The Infantry Brigade Combat team is, by definition, a light organization. Never is that more apparent to its soldiers than on the lead edge of the battlefield, defending against an Arianin armored thrust. This is the point, in time and space, where soldiers rue the fact that “light” fighters, are also “light” on engineers and their heavy equipment. Whether the defense at the battalion-level fails or holds usually boils down to one person, the Task Force Engineer (TF ENG).
The Decisive Action Training Environment (DATE) requires Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to examine the integration and implementation of combat engineering within their formation. The role of the TF ENG in the maneuver battalion’s operations grows significantly in DATE. FM 3-34.22 outlines what engineer officers are expected to do to contribute to the commands they serve. In Chapter 3 Paragraph 22 it states:
“The staff assigned to the BCT and above includes many engineers in various sections and cells. One of these engineers, typically the senior engineer officer on staff, is designated as the engineer staff officer to advise the commander and assist in exercising control over engineer forces in the area of operations. The engineer staff officer is responsible for coordinating engineer assets and operations for the command. Although there may be more than one engineer officer on a staff, only one is designated as the engineer staff officer for the command. Each echelon, down to the BCT level, has an organic engineer planner and staff element to integrate engineers into the combined arms fight. The task force and company levels may have a designated engineer planner, but the engineer is not typically organic at these echelons.”
This chapter goes on to raise leading questions for teams to consider. It also recommends who should serve in this capacity.
Critical to TF ENG integration into the supported maneuver battalion is choosing the correct engineer leader to fill the role. At the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) we have seen four approaches to filling the TF ENG billet: Platoon leader (PL) as TF ENG, company commander (CO) as TF ENG, Company Executive Officer (XO) and Operations NCO as TF ENG, and KD-complete Lieutenant as TF ENG. We recommend that Infantry BCTs, whenever possible, utilize KD-complete LTs as TF ENGs, and when this is not possible to use the XOs and Ops NCOs as TF ENGs.
This paper will focus on four different approaches to fulfilling the TF ENG Role within the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). To this end a few contextual items must be covered. First, the three infantry battalion model used by forces outside of the Pacific Command area of operations will be the model used for this discussion, as this model presents the most challenges and is most common. This is necessary, since there are only two line combat engineer companies in the BEB. Second, we will assume that the typical engineer package attached to infantry battalions in this model will consist of: an engineer CO HQ, one Sapper PLT, and one Light Equipment PLT. This means that each infantry battalion is aligned with the assets needed for battalion level Mobility, Countermobility, and survivability. Additionally we will assume that maneuver battalions have operational control (OPCON) of all attached engineer forces. The discussion will highlight some advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Based on CTC realities, the echelon above Brigade (EAB) engineer company or a conglomeration from the BEB line engineer companies supports the third infantry battalion in most cases. This is a critical point of discussion, and is worth discussing as background. The average BCT has three maneuver battalions and a cavalry squadron but is currently served by only two organic sapper companies. A clean task organization of one company to each of the infantry battalions is therefore prevented by design. To offset this shortfall, Forces Command habitually aligns EAB assets to augment the organic BCT. Understanding that until the brigade culminating training event, or a CTC rotation the EAB engineer assets are unavailable, some IBCTs choose to take a novel approach with their organic assets. In addition to using their sapper platoon leaders to enable the three rifle battalions in the BCT, some units use their other platoon leaders to enable the remaining battalions.
When a BEB supports the cavalry squadron they usually assign the role to their route clearance PL. Additionally, the two light equipment PLs are aligned against the fires battalion and the brigade support battalion. These garrison relationships allow the BEB to spread influence and expertise throughout the brigade combat team. This sets the table for the BCT CTE or CTC rotation when the EAB assets aligned by FORSCOM finally materialize in the fight.
In practice, the modified task organization of a BEB usually consists of an engineer support company (think blades and equipment) and a combat engineer or sapper company. These elements are rarely on the same training cycle, and often are not integrated into the BCTs operational approach until the brigade culminating training event, and sometimes at JRTC. The difference in organic BEB task organization and an example of augmented task organization is depicted below. This places increased importance on the role of the TF ENG, who will be the intermediary between this new element and the command it supports. This problem is offset in Armored BCTs with an assigned staff engineer organic to the headquarters, a model we recommend replicating with the use of KD complete engineer lieutenants, where possible.
Platoon Leader as Task Force Engineer
The most common approach taken by IBCTs is to use the habitually aligned engineer PL as the TF ENG. This approach has the advantage of simplicity and repetition. The PL and his Platoon Sergeant (PSG) have likely been a part of the supported battalion’s training cycle, to include staff exercises, life fire iterations and other field training. The PL, if integrated early and often, understands how the staff works, has several reps under his belt, and likely understands the personalities of the Battalion S3 and XO. This approach is not without its disadvantages, however.
The PL often struggles with balancing platoon responsibilities and the work required in the BN CP because of a lack of institutional and on the job experience. Concurrently, the PL also has a much shallower base of knowledge on the engineer force outside of his company, and may need assistance and coaching from a senior engineer to fully enable the integration of external enablers. Finally, unless practiced, leads to a significant amount of friction between the engineer CO and the PL when a company or larger element is attached to the maneuver battalion in addition to the habitually aligned platoon.
Company Commander as Task Force Engineer
At the beginning of a brigade culminating training exercise (CTE) and especially at a CTC rotation, IBCTs will often make a task organization change and OPCON an entire engineer company to each of the infantry battalions. When this happens the engineer CO often takes over the role of TF ENG. The benefits of using the engineer CO as the TF ENG center on his additional experience and the assets at his disposal. The CO has been institutionally and experientially trained to understand and advise on the implementation of engineer forces at the company level.
Additionally, the CO likely has more training in the MDMP process and has likely served as a staff primary or AS3 prior to taking command. As such, he is uniquely suited to provide excellent recommendations and strong contributions to the staff work, despite his lack of repetitions with the maneuver battalion staff. The CO also has his XO, 1SG, and HQ to mitigate the competing demands of day to day company operations. Conversely, since engineer COs must spend time in the supported maneuver battalion CP, they are constrained in their ability to influence and command the company.
With this method, the CO will not have as much time to supervise actions at the decisive point applying his expert eye to the seams of engagement areas and supervising rehearsals. Finally, if the CO is tasked with TF ENG work, it is difficult for his or her company to serve as a separate company to execute missions in support of the infantry battalion. A company commander fully supporting BN MDMP will also likely be largely absent from company TLPs.
XO and OPS NCO as Task Force Engineer
Similar to the engineer CO serving as the TF ENG when an engineer company is OPCON to an infantry battalion, Engineer Company XOs and OPS NCOs can serve as the TF ENG. This approach allows the CO to remain focused solely on the job of commanding his company, and allows his most experienced LT and Ops NCO to fill the staff role as TF ENG. This model allows the XO and Ops NCO to split time between the battalion and company CPs, the latter of which must be co-located with the infantry battalion CP. This approach mitigates the risk of losing either one of the two personnel, since it is two people splitting the role, and the CO and 1SG can reinforce them either in the battalion CP or executing company duties with little trouble.
This method empowers the CO to utilize his most trusted LT to advise the infantry battalion commander, while maintaining freedom of movement to be at the decisive point of an operation, or any friction points that arise. He is also able to supervise more, something that he would be constrained from doing if he was serving as the primary TF ENG. The disadvantages to this approach are largely offset by sharing of labor. The XO and Ops NCO serve critical roles in the company’s day to day operations, but by sharing TF ENG duty they can fulfill their TF ENG and company duties with little extra friction. This method also frees up the platoon HQs to execute independent operations. Finally, if needed, the light equipment platoon leader can assist with the XOs duties, due to their usual co-location with the Company CP.
Post-KD LT as Task Force Engineer
The final method we will discuss is the utilization of KD-complete engineer lieutenants to serve as TF ENGs. This method assumes that there are at least three LTs that have served their time as Sapper or Light Equipment PLs and the BEB CDR opts to utilize them as TF ENGs instead of assistant staff officers within the BEB. Under this approach, KD complete LTs are attached permanently to the infantry battalion, and are assigned to them throughout their time in the billet. This method provides the infantry battalion with an experienced and dedicated engineer leader who can execute all training and operations with the battalion.
This also allows the infantry battalion to utilize its engineer attachments with less risk, since no key leaders are removed from the engineer company to fill staff functions. It can also be assumed that post-KD lieutenants chosen to serve as the TF ENGs will have experience within the IBCT at a minimum, and in most cases will have significant experience with their newly assigned infantry battalion. The disadvantages of this approach are the potential synchronization issues between the TF ENG and the attached engineer element, and a possible conflict between the maneuver battalion staff officer, the TF ENG, and the engineer commander regarding orders and directions to engineer units. These challenges can be alleviated by programmed touchpoints and utilization of the orders process to deliver tasking and missions.
Comparison Chart
Training and Building Redundancy
Regardless of which approach a BEB uses, some underlying principles emerge as best practices. Leaders must agree upon the approach early in the training cycle, ideally before squad live fires are set in stone. An early decision guarantees that personnel filling the TF ENG role execute several training iterations prior to a BDE CTE. If the BEB chooses the company commander to serve as TF ENG, depth must be built on the maneuver staff. This is important to offset the time and attention constraints that will be imposed upon the company commander.
As a best practice, the BEB task organizes assets to the maneuver battalions. When this is not possible, given the tactical situation or the BCT CDR’s intent, our analysis holds true. When units don’t task organize engineer assets directly to maneuver, it is even more important to ensure TF ENGs are in the maneuver AO. In these cases, the maneuver BN HQ, and the BEB HQ must establish battle rhythm touchpoints, and understand how and when to communicate across staff and command channels.
Maneuver staffs that wish to function well will identify and adhere to a structured battle rhythm. Shaping questions should include: when does the operations cell require the TF ENG for MDMP, RDSP, and daily operations? This responsibility falls upon the Operations Officer to decide and communicate his requirements to the TF ENG. Unless the unit operates under the Post-KD LT approach.
The Case for Post-KD LTs
BEBs build flexibility by employing Post-KD LTs as the TF ENG. ABCTs utilize a full time staff engineer officer, usually a pre command Captain, to fill the role which allows the BCT to task organize its engineer assets in more responsive and practical command support relationships. The ABCT can do this without losing continuity on the staff, since the battalion has its own TF ENG. A BEB using Post-KD LTs enables BCT operations by allowing dynamic task organization without degrading CP operations.
The TF ENG role can be successful, with agreed upon roles and responsibilities, rehearsals, and refinement. If all options are available, utilizing post-KD Lieutenant to serve as TF ENG for the infantry battalions is an ideal approach. Dedicating a full time engineer officer to the battalions within the IBCT enables not only the infantry and maneuver force, but the BEB by ensuring trusted liaisons are present throughout the planning and operations processes.
–
IBCT’s employing the Post-KD LT approach to Task Force Engineering build the most flexibility and balance into their formation. The presence of a seasoned engineer in a maneuver CP allows an unparalleled freedom of maneuver and decision making to commanders throughout the IBCT. IBCT’s that select, train, and execute a deliberate TF ENG plan are successful. Their success stems from getting the right leader, in the right spot, to advise or make a decision. Essayons!
Subscribe to The Company Leader!