Talk:Sapper

Airborne tab/arch
The assertion that the Sapper tab is one of four authorized is curious, since the airborne arch is not listed as one of the four.Sketch051 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with the article about combat engineer. MathKnight 13:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You wear the airborne tab if and only if you are: 1)actively assigned to an airborne unit, or 2)wearing it with your combat patch when you were in combat with an airborne unit. The SF, Ranger, Sapper, and President's Hundred tabs, however, can be worn regardless of what unit you are assigned to. Perhaps there should just be a clarification on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.232.96 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

combat engineer - merging subject?

 * References to modern British sappers should cross reference to Combat Engineer. M Hunt RE retired.


 * This article should still exist with cross-references. "Sapper" is an important historical term.  Since there's been no action in well over a year, the merge suggestion should be removed.
 * --Ajdz 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it sould be merged; I just haven't gotten around to how to do it. Sapper is not only an important historical term, but an important modern term in British usage, where it clearly overlaps combat engineer.  Keeping sapper as a redirect to the combined combat engineer + sapper should be fine.  --A D Monroe III 13:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The Sapper entry should be left as a seperate entry as it is an important part of British and New Zealand Military History. (This from )
 * I think that the entries should remain separate. Noisy | Talk 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Sapper" should be merged, It is not that long to begin with anyway, and it fits perfectly in with combat engineering.

As a former Combat Engineer in the US Army, i concur that this should be merged with Combat Engineering. In current policy Combat Engineers that attend Sapper School are authorized to where a "Sapper" tab; a device once only allowed for graduates of Ranger School and Special Forces training. -SPC Diazdelindo, Juan M., US Army


 * An article should be left at Sapper to disambiguate between the author, the rank and the profession of combat engineering. GraemeLeggett 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that for the terms "sapper" and "combat engineer" there are two distinct areas where these terms are used. At the individual level, they are similar. A "combat engineer" MOS my become a "sapper" by an additional training course. This course elevates the soldiers "standing" as a sapper in that he has qualified at a higher level of proficiency than the average MOS trained combat engineer. combat engineer is a job title, and sapper is a qualification, much like the airborne, ranger, and air assault. At the unit level, it is much different. A combat engineer company or battalion may have sappers in it, but it's METL is different that a sapper company. Again, dependant on which realm you want to talk, there is a difference. You may refer to www.wood.army.mil and go to the engineer school page to learn more. There is no clearance requirements for some, but others are only for official use only and classified. In summary, I believe the two should not be combined. 68.216.170.66 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)1LT Kevin Middleton, EN, LAARNG


 * The two articles should remain as separate entities. First of all, a Sapper in England does not mean that the soldier is a combat engineer.  Second, a combat engineer is not a Sapper; just as a Sapper is not a combat engineer.  Is an infantryman a Ranger?  Or are Rangers infantrymen?  Are those two articles merged?  No.  So why would we merge these.  I am a Sapper Leader Course graduate (Class 07/01) but I am not a combat engineer. SSG Tinsman, Jonathan 21N
 * Jonathan, are you a soldier of the British Army? It does not appear so to me? How is a Sapper not a Combat engineer or vice versa in the British Army? AshLin (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

24.22.186.164 (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Informed Army Soldier24.22.186.164 (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A few notes for the innexperienced personel: A infantryman is not a Ranger unless he serves in a Ranger battlion (1/75, 2/75, 3/75) regardless if he is Ranger qualified (i.e. Ranger School Graduate), now a person with a Ranger qualification has an automatic secondary MOS that of an Infantryman (Regardless of their MOS, they can transfer to 11B without going to 11B AIT portion of their OSIT training). Now in the case of being a Sapper I agree that the title of Sapper should go to Sapper qualified people or combat engineers serving in that capacity as like the term Ranger is used, and like you said your not a combat engineer so likewise with being a Ranger school graduate you are not a Sapper but Sapper qualified.


 * Of course there's also the page at Military engineer to cross reference to.GraemeLeggett 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a combat engineer of the Indian Army and therefore I am a sapper too, in my case, a Bombay Sapper! I feel the articles should not be merged. The combat engineer part be developed to display the modern context, the Sapper article to display the regimental and historical context. In any case, the articles be written such that the usage of the terms in each army be well-explained.AshLin (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fictional references
I'm thinking this section would read better if it were a bulleted list. Any ideas? Steneub 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

French army
Depictions of sappers from the Napoleonic period usually feature men with beards, aprons and holding axes - what is the origin of this uniform, and the reason for it? Drutt (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Having been a Sapper - a member of the Corps of Royal Engineers - I may have an answer to the above question. But firstly, 'sapper' (equivalwent of 'private') is both the lowest rank in - and, in the plural (with a capital S: Sappers), the colloquial name for - the British army Corps of Royal Engineers.

In Napoleonic times, the use of horses - both for riding and draught work - was very common in most armies. Therefore there were large numbers of military farriers - men who attended to the shoeing and care of horses' hooves. Just like civilian farriers, they wore aprons - usually of heavy leather - as protection when holding a hoof to be trimmed, shod, etc.

One of the tasks when a horse was killed - either by enemy fire or to put it out of its pain in battle - was to identify the specific animal. British army horses had their numbers branded on one or more hooves, and it may well have been the farriers' job to cut off the relevant foot and retain it until the number had been checked against a unit's allocation of horses. This explains the axe. As for the beard, I have no answer. Pioneer Corps sergeants also wore beards and carried axes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.213.157 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Combat Engineering
On the list of engineering fields there was Combat Engineer, however i doubt sapper is the proper link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.86 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Women as Combat Engineers (US Military)
There appears to be some edit warring going on concerning inclusion of women in this occupational specialty.

After some quick googling, it appears that through the intent of the US Congress, women cannot acquire this Military Occupational Specialty in the US Army, US Marines nor the US Navy SeaBees. Due to the constant IP edits attempting to change the article to assert that women can become Combat Engineers in the US Military, perhaps a sourced statement with an informative US DoD link asserting it is against US law and policy should be cited within the article to minimize this activity or at a minimum give young ladies considering this career path incentive to do further research before their hopes are dashed via misinformation. Veriss (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the following wording to the lead paragraph since there apparently was a strong interest in female participation in this career field. "This active combatant career field is normally limited to males in most countries due to legislation.".  I think it should prevent future edits relating to this topic.  Feel free to tweak it as needed.  Veriss (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of problems with that. First, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Reading that first paragraph, that sentence jumps out as a non sequitur. If you look up "fighter pilot" or "quartermaster" or for that matter "electrician," the first graph doesn't end with legislative status of women in the profession. Second, it's inaccurate. Above the fold, we have mentions of the British, Polish, German, French, American, and "Commonwealth" militaries. I poked around a bit, and it looks like Britain, Poland, Canada, New Zealand, and Germany all allow female sappers. I couldn't find anything on France. Australia and the US exclude women from combat engineering. So a more accurate statement would be "This active combatant career field is normally open to all qualified soldiers, but a few countries (notably the United States) forbid women from serving as sappers."
 * I strongly dislike the TRADOC-house-style flavor of that sentence, though. (Actually, I personally enjoy that stilted-robot style, but it doesn't belong here). I'm going to remove that sentence entirely, and add a note down in the US section to the effect that it's considered an active combatant role and as such women are not permitted to serve. I'm hoping that enough time has passed for the edit warriors to forget about it...76.22.74.96 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I have been told, in the US Military, women are NOT allowed to be combat engineers, but they ARE allowed to attend Sapper Leadership Course and become Sapper qualified. This has recently been shown in the Discovery TV show "Surviving the Cut - S02E04" where a woman tabbed in Sapper School. I'm not sure of her MOS, but she is now Sapper Qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.75.7 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong
I don't see how the Vietnamese units described here fit the definition of sapper. The section makes them sound like special forces units rather than engineers. MarkinBoston (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War
I apologize to all more savvy Wikipedians and beg their assistance. I just added some text on the subject in 18th Century America during the revolution from a Kindle book The Memoir of Revolutionary Soldier, Narrative by Joesph Plumb Martin describing his activities in 1775-1780, his group was called the Sappers and Miners. If I could properly cite the text I would. I believe it is valuable information. Here is a quote: We now began to make preparations for laying close siege to the enemy. We had holed him and nothing remained but to dig him out. Accordingly, after taking every precaution to prevent his escape, settled our guards, provided fascines and gabions, made platforms for the batteries, to be laid down when needed, brought on our battering pieces, ammunition, &c.; on the fifth of October we began to put our plans into execution. One third part of all the troops were put in requisition to be employed in opening the trenches. A third part of our Sappers and Miners were ordered out this night to assist the Engineers in laying out the works. -- Martin, Joseph Plumb. Memoir of a Revolutionary Soldier: The Narrative of Joseph Plumb Martin (p. 130). Blunderbuss Printing. Kindle Edition.

The full text of The_Adventures_Of_A_Revolutionary_Soldier at Wikisource.

Can anyone help me - and the article- by doing better than I have done? Regards DrSculerati (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution. I moved what you added from the US section to External Links.  It's a primary source, which are usually not used directly in WP articles, as it takes an expert in the field to interpret them in the full context of the article's subject.  It should be fine as a link for readers to check out on their own.  Hopefully this is satisfactory.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)