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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
