Military

a. Assigned Mission. The mission is the primary consideration in obstacle planning. It is a clear, concise statement of the purpose of the task to be accomplished by the command. It tells the command the "who," "what," "where," and "when" of an operation. Mission analysis is critical in planning obstacles. The "who" portion and its accompanying task organization allocates resources to do the job; the "what' specifies the type of operation (such as defend, attack, or delay); "where" outlines the AO; and "when" specifies the time available and establishes deadlines.

During the planning phase, much or all of this information will be verbal, based upon the commanders analysis of the mission received from higher headquarters. The estimate, the eventual plan, and the execution are based upon tasks contained in the mission.

Directed and reserve obstacles are of prime importance to the overall mission and should be planned first. You must know the authority and time of execution.

While obstacle employment supports the current mission, it should not impede future plans or missions. This may not be possible in every instance. For example, emplacing an artillery-delivered minefield upon an attacking enemy may be the right thing to do, even though an attack through the area was planned prior to the self-destruction of the minefield. You must weigh the pros and cons.

b. Terrain and Weather. These factors and their effects are critical in answering the following questions: Where are good existing obstacles? Are they within the enemy's AA? Are they effective when tied in with reinforcing obstacles? Are they within range and fields of fire of friendly weapons? What are the anticipated weather conditions? Is the soil frozen? Is digging possible? Can mines be buried?

c. Avenues of Approach. The commander must visualize the AAs under all conditions. He must also determine the size of friendly or enemy forces that those avenues can support.

d. Engagement Areas, Battle Positions, and Locations of Weapon Systems. A good analysis will show where the best areas are for friendly weapons to engage the enemy. With this analysis, you can also ascertain the most likely areas where friendly forces can expect to be engaged by enemy direct weapons. The process is essentially the same in the defense and the offense. Existing obstacles, fields of fire, and natural cover and concealment are key considerations for determining where to best engage the enemy or expect to be engaged.

e. Obstacle Locations and Types. The selection of EAs and battle positions must be considered before planning reinforcing obstacles. Once EAs and battle positions have been selected, the commander and engineer select and site reinforcing obstacles. This process is unconstrained, so the commander and engineer will select and site all of the reinforcing obstacles needed without regard to manpower, time, and logistics. This selection process will determine what needs to be done in order for the obstacle system to be most effective. What needs to be done usually requires more effort than resources available. The process provides the commander and the engineer with a method to establish priorities If resources are constrained.

f. Commander's Obstacle Priorities. Once the unconstrained obstacle estimate has been done, the commander establishes priorities for obstacles. By seeing what needs to be done, he chooses those obstacles that must be emplaced. Through this process, the engineer is given direction to employ resources knowing the effort is expended on those obstacles most critical for accomplishing the command's objectives. The type, proposed location, and purpose of the obstacles will depend on an offensive or defensive plan. However, the basic thought process remains constant.

g. Resources. The commander and the engineer consider the assets available to construct, guard, and execute obstacles. Engineer assets are limited, and the priority of work may be given to only a portion of the planned AO. The engineer takes the commander's priorities and makes an estimate based upon time, manpower, equipment, and logistics. The engineer must know how much of each resource is required to emplace and execute a given obstacle. This estimate is based upon the type of obstacle, the soldier's experience, the state of training and the equipment's condition. Standard obstacle factors (outlined in FM 5-102) may be used to assist in the estimate process. They are only a guide and should be altered based on the conditions existing at the time of the estimate.

Another consideration is the commander's decision on who will guard and detonate obstacles not detonated immediately after emplacement. Essentially, the commander has two choices--either use engineers or use soldiers from maneuver units. If engineers are used, then engineer assets are used up quickly, thus limiting the number of obstacles that can be emplaced as the battle progresses. The same can be said for using soldiers from maneuver units. This difficult decision must be made early enough for the engineer and maneuver units to properly plan. In any case, the target-turnover process must be trained and rehearsed during combined arms training so that the commander has some latitude in decision making.

The time available to accomplish the obstacle mission is an important consideration. Lead time is required to gain the obstacle density needed in the obstacle plan. Emplacement time varies with the types of obstacle. For example, it takes more man-hours to emplace a conventional tactical minefield than to create a road crater. Emplacement lead time falls into two categories: time required to construct the obstacle and time required to get materials to the obstacle location. The latter may require twice as much tine as the actual construction. The loss in productivity due to logistics time can be reduced by allocating additional transportation support to engineer units. In most cases, the engineer squad's truck or APC must serve as the personnel carrier (mobility) and cargo carrier (resupply). Another way to increase production is to work maximum hours. However, this pace can be maintained for only a few days before soldiers and equipment begin to fail.

Finally, logistics matters must be considered. The commander must set priorities for the delivery of munitions and materiel. He must allocate the available haul assets among ammunition, obstacle materials, and other critical supplies. Among obstacle materials, difficult choices must be made. A conventional tactical minefield can take up to 100 times the haul assets of a point obstacle. Yet, the minefield may be the only effective obstacle in the situation. To lessen the haul requirements, engineers must make imaginative use of locally-available material. Alternative obstacles should also be considered. Frequently, tank ditches can be substituted for a minefield. The tank ditch uses engineer equipment that is available and not in use instead of placing additional demand on an overloaded transportation system.

h. Work Sequence. The commander and the engineer must now reconsider the possible obstacles identified earlier. Based on the time available, work force, and logistics assets, they identify the obstacles that can realistically be completed within the allotted time. They also identify obstacle work which may continue during the battle.

i. Task-Organization Requirements. The tactical commander and the engineer balance the obstacle plan's comprehensiveness with the realities of limited assets. For example, a TF commander's sector may need intensive engineer support to complete the plan. The brigade commander, on the other hand, may anticipate that the primary threat will develop in another TF sector. This means the brigade commander will allocate fewer engineers than desired by the TF commander. The engineer recommends the allocation of engineer units to best support the brigade commander's obstacle plan. Other engineer units may need to be obtained. If so, they probably will come from the organic engineer battalion or from corps assets.

j. Coordination. Obstacle planning and employment require extensive coordination. The Assistant Chief of Staff, G4 (Logistics) (G4)/Supply Officer (US Army) (S4) must receive a materials estimate as early as possible to plan logistics support of the obstacle system.

The artillery fire-support coordinator, aviation officer, and air liaison officer (LO) must also be consulted to integrate scatterable mines with the obstacle system. Missions that require scatterable mines are planned in detail, to include the location, the unit delivering the mines, and the necessary logistics support.

Obstacles must also be coordinated with follow-on and adjacent units to ensure that the location and extent of the obstacle system are known. This coordination will preclude the obstacle impeding maneuver of friendly forces.

a. Obstacle Intent. The maneuver commander and his engineer designate an obstacle intent in order to focus the entire force. Obstacle intent describes how, in terms of obstacle effects, the commander will use tactical obstacles to effect the enemy's maneuver to the advantage of his fire plan (indirect and direct). The obstacle intent integrates and synchronizes the obstacle and fire plans.

b. Obstacle Integration and Synchronization. Obstacle intent must contain three components in order to accomplish integration and synchronization--an obstacle effect, a defined target and a relative location on the battlefield.

The obstacle effect is conveyed through the use of precise graphics (see Figure 3-2). The maneuver commander and his staff must understand the flexibility of these graphics. Each symbol represents how the enemy's maneuver should be altered as a result of the particular obstacle. For example, a turn symbol points the desired direction for the enemy to follow. Figure 3-2 also shows examples of how obstacle belts alter an enemy's formation through the use of obstacle groups. (Obstacle zones, belts and groups will be discussed in paragraph c.)

A defined target refers to the enemy whose ability to maneuver is the target of the obstacle and fire plan. The target is relative to friendly unit allocation. For example, an armored maneuver brigade will fight an enemy division.

The relative location on the battlefield refers to the use of obstacle control measures. Figure 3-3 shows the relative locations for each planning and control echelon. Obstacle zones and belt use an enclosed, unspecified obstacle symbol. Obstacle groups use the obstacle effect symbol alone on the exact terrain where direct and indirect fires will be integrated and synchronized with individual obstacles.

c. Echelons of Obstacle Planning and Control-Measure Functions. In order to effectively plan and focus the obstacle effort the engineer must understand the employment of obstacle-control measures, zones, belts, and groups and individual obstacles. The corps and division engineer plan influences the obstacle planning process down to the obstacle-emplacing unit.

a. Maneuver-Graphics Analysis. The engineer must understand the maneuver plan if he is to effectively integrate obstacles to support that plan. Often, the maneuver graphic is developed without overlaying the SITEMP. This can lead to disaster. The overlaying process reveals how the commander plans to use his forces against the enemy's probable plan of attack and forms the basis for the rest of the obstacle planning process. Figure 3-8, shows a maneuver graphic for a typical TF area. Figure 3-9, shows the maneuver graphic with an overlaid SITEMP.

b. Fires Analysis. Knowing the possible enemy maneuvers and friendly defensive plan, the engineer and commander look at the organization of fires through a direct-fire analysis (see Figure 3-10). They consider areas where fires should be massed and shifted. A good technique is to draw the engagement ranges of each weapon and highlight the direct-fire control measures used to orient mass, and shift these fires. This step ensures that engineers do not place obstacles outside the range of friendly direct fires. War-game the TF execution matrix and enemy maneuver to get a feel for how the EAs are organized and how direct and indirect fires should shift as the battle progresses. The following are areas of consideration for direct-fire analysis:

• Areas of massed fires.
• Task organization.
• Weapons effects.
• Direct-fire control measures.
- Execution matrix.

- Target reference points (TRPs).

- Trigger lanes.

- Shifting fires.

• Direct and indirect-fire organization of EAs.

c. Obstacle-Intent Integration. Now the planners establish an obstacle intent. In short, the staff determines locations for directed obstacle groups. Planners consider the anticipated enemy attack look at the direct-fire plan, then decide where and what obstacle effects can be used to support the obstacle plan. The obstacle-intent graphics (see Figure 3-11) represent where a group of obstacles will be emplaced to affect the desired intent on the enemy. As a rule, these obstacle groups are allocated against MRB and independent MRC mobility corridors. This keeps their integration with the fires of a single company team aligned and simplifies integration and siting at the company team level.

As planners decide what type of obstacles to use (disrupt, turn, fix, and block), they keep in mind the type of weapons covering them to ensure compatibility. For instance, a platoon of TOW missiles may not have sufficient volume of lethal fire to anchor a turning obstacle. Also, they identify the need for additional direct-fire control measures. There may be a TRP designated at the turning obstacle's turning point, but no control measure that shifts those fires with the turn.

Figures 3-12 and 3-13 show how obstacle groups support the overall intent of obstacle belts directed by the brigade. The groups attack MRBs and separate MRCs based on the direct-fire plan, while the belts are directed against MRRs.

d. Obstacle-Effects Priorities. With obstacle groups established, the commander needs to establish obstacle priorities (see Figure 3-14). The commander, the S3, and the engineer develop priorities on which obstacle effects (groups) are most important to the scheme of maneuver. The engineer manages his resources based on the commander's priorities. The number one priority obstacle group does not necessarily have to be emplaced first. Often, the commander may want to emplace the priority obstacle group during limited visibility, or the engineer may want to emplace obstacle groups forward of the priority group first. The engineer must not allow the resources (time, material, equipment, and manpower) to fall below that needed to emplace the group. The commander may also designate priorities for protective obstacle effort. This allows the engineer to assist the TF in allocating the materials needed for maneuver units to emplace protective obstacles.

a. Mobility Requirements Identification. Planners now identify mobility requirements for emplacing lanes through obstacles (see Figure 3-15). Often, a TF will plan obstacles around their mobility requirements rather than the enemy's maneuver. In other words, the engineer does not plan for obstacles on the main supply route (MSR) because he does not want the problems associated with lane control and the risk of fratricide (friendly casualties by friendly fires). This is the wrong logic. Plan obstacles to attack the enemy's maneuver in a way that supports the maneuver plan. If you need lanes, then construct lanes and plan for their C². The following are considerations for identifying mobility requirements:

• Tactical repositioning.
- Counterreconnaissance force or scouts.

- Counterattack force.

- Reserves.

• TF sustainment traffic.
- Major supply route.

- Company team logistical packages (LOGPACs).

- Medical evaluation.

- Obstacle material resupply.

• C² traffic.
- Leader reconnaissances.

- Face-to-face coordination at C² centers.

• EA rehearsals.

The engineer coordinates with the TF's S3 and commander to ensure that he has identified and planned for all mobility requirements resulting from tactical repositioning. The engineer coordinates with the TF's executive officer (XO) to ensure that he has identified and planned for mobility and sustainment operations. The lane requirements to support sustainment operations are the hardest to plan because they involve so many other staff officers and units. They are also the hardest to command and control.

b. Obstacle Design and Resourcing. The commander can now design the obstacles. Obstacle design begins by resourcing the groups based on mobility corridor widths and the desired effect. Once the obstacle groups are resourced, the engineer designs the individual obstacles using the intent graphics as a guide. The design of individual obstacles may be conducted at the engineer platoon level if there has not been sufficient reconnaissance to lock in the direct-fire and obstacle plans. In short, platoon leaders may be given the obstacle groups, allocated the resources needed, and then required to design the individual obstacles based on the ground reconnaissance and coordination with company team commanders. Figure 3-16 shows a sample computation of linear meters of obstacle required to support the maneuver plan.

a. Scheme-of-Obstacles Overlay. The scheme-of-obstacles overlay (see Figure 3-17) is the final and most important product of the obstacle planning process. It shows commanders at the company team level where obstacle groups will be located on the battlefield and how the higher commander plans to use these obstacles to affect the enemy's maneuver. Most importantly, the obstacle intent graphically gives the commanders a tool that shows the link between the obstacle groups and intent and the direct-fire plans. When the commander overlays the obstacle group graphics on top of his operation overlay, he can immediately see how the obstacles will support his direct-fire plan and how the siting of TRPs is linked to siting the obstacles. Therefore, the overlay must show the obstacle groups using the intent graphics. If there has been sufficient reconnaissance and time for the TF engineer to design individual obstacles, they too may be shown on the scheme-of-obstacles overlay with the intent graphics. Lane locations or the need for lanes through obstacle groups is also shown, as well as closure responsibility. This lets the company team commander know where lanes must be emplaced in his AO. Finally, the scheme-of-obstacles overlay may indicate specific siting instructions needed to accomplish the commander's intent. For instance, the commander may be directed to site a turning obstacle in such a manner that the enemy is turned into TOW missile standoff range.

b. Obstacle-Execution Matrix. The obstacle-execution matrix provides specific instructions and detailed information concerning the obstacles on the scheme-of-obstacles overlay. The matrix will cover the following headings: group N^o, location, priority, effect, emplacing unit, owning unit, and resource allocation (mines).

a. Minefield Intent: Disrupt. The disrupting minefield (see Figure 3-18) is essentially the base minefield. Shown in the upper left of the figure is the minefield characteristics. In the upper right is an illustration of the group showing the dimensions and intent. At the bottom center is the minefield pattern. Each disrupting minefield has a 2,500-meter front. Three of these minefields are usually needed to disrupt an MRB.

b. Minefield Intent: Turn. The turning minefield (see Figure 3-19) uses two base minefields. The minefield on the enemy side consists of all tilt-rod AT mines. This brings the probability of kill up to the required 75 percent. The minefield has 500 meters of frontage so that each minefield directly affects an entire MRC at a time.

c. Minefield Intent: Fix The fixing minefield (see Figure 3-20) consists of the base minefield with an addition of an irregular outer edge (IOE) made up of tilt-rod AT mines. The IOE includes additional mines placed in an irregular pattern on the outer edge of the base minefields. The minefield frontage is 250 meters. This allows several minefields to be used throughout the depth of the fixing group so that there is sufficient frontage to cause several MRCs to breach repeatedly rather than bypass.

d. Minefield Intent: Block. The blocking minefield (see Figure 3-21) gives maximum probability of kill, defeats dismounted and mounted breaching attempts, and confuses the enemy as to the minefield limits. It uses the base minefield with the IOE reinforced on the friendly side with an additional "all AT tilt-rod" base minefield. The minefield frontage is 500 meters.