Posted on Jan 2, 2025
CPT Fccme
17.9K
44
17
22
22
0
The idea is The Military Corps of Engineers will form a separate branch under the Army and all engineer personnel in the branches will be transferred to it. Units to be assigned to other branches as necessary.
Reduce redundancy and increase expertise. Degreed STEM officers only.
Avatar feed
Responses: 15
CPT Lawrence Cable
5
5
0
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.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CAPT Kevin B.
3
3
0
Edited 12 mo ago
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.
(3)
Comment
(0)
LTC James McElreath
LTC James McElreath
11 mo
I agree with your assessment 100%. The engineer assets for each service are so different, it would take forever to get them trained in such a manner to cross service those assets.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
COL President
3
3
0
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.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close