpose. I will examine capacities of the average male and female who become

 

Marines.

 

       Cardiovascular strength and upper body strength are the standards for measuring

 

Marines strength. A number of studies as to the differences in strength between males and

 

females are consistent in denoting the female's lack of natural strength. "The mean

 

strength of the female is estimated to range somewhere between forty to seventy percent

 

of the male, taking into account her lower body weight, muscle mass, and level of muscle

 

training."10 The average male will be larger than the average female, so size and strength

 

differentials exist immediately. The average male has more endurance, greater muscle and

 

bone mass, so therefore can lift more, carry more, jump higher, and throw farther. What

 

happens with a balanced playing field? Start with two one hundred and forty pound

 

eighteen year olds, one male and one female. The male is stronger, faster and has more

 

physical stamina to start with, but put them both into intensive physical training and the

 

male will have increased his relative physical superiority over the female.11

 

MARINE CORPS PHYSICAL STANDARDS

 

       Physical Fitness Test

 

 

       The PFT is a baseline standard designed to measure the physical fitness level for all

 

Marines in three areas.12 Although not designed to evaluate an individual's ability to

 

endure the rigors of combat, the PFT does highlight the different physical characteristics

 

and limitations between males and females. Debate revolves around the disparities

 

between male and female PFT's, and arguments for continuing separate gender and age

 

requirements for the PFT can be persuasive.13 This allows the continued illusion of male

 

and female physical capabilities being the same. They are not.

 

       The Marine Corps conducted a study of active duty female Marines and their

 

performance on both the male and female PFT's. I emphasize that these were active duty

 

Marines, all passed the female PFT, and none assigned to weight control or appearance

 

programs. After undergoing an inventory male PFT test in which eighty-eight percent

 

failed, these Marines underwent a rigorous twelve weeks conditioning program designed

 

to increase their cardiovascular and upper body strength. Following this intensive

 

mandatory conditioning program, sixty-six percent still failed the male PFT, with

 

forty-four percent unable to do the three pull-up minimum and twenty-six percent unable

 

to complete the three mile run in the required time.14

 

       The "official" Marine Corps view is overemphasis on achieving exemplary scores

 

on the Physical Fitness Test which can be detrimental to the training required to develop

 

the "total Marine."15 Regardless of the official view, many Marines take great pride in

 

their personal fitness, even to the point of becoming zealots.16 Most Marines agree that

 

physical fitness and appearance are highly important parts of leadership and a

 

measurement is through the PFT.

 

       Battle Skills Standard

 

       A female Marine's failure to pass the male PFT is an initial indication that the

 

combat engineer MOS may be too physically demanding for her. The other universal

 

measurable physical standard for Marines is the battle skills standard of annually

 

completing a fifteen mile forced march in field gear carrying a forty pound pack and

 

weapon within a designated time limit.17 This task measures endurance and is an indicator

 

of both cardiovascular and upper body strength. Tracking of this task is non-existent since

 

no entry into the unit diary system takes place. Lack of measurable data prevents an

 

accurate analysis of this requirement. Personal experience in a mixed gender Fleet Marine

 

Force unit indicates that many female Marines experience great difficulty in completing

 

this requirement. The Commanding Officers of Marine Wing Support Squadron 371,

 

demanded battle skills testing of all hands. Of twenty-one male officers and three

 

hundred and eleven male Marines participating, all twenty-one male officers and three

 

hundred and two male Marines passed (all Marines who did not complete the march were

 

re-tested and given a second chance to meet the standard). However, both female officers

 

and eighteen of the twenty-seven female Marines failed to meet the prescribed standard.18

 

SISTER SERVICE/FOREIGN COUNTRY POLICIES

 

       The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force instituted screening strength tests for

 

military occupational specialties in 1983, with varying degrees of success. Administered at

 

the Military Entrance Processing Station, the physical strength tests applied Department of

 

Labor Occupational Classification methodology to military occupations. The physical

 

strength tests for military applicants provided an initial MOS screening for candidates

 

before specialty training.19 Penalties for failing the screening test varied according to

 

service. The Army highly discouraged the applicant who failed the testing from pursuing

 

their chosen branch.20 The Air Force prevented failed applicants from entering their

 

specialty.21 The administration of tests before recruit training rely solely on strength and

 

conditioning achieved before recruit training. Administering the test before recruit

 

training placed women at a disadvantage. However, even with the upper body

 

conditioning received at recruit training the increase in female strength scores was

 

minimal.22 The Air Force has stayed with their Strength Aptitude Test, while the Army

 

abandoned their Military Enlisted Physical Strength Capacity Test in 1990.23 Interestingly

 

the Army has determined that the major physical limiting factor for completing tasks

 

within a MOS is upper body strength, not stamina.24 The U.S. Navy has not incorporated

 

strength screening in their entrance process, although their own studies agree with the

 

Army's conclusions regarding MOS task completion and upper body strength.25

 

       Currently there are three countries that allow women into ground combat and

 

combat engineer units. They are Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada.

 

       Denmark

 

       Denmark is experiencing mixed success integrating women into combat and

 

combat support units. They have not achieved their goal of integrating five percent of

 

their females into the combat arms. Surprisingly there is no great concern for combat

 

readiness among the Danes, who believe they will have ample time to prepare for war.26

 

Women must meet male physical standards. However, the integration of women into

 

formerly male-only MOS's required lowering physical standards for men. The Danes take

 

a group approach to physical training that allows the strong to carry the weaker unit

 

member's load.

 

       The Netherlands

 

       The Dutch implemented their policy of women in the combat arms to be more in

 

line with their countries moral philosophy. Like the Danes they hoped to increase their

 

female military population, with a similar lack of success. Due to high physical standards

 

there is only one female serving in the infantry and none in the combat engineers. Because

 

women have been unable to meet male physical standards, the Dutch are exploring

 

relaxing these standards.27

 

       Canada

 

       Our neighbor to the North is the best example of how gender integration should

 

take place, at least initially. In 1989, through judicial decree, all ground combat positions

 

opened to women. This approach caused the realization that men and women are not

 

equal, at least not physically.28 Initially, twelve women attended OCS of which five

 

passed. These five continued on to infantry officer's school, but all withdrew unable to

 

meet the physical standards of the course. The enlisted women have fared no better.29

 

Initially ninety-two women entered mixed gender recruit training of which forty-seven

 

graduated. From that forty-seven only one completed the infantry training school, and she

 

asked for an assignment other than infantry.30 The field engineer field (combat engineer)

 

has not shown any greater success; a total of one female field engineer has successfully

 

completed training.31

 

       After one hundred and three attempts at integrating the combat arms without

 

success, the Canadian Forces lowered their physical standards.32 The current test now for

 

the combat arms requires a soldier to carry a soldier of similar weight and limits the field

 

pack weight to no more than fifty pounds. Even with lowered standards, women have not

 

expressed interest in the infantry and field engineering specialties.33

 

COMBAT ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS

 

       Mission/Tasks

 

       The physical strength requirement for combat engineers is no less today than on

 

the battlefield's of World War II, Korea or Vietnam.34 The two main reasons for this are

 

the missions of the combat engineer and the equipment available to complete this mission.

 

       Missions assigned to engineer units supporting the MAGTF split into

 

countermobility, mobility, and survivability areas. Elements of these missions include

 

engineer reconnaissance, obstacle breaching and emplacement, bridging, demolitions,

 

emplacing field fortifications, and fighting as infantry.

 

       The combat engineers complete their tasks as part of the accomplishment of the

 

unit's mission. The mission of obstacle breaching requires the performance of many

 

individual tasks. In Operation Desert Storm the combat engineer battalions attached

 

breaching teams to Task Forces to perform the mission of breaching obstacle belts erected

 

by the Iraqis. These teams integrated with tanks and assault amphibious vehicles to form

 

obstacle clearing detachment teams.35 To complete the mission, the combat engineers

 

tasks included exiting their vehicles and entering the mine field on foot. Further tasks

 

included priming the mine clearing line charges by hand, followed by a foot race back to

 

safety before the two thousand pounds of explosives detonated.36

 

       Equipment

 

       The tools of the trade of the Marine combat engineer have remained basically the

 

same for the last fifty years. Even with technological advances, the weight of equipment

 

carried and employed by combat engineers remains burdensome. Because of fiscal

 

restraints and low budget priorities, no new engineer sets, chests, or kits made the cut for

 

the fiscal year 1996 budget. Only a few obstacle breaching items are currently still alive,

 

with these items not scheduled for actual production and procurement before the turn of

 

the century.

 

       The equipment carried by division combat engineers, besides the prescribed

 

combat load, varies with their assigned mission. Normal additional equipment includes: an

 

individual demolition set (seven pounds, less explosives), mine detector (twenty-six

 

pounds), and crew served weapon. Also, depending on the mission and available

 

transportation, parts of the squad demolition kit (eighty pounds, less explosives), the

 

carpenters tool kit (one hundred and sixty-five pounds), pioneer tool kit (four hundred and

 

four pounds), or block and tackle kit (two hundred and five pounds) may be added to their

 

load.37 Demolitions required will be mission dependent. These tool kits and the mine

 

field marking sets (nine hundred pounds in three boxes) require loading and unloading by

 

hand, moving by vehicle as close to the mission site as possible. Lifting of these kits to

 

platforms as high as five feet is not uncommon, placing the emphasis on teamwork and

 

upper body strength.

 

       The FSSG combat engineers have the advantage of greater access to vehicle

 

transportation for their equipment (unless augmenting the division engineers). However,

 

their tool kits are larger (pioneer kit is one thousand pounds vice four hundred and four,

 

the carpenter kit is two hundred and twenty pounds vice one hundred and sixty-five) and

 

there are more of them per company than in the division. The lifting requirements for

 

these kits remain the same however, as does the need to rely on teamwork and upper body

 

strength.

 

       The MAW combat engineers have many of the same tools as their FSSG brethren,

 

to include the larger carpenter and pioneer tool kits. The lifting requirements for these

 

kits remains the same however, as does the need to rely on teamwork and upper body

 

strength.

 

       The sets, chests, and kits previously noted are in the current inventory with no

 

requirement for replacement or upgrade except for the demolitions kit. Even though

 

noted for improvements to safety, performance, and weight, the demolitions kit went

 

unfunded in the last budget cycle.

 

       The existence of heavy tool kits in itself does not require special strength

 

standards. The assigned missions requiring the use of this equipment does. Obstacle

 

breaching is one of the missions that standout as requiring higher than normal upper body

 

strength. According to Army studies, sixty percent of males and zero percent of females

 

can perform the required task of placing a breaching charge against a fortified position,

 

which requires a higher degree than normal of upper body strength and endurance.38

 

Conducting an assault breach with a bangalore torpedo is another test of strength and

 

stamina. This breaching device is man packed to the breach site under the observation and

 

fire of the enemy and requires the assembly of multiple one hundred and ninety-eight

 

pound kits. During assembly at the forward edge of the obstacle the breaching team

 

manually pushes the bangalore torpedo through the minefield. The standard threat

 

minefield requires linking three kits and pushing the assembled five hundred and ninety-six

 

pound tube through variable types of terrain. The employment of the bangalore torpedo is

 

extremely physically demanding, relying largely on upper body strength. The

 

Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS) will replace the bangalore torpedo.

 

Weighing one hundred and twenty-five pounds, the APOBS comes in two backpacks,

 

each weighing more than sixty pounds. The APOBS, carried up to two kilometers before

 

employed, may include running with the backpack to the forward edge of the obstacle.39

 

Although an improvement over the bangalore, it is still a strain on upper body strength and

 

endurance.

 

       The FSSG combat engineer requirements for upper body strength stand out during

 

the erection of Medium Girder Bridging (MGB). The erection of the MGB requires

 

dividing the company into teams, with each team member contributing equally. The MGB

 

components weigh up to four hundred and thirty-five pounds for a bottom panel, and are

 

designed for a four Marine lift to waist height. Requiring an overhead press of three

 

hundred and eighty-five pounds by four Marines, the top panel requires equal portions of

 

strength and teamwork. The six Marine lift of the post tensioning beam is six hundred and<