I am putting together a SG scenario in which a platoon of light infantry is
checking a potential ambush point before the main force comes through. I plan
to attach a squad of engineers to deal with mines, booby traps, or road blocks
if they should be found.
My question is: is attaching a squad of engineers to a platoon of infantry for
this type of mission reasonable from a "real world" perspective?
Alternatively, if it is not ideal, might it be done because it is expedient
(as is known to happen in the "real world")?
Obviously, comments from those of you with actual experience in this sort of
thing is most valuable, but comments from all are welcome.
In a message dated 98-11-30 22:03:31 EST, you write:
<< I am putting together a SG scenario in which a platoon of light infantry is
checking a potential ambush point before the main force comes through. I plan
to attach a squad of engineers to deal with mines, booby traps, or road blocks
if they should be found.
My question is: is attaching a squad of engineers to a platoon of infantry for
this type of mission reasonable from a "real world" perspective?
Alternatively, if it is not ideal, might it be done because it is expedient
(as is known to happen in the "real world")?
Obviously, comments from those of you with actual experience in this sort of
thing is most valuable, but comments from all are welcome.
Terrance L. Smith, Ph.D. tlsmith@micron.net Nampa, Idaho<
For modern U.S. Army a engineer squad is usually attached to a battalion for
short periods of time (theres just not enough of them around to attach full
time). As a platoon leader I was lucky to see on drive by. As a company
commander I rarely have 2 or 3 attached for special missions.
O.K. John A, time for you to jump in.
Faron
Well, I've been in the situation of our platoon providing protection for an
engineer breaching team on a number of occasions. Engineers are employed in
route recon and this might fall into that category. If you want to be more
generic then the task could be simply "clearing the area of enemy as part of
Bn advance". I would suggest that teh Engineer squad cannot be activated by
the Platoon Comd.
Anyway, infantry protection for a specialist team is very much a real time
task.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Glover, Owen wrote:
Sorry, but "FUBID"?
I can think of a couple of meanings, all of them at this point both impolite &
utter nonsense. What does it really mean? (I'm damn sure it's impolite, but
less sure the real meaning is nonsensical...)
Change of Topic:
When doing graphical representation of military units (using NATO symbols, in
this case) how does one treat HQ unit sizes? A platoon formation, laid out
with squad symbols, has, say, three rifle squads and an HQ squad. So does the
HQ unit get tagged as a squad (by the # of troopers in it) or as a platoon (by
the level of command it has)?
Or, say, a tank comany, laid out with plt markers - 2 line plts & one
with HQ in it. Is the HQ a plt symbol or Coy symb?
Thanks,
> Terrance L. Smith wrote:
> My question is: is attaching a squad of engineers to a platoon of
Been there, done that, got the dagofriggin' T-shirt.
In short: Engineers in the US Army are organic to Light Divisions at the rate
of 1 Batallion per Division. Each company in that batallion is usually
attached down to a brigade. These usually divvy us out 1 platoon per
batallion. We're usually kept in the BC's back pocket until needed. Then
between a squad and the full platoon are attached to infantry (we think of it
other way around, usually, but don't say nothing 'coz Infantrymen have fragile
egos, as can be seen by the amount of time they spend grunting, shouting, and
insulting everyone else in
order to build up their own self-esteem[1]) companies or platoons for
whatever mission is required. What you're describing is a mission for which a
squad of engineers would easily be along to do the real work while the
Infantry hung around looking pretty, if there was reason to believe there was
some sort of obstacle in place.
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> For modern U.S. Army a engineer squad is usually attached to a
*Does math in head* (See! Real Engineer. Infantrymen do math on toes, so I've
heard. Never actually seen one do math) That would make for a whole company in
a division. What exactally are they doing out there in the 82nd?
> time). As a platoon leader I was lucky to see on drive by. As a
*Shrug* I guess those Airborne Engineers have better union representatives
than we do. I've done exercises with a squad operating in support of a company
or even platoon many times before.
What the hell do you do with 3 Engineers? That's enough to hold classes which
will, if you take two days doing it, make Infantry almost competent to carry
explosives without blowing themselves up.
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> Well, I've been in the situation of our platoon providing protection
Good call. Don't listen to damnfool. He's stupid 'coz is 2LT, and stupid 'coz
is Infantry. Definitely don't listen to. Do own thing on own time and explain
to Infantry how things will be done and what he should be doing. If 2LT has
problems taking directions from Engineer NCO, FUBID him. (Seen it done)
We had a brief thread a few weeks back discussing combat engineers and
assault pioneers. To recap - assault pioneers in the British and Brit.
descended armies (ie Canada, Australia, etc.) are attached as a permanent part
of the infantry battalion, and provide some of the services that combat
engineers provide. Combat engineers are trained to do the whole
deal - NBC decontam., obstacle construction / destruction, demolitions,
mine clearance, etc etc. Assault pioneers are trained to provide the services
that an infantry unit is likely to need in combat quickly, like mine
clearance. They can do some of the more complex work (have the training) but
don't have any heavy engineering equipment. The point of assault pioneers is
to provide the infantry battalion with this kind of support without having to
rely on getting tasking from the Brigade's engineer unit. The type of mission
you describe, with an infantry platoon providing security for a squad of
engineers clearing booby traps, mines, etc. is exactly the sort of mission
that would be tasked to the assault pioneers of a battalion.
Either way, with pioneers or engineers, there's no problem with a squad being
attached to a platoon for route recon. Only real difference between the two,
as far as game terms go, is that it is reasonable for an assault pioneer squad
to be put under the command of the infantry platoon leader (since they are
both part of the same parent unit), while if it was a squad
of engineers, they would be placed in support of the infantry -
different status of command. In the game, your assault pioneers could be
reactivated by the infantry platoon leader, while engineers would not.
Adrian
> Well, I've been in the situation of our platoon providing protection
I
> plan to attach a squad of engineers to deal with mines, booby traps, or
> Either way, with pioneers or engineers, there's no problem with a
For sure! I think in the Canadian Army, armoured recce units have an
Assault Troop attached to each recce Squadron - ok, that's Assault
Platoon attached to each recce Company for you US types :-) The
Assault Troop's role is to provide integral dismounted infantry support to the
recce units as needed, but particularly they are trained to do things like
mine clearing, etc. etc. - again so the capability is integral to the
recce unit, so the recce team leader can call on this trained capability from
his immediate superior, and not need to dig it up from higher up the chain of
command, or, force his mounted recce crews to dismount to clear mines, etc.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Either way, with pioneers or engineers, there's no problem with a
Just a note. If all you want to do is route reconnasaince, that's a function
that can be done by your recon types. In particular mech recon spends much
time performingthis function, including measuring gradients, soil content and
all that other crap. No need to waste an engineer squad on it.
> Brian Burger wrote:
> Sorry, but "FUBID"?
F**k You Buddy, I'm Detached.
Should by FYBID, by how do you pronounce?
Means "I'm not in you chain of command, and you're dumb enough to get us all
killed, so we're going to find something more important to do than walk into
machine fire for you."
> When doing graphical representation of military units (using NATO
So
> does the HQ unit get tagged as a squad (by the # of troopers in it) or
Level of command. So BDE HQ has an X, Coy HQ has an I, and PLT HQ has ooo.
> When doing graphical representation of military units (using NATO
So
> does the HQ unit get tagged as a squad (by the # of troopers in it) or
Actually the convention is to place a unit symbol and then from the left hand
edge a vertical line runs down and then straight to the location of the HQ.
This then makes it look like a flag of teh unit size. eg infantry Bn HQ would
be a rectangle with diagonal lines inside, unit size is two small "horns" top
centre on the box and a small "flagpole" on the left hand side which bends and
points to the HQ actual location.
Thanks for the comments. I especially like the suggestion that the engineers
do not take activation from the infantry platoon leader.
My concept for the scenario is that the road is indeed mined, and a rear guard
has been left to cover it (after all, what good is a mine field that is not
covered?). I am thinking one or two squads possibly with mortars on dedicated
call. Any comments on the size and composition of the covering force either in
real tactical or game terms?
In a message dated 98-12-01 01:33:35 EST, you write:
> << Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> For modern U.S. Army a engineer squad is usually attached to a
*Does math in head* (See! Real Engineer. Infantrymen do math on toes, so I've
heard. Never actually seen one do math) That would make for a whole company in
a division. What exactally are they doing out there in the 82nd? <
Your forgetting that a Division also has more than 3 line brigades. The
engineers are also assisting the division support command (at least a brigade
sized outfit) and the divisions organic assets (aviation, signal, etc). Don't
forget division HQ. You wouldn't want the division staff to build their own
defenses, would you? Most of the assets were actually held by the brigade
commander/operations
officer or Division ADCO who were had the engineers constructing obstacles
throughout the commands area of resposibility.
> time). As a platoon leader I was lucky to see on drive by. As a
*Shrug* I guess those Airborne Engineers have better union representatives
than we do. I've done exercises with a squad operating in support of a company
or even platoon many times before.
What the hell do you do with 3 Engineers? That's enough to hold classes which
will, if you take two days doing it, make Infantry almost competent to carry
explosives without blowing themselves up.
John M. Atkinson<
The Engineers were usually just enough to for a commitee and decide to wander
off and get lost. When they were around they usually carried enough extra
equipment to build rope bridges, blow away some small obstacles, etc.
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Remember that a screen/delaying force MUST NOT become decisively
Interesting point. In SG2, on table leaders tend to operate almost in a
command vaccuum.... they tend to never call off board to provide higher
command with sitreps or ask for orders. So an SG2 advance could be much
quicker (plus you have the advantage of knowing how many enemy are ahead and
when they start to withdraw). This might actually be hard to simulate without
some missing restrictions on the advancing force. (ie must call in any enemy
sightings immediately, maybe ambushers use hidden placement and player must
recce enemy hidden units via spot actions and then have on table command call
it in... and then maybe a delay to get instructions from higher level command
while they guess at whether the attack is actually part of a larger force or a
small screening unit).
> Two squads with two SAW each, no GMS or PPG but perhaps 1d4 IAVR per
Maybe a sniper? This kind of 'slow-em-down' mission could be well
executed by two squads with a two man (or one man) sniper team attached. (two
man would have a spotter). This kind of use of snipers and small screening
forces has halted more than one company advance..... for far longer than the
unit size might indicate... because they retreat, break contact, ambush,
repeat.... and that means you take losses as the advancing force and have to
slow down to minize them.
Actually, the book Lieutenant by Rick Shelly (a new publication I believe)
follows a situation similar to this. It also highlights some of the fine
points of electronic warfare (particularly when they use their helmet
electronics such as radios and when they revert to hand signals to avoid EW
detection). Excellent series of books (the first two anyway) for anyone
playing SG2.
/************************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 98-12-01 22:40:22 EST, you write:
<< Thanks for the comments. I especially like the suggestion that the
engineers do not take activation from the infantry platoon leader.<
Just to clarify- the engineers would take orders from the platoon leader
if they wer ATTACHED to the platoon for operations. They don't need to be. In
fact its possible that the infantry is attached to the engineers for security.
> [quoted text omitted]
My concept for the scenario is that the road is indeed mined, and a rear guard
has been left to cover it (after all, what good is a mine field that is not
covered?). I am thinking one or two squads possibly with mortars on dedicated
call. Any comments on the size and composition of the covering force either in
real tactical or game terms?
> [quoted text omitted]
In real terms you should decide who the covering force is covering for and how
much force you need to finish the mission (how defensible is the terrain and
do you expect the squads to withdraw under pressure or DIP). Its very likely
the defenders will get all the artillery the withdrawing force has dedicated.
Two squads + engineers (+ foward observers) verses two platoons of
attackers could be a good scenario. You'll need to decide under what
conditions the defenders get to withdraw (or even if!)?
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Wandering off is valid Engineer activity. They're really playing
I beg to differ. 24Q and 24T (Air defense radar mechs, 24Q being a "dead" MOS)
are also tested on spades as part of the SQT.
At least when I was in....
;-)
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> Your forgetting that a Division also has more than 3 line brigades.
The
> engineers are also assisting the division support command (at least a
Hrm... that nonsense should be taken care of by the batallion that
gets attached from Corps assets (in normal wartime situation--in
peacetime exercises, usually doesn't, so...). If your 12Bs are digging holes,
they are being misused. That's what all those SEEs up in the BN HHC are for,
dammit. And the 82nd has a whole independant heavy junk company ("The Nasty")
for that also.
> The Engineers were usually just enough to for a commitee and decide to
Wandering off is valid Engineer activity. They're really playing spades.
They'll come back when chow is served. Only MOS where playing spades is
testable skill.:)
> Mike Looney - ionet wrote:
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
The only spades we're tested on in the infnatry is the kind with the sharpened
edge which we bury into your brain housing unit when you start talking smart
to us.
In a message dated 98-12-02 08:23:47 EST, you write:
<< > Your forgetting that a Division also has more than 3 line brigades. The
> engineers are also assisting the division support command (at least a
Don't
> forget division HQ. You wouldn't want the division staff to build
I forgot to mention Divarty. Wouldn't want to leave out the redlegs.
> Hrm. . . that nonsense should be taken care of by the batallion that
It was amazing how much vehicular crap there was to dig at a "light" division
HQ. The army has always used handy engineer assets to dig in quickly. Division
12s had some type of spade vehicle that was usually commited to building and
tearing down dirt obstacles on roads into the AO. Bragg also had corp level
engineers and an engineer group on post. I have no idea what kept those guys
employed.
> The Engineers were usually just enough to for a commitee and decide
Wandering off is valid Engineer activity. They're really playing spades.
They'll come back when chow is served. Only MOS where playing spades is
testable skill.:)
John M. Atkinson<
> Mike Looney - ionet wrote:
> I beg to differ. 24Q and 24T (Air defense radar mechs, 24Q being a
OK, 12B is only combat arms MOS which tests on spades.
> Los wrote:
> The only spades we're tested on in the infnatry is the kind with the
Infantry definition of "talking smart" = "Any word with more than two
syllables"
(At least I can spell my branch:P)
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Mike Looney - ionet wrote:
Well, some people think Air Defense Artillery IS a combat arm. The
24 series folk are site mechs. In the case of 24T, they are also the people
that push the fire button on a Patriot system.
To drift back on topic, (and to open a long going thread from long ago), in
DSII how do you represent a long range ADA assets? In this case we are talking
something that has a range that would put it off the table, but is capable of
hitting both ballistic missiles and air craft flying
at any thing above nape of earth height. If we can do that now, with a
Patriot system, I must assume that it's doable in the future.
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> It was amazing how much vehicular crap there was to dig at a "light"
division
> HQ. The army has always used handy engineer assets to dig in quickly.
Sounds like a SEE--Small Emplacement Excavator. Sort of like a backhoe
mated to a light truck. Among other odds and ends.
> Mike Looney - ionet wrote:
> Well, some people think Air Defense Artillery IS a combat arm. The
Nah. If you don't get shot at, it's not a combat arm. I'll conceede the
Stinger teams in maneuver batallions are pretty much combat units, sorta. But
if there's women in the MOS (In US Army, Canadians have female tankers, so
I've heard), it must not be combat. 11, 12, 13, 18,
and 19-series MOSes. (For non-'Mericans, that's Infantry, Combat
Engineering, Artillery, Special Forces, and Armor, including Cav Scouts.)
> To drift back on topic, (and to open a long going thread from long
I put some Laser and Missle ADS rules up on my home page, but that's
still tactical-level stuff.
For the rear echelon types which can reach out and touch someone from a couple
dozen klicks back, my first inclination is to steal a mechanic
from Stargrunt--they have Air Defense levels modelled by a few dice
rolls, since there would almost always be ADA assets or air superiority
aircraft which would influence air operations on a Stargrunt table, but
they would almost never be shown on-board.
> Infantry definition of "talking smart" = "Any word with more than two
Hey, as long as I can spell things like M16, M60, M203, I can do my job.
In fact, I don't have to write them, just be able to read them if necessary.
Oh, that and adding and subtracting numbers up to 360 degrees...
Seriously, though, while I'm not familiar with EVERY branch's SQT
requirements, I'll wager that the modern Infantryman's has more skills he has
to know than most branches. And more serious consequences for not knowing
them. Any takers?
I don't suppose there's any hope on the horizon that these "Engineers are the
greatest! Engineers are the greatest!" rants will die down anytime
soon.......
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Not really--Engineers have pretty much the same skill set as infantry,
> Colfox wrote:
> Seriously, though, while I'm not familiar with EVERY branch's SQT
Not really--Engineers have pretty much the same skill set as infantry,
plus all the demolitions, combat construction, engineer reconaissance, etc.
Plus all those damn breaching drills.
And as for serious consequences, Engineers consistently rack up a higher
percentage of casualties and major decorations than the line batallions in
their divisions.
Plus spades.:)
> Los wrote:
I'd respond, but that would be a "EATG" rant, wouldn't it?
Or how about the Intel geek that missed the importance of that "almost"
missile looking thing parked there next to the van looking thing. We all got
important jobs. We all need skills to get those jobs done. So please no more
of the "my dad can beat up your dad" discussions.
That Chuk Guy
PS and anyways everyone knows the the Comm. Maintenance troops are what holds
everything together.:)
> Actually, I just knee-jerked. The point was that there are a lot of
Actually, I just knee-jerked. The point was that there are a lot of
MOSes which require a complex mix of skills (try Cav Scouts on for
size--those guys do, more or less, everything) under a great deal of
pressure. Sure, infantry get shot at, but their biggest risk on the way to a
fight is a blister. Aviation types could get flown into a hill if their pilot
is having a bad week. Yeah, we all exist to get the maneuver elements
(infantry and armor) to the right place in good enough condition to have a
decisive effect. But to say that pure gunbunnies have more skills with worse
consequences for failure is to overstate the
case. Hell, even rear-echelon types aren't perfectly safe--even seen an
infuriated colonel holding a "discussion" with the REMF who fouled up his pay?
Thanks for the acknowledgement. Having been a 19D, and a 19D BNCOC grad, there
is not much Scouts don't do. Being an Armor officer (Cavalry Specialty) for 13
years (active and reserve) there is not much that I have not seen or been
called to do in the area of Combined Arms, and even Combat Service Support.
Michael Brown Who has @18 drills to go.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 12:15 AM 12/4/98 -0800, John M. Atkinson wrote:
My thinking is that specialty units like Engineers, Corpsmen, EWs, etc. should
shift their Quality Die down by one for combat skills like shooting. This
reflects that while they are trained to use their weapons, they don't
get as much time on the shooting range as their infantry counter-parts.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
Phillip spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> My thinking is that specialty units like Engineers, Corpsmen,
Better that than a quality loss since they are still good units. And yes, I
have seen people accuse infantry regs of doing nothing but lying in the sun
shooting all summer instead of doing real work.... and that does make one a
better shot if one has a good coach.
/************************************************
Oh dear we never give up do we. Is this going to be another "engineers are
better than infantry" thread??
I like his approach of lumping all the non infantry types into a modified
range bands for fire combat whilst leaving the troop quality as is for all
other apsects. His argument seems reasonable; that is that in a Regular Army
organisation specialty units are unlikely to spend as much time on the range
as an infantry soldier. Certainly in the Brit and Australian armies the
Infantry Bn training allocation of ammunition is considerably more than any
other units.
> My thinking is that specialty units like Engineers, Corpsmen,
EW weenies, presuming they are the spiritual descendants of today's commo
weenies (not the platoon RTO, but the dimwit assigned down from HHC to fix the
radios) should get this. Corpsmen (we call them Medics),
definitely yes--most of them are carrying a pistol anyway. Engineers?
Depends on type. Combat Engineers, no. As good as or better than
average infantry at this stuff. Other Engineers (The bulldozer-driving
type, aka "Heavy Junk" for instance. Or firefighting companies, or
generator units, or masonry/carpentry specialists), sure. Same as file
clerks, staff officers, and the other "odds and sods" you might see issued
weapons, formed into ad hoc organizations, and sent in to plug the holes when
disaster is impending.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > My thinking is that specialty units like Engineers,
> Depends on type. Combat Engineers, no. As good as or better than
Okay John, please 'splain this to me. We have the following assumptions: 1)
Everyone trains for roughly the same amount of time 2) How you break up your
training controls how good you are at anything
> From this, we have the following additional thoughts
So, if you have the same amount of time, how are you as good? Answer, you
probably aren't. Maybe locally due to some strangeness, your unit may be
better than its infantry compatriots. But on the larger scheme of things, I
highly doubt you'd be as good as some of the units I've seen in the CF....
because all they seem to do ALL SUMMER was lie on their belies in the sun on
the range and shoot. You put that many thousand rounds through your guns and
you get good, if you've got any kind of a Small Arms Coach at all. I don't
think I've ever seen Engineers win one of our infantry competitions... but
then I've never seen an Infanteer capable of doing what the engineers can
either. It may be only my limited experience and common logic that keeps me
from appreciating why Combat Engineers, with more things to learn and more
demands on their time, are as good at things like marksmanship as
infantrymen.... in that case... please expose the flaws in my thinking. I am
interested.
(And this is, again for the record, not a shot at engineers. They do a very
tough job pretty well. But they are Engineers. If they were not, they wouldn't
wear the flaming hand greandes! They'd be wearing rifles or swords and then
they'd be called Infantry!)
/************************************************