Should all military engineers consolidate into a separate branch under a Military Corps of Engineers?

Nope. We still need to be part of our respective Services. What a Seabee, Red Horse or Army Engineer does is not the same and they should trained to deal with the problems that arise in their Service. I believe it would diminish the ties that bind us to the job of supporting our Service.

I did 7 years as a Divisional Combat Engineer during the period when the strength of the Engineering went from a Battalion per Division to a Battalion per Brigade. When I started, a Combat Engineer Platoon Leader doubled as a Special Staff Member as the Task Force Engineer. When I left, the Battalion Commander was the Brigade Engineer, although the day to day planning was done by the Assistant Brigade Engineer and the S3. I served as a Platoon Leader/Task Force Engineer, Company Commander, S1 and ABE. If there is one weakness in the training of Engineer Officers, it is that most are not as tactically proficient as their Combat Arms counterparts.. I don't see putting another command in the loop as being a benefit.

The respective Services engineering assets are designed and trained to perform different mission parameters and are what I can describe as having a good critical mass. Although the A schools at Port Hueneme and FT Leonard Wood turn out electricians etc., the mission paths diverge significantly. Stamping out one size fits all creates inefficiencies, hence risks, hence more casualties. You can only hold so much in your brain. Seabees optimize to embed with the Marines. Great question that should be asked every now and then if nothing more to validate. We're not perfect, but mostly there. I remember the days when the decision was to made to make Seabees more seamless in Marine operations. Turns out the first thing was to have the 82mm mortars pulled from the TOA and replaced with 60mm to "standardize" logistics. The result remains somewhat arguable as anyone familiar with the two systems recognize the downgrade in options. Don't worry, when we die out, the issue will be erased from history.

I don't think that's how Title 10 works. The services are responsible for recruiting, retaining, equipping and administering their own service members. There's joint training all over military engineering, but I know of no other "career field" that is jointly managed by one service for all others.

Seems like a bad idea for several reasons. The biggest and easiest would be budget. What would be the gain for this? Seems like unnecessarily adding extra steps to contact engineers that would be local under the local Command. Now you have to coordinate with an outside Command for something that would be handled locally.

"Degreed STEM officers only." Your team leads should be Warrants.

They have tried to do this with medical and had mixed results. FT Sam Houston performs a majority of the medical training for all branches and we see more of other branches in Army hospitals. I rolled out as the Defense Health Agency (DHA). Unless they can get DHA more proficient, I would not recommend it to another corps.

No....each service should have with them a Company with each Brigade or Battalion with a division. Either one should be prepared to do the engineering required of the respective unit they are a part of. With the 82nd, I served with C/307 Eng. 3rd Brigade, Vietnam. The 82nd maintained 3 Brigades on a rotating basis to be prepared to load and be in the air in just a few hours. As that brigade would be in a combat situation as soon as the boots slammed in where we were needed, the Eng. Company would be operating high speed in a fast changing operational situation We didn't go in ready to build so much as destroy a lot. 2nd Tour was with the 25th Inf. Div. They carried a Battalion of Engineers, the 65th. There the jobs were larger and more aligned with a specific Company MOS training. Bridging, heavy equipment, construction and our Company, Delta, supplied total Combat Engineers for in field combat operations with any of the combat units in the Division.. So in the two different units the engineers were used as needed. So no, the Combat Engineers (COMBAT) brigade or Divisional had different responsibilities. In the field, Engineers were like a Swiss army knife. We could be called on to do different jobs when specific "Blades" were pulled up. It was the best MOS in the Army!!!

Nope, granted there will be some overlap, but much of the tactics, expertise and equipment differ from branch to branch.

Sounds like a great idea... until you try to work out how to implement it and operate that way. The net result would be a very small amount of overlap and cross-pollination and massive infighting in the budget process leading to inefficiency in all the services. Separating the officers from their units and chain of command just won't work.

What commonality exists between engineers in the different services is actually more at the enlisted levels -- a carpenter is a carpenter, a bulldozer operator is a bulldozer operator, etc -- but the unit organizations and missions are different.

In theory, it might be possible to consolidate ALL the engineers, but to make it work at all would require moving the consolidated Engineers outside all the existing military services. Sorry, but no one in the real world minds accepts the idea of any of the services being an Honest Broker providing support to each of the other services. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a wonderful concept, but it has never worked.

I can see what you are getting at. We haven't consolidated a supporting function like this in the our military but other countries have made a missile corps as a separate branch from their army. They are able to pull that of due to their independence from their warfighting partners. In our military the engineers support fighting units in a why that requires them to be nested.