Do Combat Engineers do any work with the PRT?

[Mike12]

Hello,

The question is essentially in the title of the forum. Essentially I graduate next April (2008) with an undergraduate Engineering degree (Mechanical), and I would like to pursue a career that involves some aspect of work with reconstruction projects. I believe the only two trades that potentially relate are Combat Engineering, and Airfield Engineer. I am leaning towards going for the Combat Engineer position because it seems more hands on, but I have not been able to find any reference to them doing any work with in reconstruction while there are some references to the Airfield Engineers working in that field. I just need to figure out which is more suitable to the place I eventually hope to end up.

Thanks for clearing this up and your help, I've looked everywhere I can think of.

Mike

 

[McG]

Not counting engineers that were providing close support to the infantry in Camp Nathan Smith, there was one Army Engr officer that was part of the PRT organization.  His job was to provide the Engr input to reconstruction activities, but during my tour he seemed to slide himself over into camp improvements officer (not that this was not also important, but it should not have been his focus).

A lot has changed since I was last there (tanks, more infantry, etc) and I don't know if this position is now being used as it should have been or if the position even still exists.

 

[McG]

I will add that the Battle Group owns most of the Combat Engineers in country.  If the PRT finds a task that is suited to the BG Engineers, then the BG Engineers may get the task.  During my time we built two bridges & a small road.  Most of our work was to support the BG though.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Hello,

The question is essentially in the title of the forum. Essentially I graduate next April (2008) with an undergraduate Engineering degree (Mechanical), and I would like to pursue a career that involves some aspect of work with reconstruction projects. I believe the only two trades that potentially relate are Combat Engineering, and Airfield Engineer. I am leaning towards going for the Combat Engineer position because it seems more hands on, but I have not been able to find any reference to them doing any work with in reconstruction while there are some references to the Airfield Engineers working in that field. I just need to figure out which is more suitable to the place I eventually hope to end up.

Thanks for clearing this up and your help, I've looked everywhere I can think of.

Mike

Unless the regiments have changed greatly in the past few years, as an officer in either side of the house you won't be "hands on".  That's what guys like me were for, so you didn't have to.  The officers have enough to do on their own without getting caught up in the actual manual labour end of things.

For the more sensitive types, this was not an officer slag.  Horses for courses and all that, eh wot?

 

[Sapper6]

Mike12,

Whew!  First of all, your desire is both broad and narrow at the same time.  Your desire to do "reconstruction project" type work is honourable on many different levels.  However, I must caution you that joining the Canadian Military Engineers (CME) does not mean you will only be doing such work.  Whether you become an Army Engineer officer or an Air Field Engineer officer, your role will remain as: assisting friendly forces to live, move and fight, while denying the same to the threat.  That being said, under the federal government's defence policy statement (2005) there is a move afoot to integrate diplomacy, defence and development.  To that end, the CF is being called on to assist in "reconstruction projects" more so than ever before.

With respect to Engineers doing "reconstruction work" with the PRT in Afghanistan, I can tell you that based on a briefing I received from the last PRT Comd (LCol Heatherington) two weeks ago, he said the work being done by a Specialist Engineering Team (SET) was outstanding.  The former PRT Comd also said that it must be understood by all that Canada's role and thereby, the CF's, is to "facilitate" the Afghan government in doing their own reconstruction.  Essentially, they must own the issue and therefore, choose why, where, when and how a project will be done.

So, conclusions that can be drawn from this discussion are as follows:

• The SET is comprised of officers and SrNCMs from 1 Engineer Support Unit (1 ESU) Moncton.  There are both Army Engineers and AF Engineers in the SET.  After you have completed your initial training you can ask to go to 1 ESU; however, they generally like their officers to have a Master's degree in Engineering and be P Eng qualified (don't worry about these last two requirements as the CF will often "sponsor" you to go off and get this advanced training after you are Basice Engineer Officer qualified and have served one tour in a unit).
• It may be difficult if you set your dreams on a narrow focus of becoming an Engineer officer, in order to be posted to 1 ESU, in order to get on a SET, in order to get to Afghanistan, in order to work on reconstruction projects - within the next 2-3 years.  Instead, I would suggest that you join the CF with more general goals (i.e. believe in serving your country) first, with a view to narrowing your focus as you go along.  I say this not to discourage you, but to give you a more realistic expectation so that you are not dissapointed if things don't happen "exactly" how you had envisioned them

Bottom line is that we need young men and women to join the CME to be military engineers.  In my opinion, there will be opportunities to work overseas for the foreseeable future.  It may not be Afghanistan by the time you are trained; however, it could be some other place, like Africa.  Who knows?  In the end, you can't get on a tour/mission without being qualified and that takes a couple of years.  The sooner you start, the sooner you will be ready for whatever conflict the CF gets involved in.

This is only my advice.  I encourage you to continue speaking to others.

S6.

 

[Mike12]

You guys are a wealth of knowledge, and know so much more about this than any recruiter I have managed to corner so far. Thanks for that, and your honesty.

SET sounds like the team that I assumed existed, but could not find any proof of. It is something that I would definitely have an interest in being a part of at some point in my career. However, I wouldn't be considering the forces if I wasn't willing to undertake/think I would enjoy all the other aspects of the career. And I am definitely willing to put the time in that would be necessary to gain all the necessary prerequisites and experience. I don't expect to just get what I want without working for it, or being qualified  . (You don't really learn a whole lot in University anyways, outside of the theory)

Anyways, I hope to at least start my career closer to the front of the action, so that if I decided to stay with the forces for the long haul, I would always have that reference to guide me later on. In that sense, in your opinion, would I get a broader wealth of useful experiences as a Combat Engineer vs. an Air Field engineer? And if I joined and decided that I still wanted to pursue working on teams similar to the SET team, is one trade much more prevalent/applicable, or are they both very similar?

Thanks again,
Mike

 

[McG]

would I get a broader wealth of useful experiences as a Combat Engineer vs. an Air Field engineer?

It really depends on what you want to do.  I like the Army side, but that just may be my bias.

The Air side is more focused on traditional construction tasks, but there is plenty of room for this on the Army side as well.  If you were to choose Army, you could request a construction troop command (most of your peers will be asking for a field troop).  During your first regimental tour (which likely will include at least one operational deployment) you should let your CO & career manager know that you are interested in going to 1 ESU.

The Engineers have a lot of opportunities to offer, so don't be surprised if you find some entirely different career direction that interests you.  I'd suggest you do a little background investigation into the two sides to decide which interests you the most.

 

[Jed]

Well said Sapper6. Mike12, Sounds like you have a go Army or go Air Force choice. Army is the more aggressive course which is great when you are young and eager and this course of action will fully develop your dynamic leadership potential. The Air Force route will give you better skills for transitioning back into a civilian engineering environment when you are older. Either course of action is excellent and you probably need to get some time in (TI) before you can accurately make the call.

Jed

 

[Sapper6]

...However, I wouldn't be considering the forces if I wasn't willing to undertake/think I would enjoy all the other aspects of the career. And I am definitely willing to put the time in that would be necessary to gain all the necessary prerequisites and experience. I don't expect to just get what I want without working for it, or being qualified...
 
Anyways, I hope to at least start my career closer to the front of the action, so that if I decided to stay with the forces for the long haul, I would always have that reference to guide me later on....

Mike

You've got the right attitude!  Having a mid to long range goal of getting on to a SET is OK by me.  We need officers who are smart, fit and highly deployable to work on our SETs.  As far as choosing between ENGR and AF ENGR, that is completely a personal choice.  That being said, I'm partial to the Army (ENGR) as I believe it offers the best of both worlds... so long as you can put up with a bit of hardship living in the great outdoors!

S6.

 

[Spr.Earl]

All Sapper's can go from the combat roll to the support roll i.e P.R.T.
It comes with the job.
We Sapper's may look scruffy but amongst us are many talent's that we come in with from civie st.

My self I'm a Militia Plug but are a 3rd Engineer on the B.C. Fairies
Serving on 32 yrs now in our Miltia and will still serve untill I'm told game over.

Engineering has one un written motto " Adapt and over come and carry on" and all I have known and still know that un written phrase has all way's stood them in good stead and I stand by that un written motto.

UBIQUE

 

[McG]

All Sapper's can go from the combat roll to the support roll i.e P.R.T.

The PRT is not a support role.  The PRT is the mission; it is the heart of reconstruction & developing the Afghan nation.