Talk:Sapper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 203.173.153.25 (talk · contribs))

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

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

[edit] 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)