Letter To The Editor

Facing the CSS Challenge

In the article "Facing the CSS Challenge" (May 2001 issue of Engineer), the authors concluded that the engineer support element (ESE) is insufficiently resourced and structured to adequately support the engineer battalion. I agree. To add to the argument, combined with the aging of the engineer fleet and the addition of the Wolverine to engineer battalions' modified table of organization and equipment, the ESEs cannot conduct recovery missions and maintain the fleet simultaneously. As experienced during recent field exercises and the division capstone exercise (DCX), recovery has become a full-time mission for the ESE. Also, those soldiers who man the recovery vehicles are too occupied to maintain the vehicles that they are supposed to support. When the vehicles cannot be fixed on-site, they need to be recovered. This results in a backlog of equipment at the unit maintenance-collection points that does not get repaired since the maintainers are still recovering other vehicles. Clearly, there was risk accepted in the ESE design by giving these soldiers dual responsibility, but risk has negatively affected the engineer battalion's ability to perform its mission. To support the engineer battalion, the ESE needs to be redesigned so that recovery and maintenance can occur simultaneously.

MAJ J. Gary Hallinan

U.S. Army TACOM

Warren, Michigan

Engineer School's Reply

Thank you for your comments. During the DCX, the engineer and the Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM,) units, as well as observers, agreed that there were significant problems with the ESE's ability to provide adequate battalions. It received official recognition as an issue to be resolved during the 4th Infantry Division's documentation action review team (DART) conference at Fort Hood, Texas, 21 to 24 May 2001. As a result of this status, TRADOC has directed the Engineer School and CASCOM to answer the following questions:

* What is the minimum number of personnel required to support the engineer battalion--in terms of manpower requirements criteria?

* What is the correct structure for these personnel--platoon, section, or company?

* Who should the parent unit be--forward support battalion or engineer battalion?

When these questions are answered, then the process to change the current design can proceed and a methodology to pay for any increases in personnel can be determined, The Engineer School and (CASCOM have started the process of working together to answer TRADOC's questions.

Mr. Garry N. Hamlet

Force Documentation Analyst

COPYRIGHT 2001 U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group