Author Topic: Infantry to Combat Engineer  (Read 3310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Frazol

  • Guest
  • *
  • 120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3
Infantry to Combat Engineer
« on: February 27, 2012, 10:20:36 »
Hey guys, I am thinking of changing trades from infantry to combat engineer. When I tell previous instructors or my friends who are infantry that I want to go combat engineer, I always get the same response. It is usually somewhere along the lines of, "why would you want to do that? Combat engineers see more crap than we do." I'm looking for someone to shed some light on this if possible. How accurate is this statement and why? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Offline PanaEng

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 548
Re: Infantry to Combat Engineer
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2012, 14:05:44 »
It depends. What do you define as crap?
:-)
one man's crap is another's fetish...
Now I am SAS or SWAT dude ;-)
see:
Quote from: RHFC_piper ink=topic=51916.msg617784#msg617784 date=1190404708

The 'pana" is a play on the Greek 'pan' meaning 'all' or 'encompassing' - not quite but similar to UBIQUE
some think I just misspelled "para" :-)

Offline PanaEng

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 548
Re: Infantry to Combat Engineer
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2012, 13:46:34 »
I have met a few ppl that have done that. We currently have an Inf Cpl that is just finishing up the RegForce Dp1 course.

The work when on exercise/deployment is most times harder. For the Inf is more routine; the Eng could get many different tasks. When we finish one we usually have several others waiting. We go on an Op with the Inf and when we come back the Inf settles on a sentry/security routine while the Eng get to improve the roads, defences, dig ditches, shitters, shelters, water, electrical, etc.

However, you get to use explosives, many tools, could learn Hvy Equipment, diving, etc. Our areas of the FOB or when we are on our own camps are usually better "pimped up" - when we have time :-)
Hope that helps (some ppl may disagree but that's how I see it)

Chimo!
Now I am SAS or SWAT dude ;-)
see:
Quote from: RHFC_piper ink=topic=51916.msg617784#msg617784 date=1190404708

The 'pana" is a play on the Greek 'pan' meaning 'all' or 'encompassing' - not quite but similar to UBIQUE
some think I just misspelled "para" :-)

Offline LoyalRoyal

  • Guest
  • *
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2
Re: Infantry to Combat Engineer
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 10:11:48 »
As hard as it can be to say nice things about engineers, there is some truth to their "first in, last out" motto.  When the infantry and armour hit something they cannot simply bypass or brute force their way through, it's the engineers we call up and push to the front to make a path.  So the engineers come along for everything the infantry does and then might get called upon to do additional tasks to support the mission (= "more crap than we do.").

CHIMO!

Pro Patria,
There is no place in the Canadian Army for an inefficient officer.  Modern war demands the highest standard of efficiency not only for the senior but also the junior leader.

Efficiency depends to a large extent on knowledge and experience.  The former can be obtained only by study, thought and application.

- Lieutenant-General K Stuart, Chief of the General Staff, January 1942

Offline Towards_the_gap

  • 'Just tell your wife, that she owes your life, to a muddy old engineer'
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 841
Re: Infantry to Combat Engineer
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2012, 10:27:32 »
The 'see more crap than we do' comment may be based upon the fact that in the most recent theatre of land ops, engineers were most likely to be involved in things that go boom and people say ow. This involved both pre-boom and post-boom. OPSEC really prevents me from saying more.