Engineering Regiment Breakdown

[McG]

The example that you are asking about refers to a standard "force employment" model sqn.  This implies that the four sections are complete (however with the promised growth, I've heard that the "force generation" model has grown to include four fd sect per fd tp).  I've attached a picture below that shows the "standard" FE sqn on the left, and the "two half-troop" model on the right.  (I'd be interested on Sapper6 or Chimo's opinion based on their experience with a similar structure for Op APOLLO).

As an aside, I've notice that much of 1 CER's transformation has been done through growth authorized when the SORD (04/05 I think) directed the establishment of an Armd Sqn.  There are now Veh in the unit for that sqn, and I assume additional PYs.  The Engrs have a coherent plan to support Army Transformation (and despite its problems, I think it is the best COA).  When will this plan be articulated in a SORD so that the rest of the Army (and even CF) can get behind it?

 

[Infanteer]

CWO,

When did McG get the promotion? 

 

[Gobsmacked]

MCG,

Thanks for the info and FE diagram, I thought you meant 2 Fd Sect per Half-Tp. 

I believe the Armd Eng Sqn was SORD 2005:
"Engineer Capabilities.  The transformation of Engineer capabilities will continue in FY 05/06.
An additional Engineer Squadron will be established in 1 CER in order to provide heavy mobility and counter mobility support to CMTC and to align a Sqn with the direct fire unit.  In order to build the squadron 22 strategic PY  were allocated as offsets, 20 PY were moved from 2 CER and 14 existing 1 CER Armoured Engineer-related PY were reinvested (56 PYs total).  The AEVs and AVLBs will be concentrated in LFWA in accordance with WFM constructs."

If i got the rank mixed up, well, don't keep on top of that too well - only cardinal Army rule I know is don't call an NCO Sir! 

 

[bilton090]

A squadron is required to support a BG overseas (with on e Fd Tp and one Sp Tp).  If you would like to join that other thread, we can debate that particular issue.  However, you will note that there currently is no consensus in that thread.

Additionally, you cannot reduce the Sp Sqn to a Tp.  The one element you might be able to remove is the construction troop.  However, if you read the consensus of the engineers in this thread, the other Sp Tps are not sustainable if split up.  All of the other Sp Tps provide some degree of Cbt Sp or close Sp.  Assault Mobility Troop is all Cbt Sp.  Resources provides MCM & IEDD (both Cbt Sp).  Hy Eqpt is split in its close support and general support roles, but would not be sustainable below the Tp level.
While your numbers are close, it is not accurate to say that the regiments are â Å“downâ ? to these sizes.  The regiments are capped here.  If the cap were higher, the regiments would be larger.  Your earlier suggestion about an inability to grow is unfounded.

  dropping construction tp is nuts

 

[bilton090]

Alright sappers, I‘ve been trying to figure out how an Engineer Regiement is broken down in terms of organization.  Is it something similar to the infantry with equal breakdowns at all levels, or are sub-units organized around specializations (the odd collection of vehicles you guys have leads me to this idea)  Thanks for any info

Chimo (From a confused grunt)

each eng sec.  10 men, 4sec. per TP + 1 sec H.Q . 2 TP's per Sqn. 2-3 Sqn's per Regt. ( W/ Supt. ellments ).

 

[bilton090]

Thanks.

One more question.  Is there an engineering sub-unit that deals with "other" duties.  When we were in Bihac, we had a whole bunch of engineers come down with excavators, packers, and backhoes to help with camp construction.  Would these guys be attached to RHQ?

No w/ park Tp or Hvy Eqpt Tp

 

[McG]

each eng sec.  10 men, 4sec. per TP + 1 sec H.Q . 2 TP's per Sqn. 2-3 Sqn's per Regt. ( W/ Supt. ellments ).

This standard will not last.  We're in the process of some big changes (some regts more so than others at this point in time). 

 

[bilton090]

The other two troops in the Sp Sqn are armoured troops.  However, with the exception of 4 CER, no regiment has ever had two armoured troops (and 4 CER no longer exists).  Where 20 CER has three Field Squadrons of three troops, real CERs have two squadrons of two troops.

Field Troops & Pioneer Platoons each consisted of four sections, a troop HQ (Tp Comd, Tp WO, Recce, & stores).  Sections were armed the same as a rifle section (with the exception of Eryx) and troops were armed the same as platoons (with the exception of 60 mm mortar).  Pioneer and Engineer section vehicles, small tools, and M&E loads were the same.

    I know 4 E.S.R is not a regiment but rite now we have 2 Tps of m113's mod w/ tur.& 1 Tp of 9 Lav III's, we have the veh's BUT NO people!!!

 

[MaDB0Y_021]

I was looking at the organization of a Combat Eng Reg. and I was wondering what is the difference in term of tasks and all that between a Field Squadron, a Light Squadron, a Support squadron.


Thank you.

 

[Mountie]

I know this thread has been quiet for 6 years, but I have some question about engineers in Afghanistan.

I've recently re-read a few different books surrounding Task Force 1-06 (1 PPCLI BG), Task Force 3-06 (1 RCR BG) and Task Force 1-07 (2 RCR BG) in Kandahar.  In all three cases the battle groups deployed combined arms rifle company groups.  Each book describes that the engineers were divided up equally among the company groups.  There is some references to full troops on some operations and at other times the reference is of "engineer detachments" attached to each company group.  Considering that neither 11 Field Squadron, 23 Field Squadron or 42 Field Squadron deployed with three field engineer troops, how were the engineers attached to the company groups?   

Clearing the Way - the book about 23 Field Squadron in Afghanistan lists the squadron as having two field troops; one with three field sections and one with four and both with an engineer recce detachment.  If there are no more PY's for a third troop and the standard practice is to dish out the field troops to rifle companies then why not break up the two larger troops into three small troops with two field sections each rather than three or four?

 

[McG]

11 Fd Sqn only deployed with one Fd Tp and a Sp Tp.  The squadron regrouped a number of times acording to the tasks it had.  Both Tp HQs spent time in direct support to rifle companies with primarily field sections under command.  I think 1 Tp was usually in support of A Coy while Sp Tp (most of its integral assets detached to the SHQ) supported C Coy, and B Coy usually had a Fd section.  But, there was another time where Sp Tp was centralized with most of its own assets to build FOB Martello.

 

[Teager]

What would the point be of breaking the 2 Troops into 3? It doesn't make more man power which we were short on already hence having the RCDs crew our LAVs.

I can tell you that we would be attached to whomever needed us on a day by day basis including other Forces like the Americans or Brits. For my section we seemed to be dispatched like a police officer would to who needed us most. Later on in the tour things settled down more and sections stayed more attached rather than running all around. In the end the 2 Troops worked but a 3rd Troop with an additional 4 sections or so would have been nice.

 

[Mountie]

https://cmea-agmc.ca/sites/default/files/10.01.veritas_more_engr_ef_0.pdf

Here is an article indicating that 51 Field Engineer Squadron deployed with 3 Field Troops and a support troop.  150 personnel and 50 vehicles.

Each field troop was attached to a rifle company.