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

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 15:25:34 -0500

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.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Jan 2 at 2025 8:48 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 20:48:10 -0500

Sir, are you suggesting under the Army merely as we have the largest population and legacy presence in the United States? If going joint with such a suggestion, could it not be controlled with a rotational 3 or 4 star command? Both of my cousins were Army Engineers and served in the 80s as LTC's, I hope to get them to join RP and submit opinion.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Jan 3 at 2025 8:06 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 08:06:39 -0500

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.

Response by COL John McClellan made Jan 3 at 2025 8:30 AM

COL John McClellan — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 08:30:20 -0500

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.

Response by LTC Eugene Chu made Jan 3 at 2025 9:52 AM

LTC Eugene Chu — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 09:52:18 -0500

Bad idea for organization. While we are joint at the higher strategic levels, the military still focuses on branch operations at the operational and tactical level. Each branch still has its own aviation, transportation and other positions.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 3 at 2025 12:57 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 12:57:18 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2025 2:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:28:44 -0500

TMDE in the past worked somewhat in this manner. The 95th Maintenance Co. based at RSA took care of CONUS and Alaska with mobile teams. All of Europe Had 3 Companies that covered Europe and Africa. East Asia had had another company sized group based in S Korea. Every Calibrator had no more than 2 degrees of separation between them. It was a close, tight-knit group of soldiers that provided unparalleled Calibration support worldwide. I was part of it 30 years ago and there have been changes since. What I hear at the reunions every year is that the service doesn't work as well now that calibrators coming out of the school are beings assigned to the divisions to be assigned in non Calibration billets. I agree with your idea of consolidation. When everyone is consolidated information can be passed between them that makes everyone's job easier.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2025 2:38 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:38:54 -0500

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

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Jan 3 at 2025 3:17 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 15:17:49 -0500

I can understand the broader idea of consolidating all military engineers under a single command to streamline operations. However, from a practical standpoint, I believe it’s essential for each branch to maintain its own internal engineering capabilities. Each branch has unique needs, operational cultures, and communication styles, so having specialized engineering units tailored to their specific requirements makes sense.

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Jan 3 at 2025 3:21 PM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 15:21:41 -0500

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.

Response by SPC Matthew Malouf made Jan 4 at 2025 2:57 AM

SPC Matthew Malouf — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 02:57:07 -0500

What? This is a coalition of American Forces defending against enemies foreign and domestic. Never ever try and separate combat engineers or any other. They should be attached to proper Divisions upon the approval of the men who hold high places at the
Pentagon. Do your service with focus on your MOS and put a clamp on the rest.
Matthew 5:9. - Blessed are the Peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

Response by LCDR Anthony Craft made Jan 4 at 2025 6:55 AM

LCDR Anthony Craft — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 06:55:00 -0500

Consolidating engineering expertise could streamline things, but losing that embedded engineering knowledge within each branch might be a bigger problem. Think about the unique needs of the Navy vs. the Air Force, a one-size-fits-all engineering corps might not be flexible enough.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Jan 6 at 2025 10:24 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:24:31 -0500

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.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2025 7:11 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jan 2025 19:11:41 -0500

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.