(BUFFALO, N.Y.) – When most people think of “engineering,” they think of blueprints, designs and infrastructure projects. In the U.S. Army, however, engineering can also mean breaching minefields under fire, building fighting positions overnight, maintaining locks and dams, or restoring power in the aftermath of a disaster.
Capt. Wesley Karr has seen both sides, being an engineer officer assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, after having previously served in traditional Army engineer units.
His experience offers a perspective on the differences between combat engineering in the regular Army and the deliberate, technically driven work of USACE.
The Buffalo District’s mission includes maintaining Great Lakes infrastructure, providing safe navigation through the Black Rock Lock, and reducing flood damage by means of Mt. Morris Dam and numerous other projects.
Projects can range from restoring aquatic wetlands, to cleaning up sites with contamination resulting from the nation’s early atomic energy program.
Being in the operational Army however, is quite different.
“Combat engineers are tasked with three categories in a combat zone: mobility, counter-mobility and survivability,” Karr said.
Mobility means creating freedom of movement — whether clearing routes of explosive hazards, constructing bridges or breaching through obstacles.
Counter-mobility flips that concept, restricting the enemy’s ability to maneuver.
Survivability focuses on protection and fortification.
Together, those three mission sets define the combat engineer’s role on the battlefield.
Before engineers specialize, they are Soldiers.
“All engineers are Soldiers first,” Karr said. “Basic combative skills are fundamental to everything else — qualifying with your assigned weapon, maintaining and operating your assigned vehicle or equipment, maintaining physical fitness and readiness.”
Only after mastering those fundamentals do Soldiers focus on their specific engineer specialty. The Army Engineer Branch includes 14 different Military Occupational Specialties, each with its own technical focus.
Karr has experience as both a heavy equipment operator (12N) and a combat engineer (12B).
“A typical 12N training would comprise of operating bulldozers, excavators, skid steers, backhoe loaders and graders in a dig zone to create roads, airfields, ditches and trenches,” he said.
In contrast, 12B training centers heavily on demolitions.
“A typical 12B training would primarily comprise of demolition experience on ranges or in training areas — claymores, line charges, operating a MICLIC (Mine Clearing Line Charge) either under simulated fire or in a controlled environment.”
Training follows a crawl-walk-run progression.
“The Army heavily utilizes the crawl-walk-run tempo,” Karr said, “starting with classroom training, moving to controlled environments and hands-on work, then running those skills in a simulated combat scenario.”
At the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Soldiers build on those foundations. Their development emphasizes technical competence in complex environments.
Army engineers are considered combat support units, typically attached to infantry or armor formations in combat zones. But their capabilities extend far beyond the battlefield.
“Army engineers are used as Swiss-Army Knives,” Karr said. “We can be called for almost any type of assistance needed.”
Stateside, that assistance can range from supporting local fire departments to conducting route clearance or providing prime power generation in disaster response scenarios.
Overseas, their mission shifts again.
“MilCon (military construction) is widely used to construct quick installations or buildings as forward observation posts, hospitals or quarters for allied countries,” Karr said. “Combat engineers are routinely deployed to help train allied engineers in bridging, prime power, construction and demolitions.”
The diversity of missions makes it difficult to fully define their role.
“It’s tough to put into words the responsibilities that come with our engineers overseas,” he said, “because the missions change so frequently with each engineer specialty.”
When asked what Army engineers can do that USACE engineers cannot, Karr said, “I think it’s comparing apples to oranges. It’s like comparing two different jobs.”
Each engineer brings a unique specialty, and the training paths and daily demands are simply different.
“If I absolutely had to put one thing that USACE engineers can’t do,” he added, “it’s blow up stuff.”
For Matt Snyder, chief of the Construction Branch for the Buffalo District, the distinction reflects mission focus.
“Both Army combat engineers and Army civilian engineers support the mission of the U.S. Army,” Snyder said. “However, there are some differences.”
Both may work on construction projects, infrastructure repair, planning, design and complex problem solving, Snyder explained. But combat engineers operate in high-risk environments and focus on mobility, counter-mobility and survivability, he continued.
“Combat Engineers have both combat and engineering training,” Snyder explained, “whereas Civilian Engineers are more academic and professional in their training rather than tactical.”
Civilian engineers typically hold college degrees in disciplines such as civil, mechanical or electrical engineering, along with professional licensure and certifications. They often work outside of theater, maintaining long term Army infrastructure — base facilities, environmental systems and large scale construction projects.
“While they primarily work behind the scenes, civilian engineers are often called upon to support in times of need for the nation to include emergency operations and overseas missions where they may face higher physical risks like those of combat engineers,” Snyder said.
Most Army civilian engineers serve within USACE, the Army’s military engineering branch. With approximately 37,000 personnel — about 97 percent civilian and 3 percent active duty — USACE operates worldwide, delivering military construction, civil works, environmental protection and disaster response.
Its mission, Snyder noted, is delivering vital engineering solutions to secure the Nation, energize the economy and reduce disaster risk.
Having served in both environments, Karr sees the biggest difference in tempo and technical focus.
“The greatest difference between regular Army and USACE is the technicality,” he said.
USACE projects benefit from subject matter experts across disciplines who provide detailed input on environmental conditions, specifications and long-term performance.
“USACE usually has time to spend on projects allowing for the best input and the best approach,” Karr explained.
The operational Army rarely has that luxury.
“The regular Army usually does not have that time,” he said. “Decisions must be made quickly and executed decisively.”
Army engineers must apply their expertise immediately and often under pressure.
“Army engineers are required to provide their expertise in every capacity, but it’s impossible to be as accurate as USACE.”
In his view, the distinction comes down to strengths.
“USACE thrives on technical specifics, at a cost for speed, but provides an accurate and established product,” Karr said. “Army engineers thrive on speed and muscle memory because of our training in many different scenarios.”
The Corps of Engineers takes on some projects that have been decades in the making.
The USACE Buffalo District carries out projects such as the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, involve the careful cleanup of sites such as the Niagara Falls Storage Site – a former World War II TNT plant.
Other time intensive projects include rebuilding of aquatic habitats, such as at Buffalo’s Outer Harbor. An old commercial shipping slip is being filled in with dredged material from the Buffalo River, a process that can only be done every other year and will take multiple dredge cycles to complete, taking the project into the 2030s.
Though their daily responsibilities look dramatically different, both communities have a common heritage within the Army Engineer Regiment.
One builds fighting positions under fire. The other designs infrastructure meant to endure decades.
One clears the path forward in combat. The other strengthens waterways, restores ecosystems and modernizes federal infrastructure.
Both, in their own way, build readiness and resilience for the nation.