5 ms·
Military engineers focus on battlefield-relevant construction and demolition techniques and aren’t routinely deployed on civilian engineering tasks during their
by KineticLensman 5y ago
Military engineers focus on battlefield-relevant construction and demolition techniques and aren’t routinely deployed on civilian engineering tasks during their readiness cycle. One exception would be military assistance in emergency situations, such as quickly erecting a bridge to replace a flood-damaged one. For the average soldier, their trade-specific training would be measured in months, so the only opportunities to pick up deep domain knowledge are limited. Career engineers might get deeper knowledge but I suspect they would still focus on battlefield-specific competencies.
- OJFord 5y agoI won't comment on training because I suspect that varies too much internationally to be worthwhile - but of course they focus on battlefield-relevant tasks; are you saying that wasn't also true of the Romans? I don't know, I just assumed (and asked if) they were pretty similar.
- hef19898 5y agoThe advantage the Romans had was, that military engineering and civil engineering were much closer back then.
- KineticLensman 5y agoThe difference is that Roman soldiers could build roads and fortified camps as part of their day job using skills similar to civilian Roman construction. Today, however, building a modern motorway, or a high rise building, would be way different to battlefield engineering.
- nwatson 5y agoIn the USA the US Army Corp of Engineers is heavily involved in public/civilian infrastructure. For example, see this article on their involvement and attendant controversy in Hurricane Katrina (2000s New Orleans): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies_(New_Orleans) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers...
- rjsw 5y agoA Royal Engineer friend of mine is an expert on runways, both making and breaking them.