Talk:Engineer Branch (United States)

I've undone the redirect to "US Army Corps of Engineers", to re-establish the distinction between the USACE and the Engineer Branch of the US Army. I'm aware there was a discussion about this, but the conclusion to delete here was just wrong.

For a source on the distinction, see the US Army's pamphlet 600-3 (http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/p600_3/head.asp), "Engineer Branch" section. This says: "The active component of the Engineer Regiment consists of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Active Army military engineer units within combatant and Army commands, and individual officers, NCOs and civilians working inside non-engineer organizations including maneuver enhancement brigades". We're also told: "The USACE is the Army's Direct Reporting Unit assigned responsibility to execute Army and DOD military construction, real estate acquisition, development of the nation's infrastructure and management of water resources through the Civil Works Program..... ".

So there is a distinction between the USACE as a "Direct Reporting Unit" - comparable to, say, the "United States Army Installation Management Command" or the "United States Army Test and Evaluation Command" (source) - and "Active Army military engineer units", i.e, US army combat engineers as something comparable to infantry, artillery etc.

These parts of the US Army all have their own pages here, and they are called "branches".


 * As discussed at length at the relevant AFD, the distinction between the Engineering Branch and the USACE is too fine to merit an entire article. Any relevant content could be added to the USACE page.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really not a fine distinction: USACE is an organization which has "army" and "engineer" in its name, and which some US Army engineer officers may receive postings at certain points in their career. It is not another name for the set of all engineers in the US Army. Mercher (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Mercher


 * This redirect should remain in place rather than there being a repeat of the previous attempt to create an article about a topic which is not independent. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I give up.. persistent assertion of verifiably false information wins the day Mercher (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Mercher