This monograph focuses on a construction unit in the United States Army, the Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). The Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) is the main organization, providing the U.S. Army the bulk of its heavy construction capability. This monograph specifically examines the organization and capabilities of the battalion and determines if the U.S. Army should make changes to the battalion organizational structure to make it a more effective combat multiplier for full spectrum operations in the 21st century. The concept of modularity is defined from doctrinal sources and an assessment is made to determine if the battalion configurations affords the flexibility required to achieve this. There is a tendency to look to civilian models, which generally have functionalized companies, when recommending changes to military construction organizations. This monograph examines the differences between operating environments of civilian construction firms and military construction units and assesses how this might impact the organizational design of a U.S. Army troop construction organization. The monograph briefly covers the history, employment and reasoning for the present organization of the battalion. Case studies of the use of combat heavy engineer battalions in Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-1991), and operations in Bosnia (1995-2000) are examined to determine the battalion?s overall effectiveness in providing general engineering support to these operations. These case studies provides a basis for examining the use of the battalions in Major Theater War (MTW) operations of short duration in a relatively mature theater, and Stability and Support Operations (SASO) of long duration in an immature and battle damaged theater. Additionally, the present organizational structure of the troop heavy construction organizations in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are analyzed to determine if there are any lessons the Army can apply to the organization of the U.S. Army Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). The author determined that overall, the present battalion structure does not fully meet the criteria established at the beginning of this monograph and requires organizational changes to make it a more effective combat multiplier for the full spectrum of operations in the 21st Century. This determination was made after reviewing the case studies of the battalion?s performance in supporting combat operations in the Gulf War and SASO operations in Bosnia. Both case studies indicate that the battalion was effective, but has some capability shortfalls. The U.S. Army requires two heavy construction organizations, as suggested in the 1985 Carlisle study referenced in the monograph, to address these differences. One organization is tactically focused to support the heavy horizontal construction requirements at the division level and below and would be titled an Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). This would retain the old name but have a new organizational structure. The second battalion would be a construction battalion and would have an operational focus on infrastructure development. This organization would support operations at the corps level and above and would generally be found in the rear areas. The organizational configuration would be similar to the current combat heavy battalion. The results of this study are important to the future of the Corps of Engineers because there are more Engineer Battalions (Combat) (Heavy) in the engineer force structure than any other type of battalion. Engineers play a critical role in supporting maneuver forces on the battlefield. The Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) is the most versatile construction capability in the U.S. Army. Changes to this organization could severely impact how well engineers can support maneuver forces on the future battlefield and must be properly tailored to support the full spectrum of military operations in the 21st century.

Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library.