DC FILE C. ..

ARI Research Note 87-40

A COST AND TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CTEA)

OF MOVING TARGET ENGAGEMENT TRAINING PROCRAMS

FOR THE MI6Al RIFLE

00 Jon P. Hunt, James R. Parish, and Ronald F. Martere

Litton Computer Services

to Litton Systems, Inc.

and

Kenneth L. Evans

Army Research Institute D T IC

SI ELECTE 

t

ARI Fort Benning Field Unit

>e JSeward Smith, Chief

Training Research Laboratory

Jack H. Hiller, Director

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

'September 1987

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

87 10 802
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

Technical Director Cmadn

Research accomplished under

contract for the Department of the Army

Litton Computer Services, Litton Systems, Inc.

Technical Review by CA&

Joel D. SchendelI,

Joseph D. Hagmanj* t. .

D19C F tV3'irc!

IA-1

This report. as submitted by the contractor. has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

and will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS). The vicws. opmni',ns. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the authorlsl and

should not be construouJ as an off icia; 1:paitment of the Army position, policy. or decision. unless so designated

by other official documentation.

N0N
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

. REPORT NUMBER OVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

A Cost and Training Effectiveness Analysis Final Report

(CTEA) of Moving Target Engagement Training Jun 1985-Oct 1985

, Programs for the M16AI Rifle 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

J.P. Hunt, J.R. Parish, R.F. Martere,

K.L. Evans (ARI) MDA 903-85-C-0253

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS t0. PROGRAM ELEMENTPROJECT. TASK

Litton Computer Services AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Litton Systems, Inc. 2Q263743A794

PO Box 7113, Mountain View, CA 94039-7113

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral September 1987

and Social Sciences, Fort Benning Field Unit, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

P.O. Box 2086, Fort Benning, GA 31905 15

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(I! different from Conitrolllng Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report)

* U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Unclassified

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue,

Alexandria, VA 22333 158. DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRADING

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

I8. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

COR - Dr. Seward Smith

Technically reviewed by Dr. Joel D. Schendel and Dr. Joseph D. Hagman

195 | EYWORO (Confi ....... on reverse side it neceeety and Identify by block number)

'" Cost and Training Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA) Remoted Target System (RETS),

Location of Miss and Hit (LOMAH) '/Rifle Marksmanship)

M16 Rifle, / Single Lead Rule

0 Marksmanship Training Devices Weaponeer II.

Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS)I

20. ABSTRACT rCoamlhiu n revvrue aide it necemeaty snzd identify by block number)

- In June 1985 a research effort was initiated to examine current Advanced Rifle

Marksmanship (ARM) Training at the Fort Benning Defense Test Range (DTR).

This research effort examined alternate methods of training moving target

engagement. Several variations of training devices and procedures were

developed and evaluated. This note provides a cost and training effectiveness

analysis (CTEA) of each alternative developed for training moving target

engagements.

DD FJA 7 . 3 14n3 EDITIONOFIOV 6IS O SOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATtiO OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
A COST AND TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CTEA)

OF MOVING TARGET ENGAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS

FOR THE M16A1 RIFLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PURPOSE ................................... 1

BACKGROUND. ................................. 1

PROBLEM ................................... 1

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS. ............................. 1

SCOPE .................................... 2

ASSUMPTIONS ................................. 2

DETERMINATION OF COST. .......................... 3

-,ANALYSIS OF COST .. ............................ 5

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS .. ..................... 9

-RECOMMENDATIONS. ............................. 11

-IFOOTNOTE .. ................................ 12

REFERENCES .. ............................... 13
COST AND TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CTEA)

OF MOVING TARGET TRAINING PROGRAMS

FOR THE Ml6A1 RIFLE

PURPOSE. This report documents a cost and training effectiveness analysis

(CTEA) of moving target engagement training programs with the MI6AI rifle. It

compares the effectiveness of current moving target training and three

alternative training programs utilizing a combination of special training

devices.

BACKGROUND. The current Advanced Rifle Marksmanship (ARM) program was

implemented in 1982 (Evans & Schendel, 1984; USAIS OSUT POI, 1985). Moving

target training in the ARM program utilized the Aid to Improved Marksmanship

(AIM) book, a Dry Fire Moving Target Trainer, and taught five lead rules for

moving target engagement based upon range and speed of the target. In September

1985 a two month research effort to develop a training program that will

significantly improve the soldier's ability to hit moving personnel targets was

conducted (Hunt, Parish, Martere, Osborne, & Evans, in preparation). The

research effort introduced device-based training, an intermediate live-fire

exercise and a single lead rule for moving target engagement. Substantial

improvements in the ability of trainees to engage moving targets were found as a

result of this instruction. Performance criteria were based on a new

42-target/42-round (42/42) scenario devised by the U.S. Army Infantry School

(USAIS) and implemented at the Defense Test Range (DTR) equipped with a Remoted

.r Target System (RETS). The alternatives in this CTEA were based on the training

programs used in the ARM research effort and used a combination of the various

devices; the Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS), the Weaponeer II, an

the Superdart Location of Miss and Hit (LOMAH) system.

PROBLEM. Moving targets are the most commonly encountered and difficult to hit targets on the modern battlefield. The current ARM Program of Instruction

(POI) was found to be less effective than the proposed alternatives utilized

during the current ARM research effort. In addition, certain aspects of the

current ARM POI inhibited the effective engagement of moving targets (Hunt et

al., 1986). At present there is no available CTEA for the current ARM POI and

4, there is no CTEA comparing the current ARM POI with the alternative training

programs conducted during the recent ARM research effort. This report addresses

this problem.

* PROPOSED SOLUTIONS. The research conducted using device-based training and

modified live-fire training enhanced the ability of soldiers to engage moving

targets (Hunt et al., 1986). The new POI may consist of: (a) device-based

training prior to live-fire of the 42/42 scenario at the DTR; (b) intermediate

live-fire by incorporating an intermediate 39-target/39-round (39/39) scenario

prior to live-fire of the 42/42 scenario at the DTR; or (c) a combination of

both device-based training and modified live-fire prior to live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR. These modifications to the current ARM POI will

increase instructional requirements from 8 hours to either 12 or 16 hours

depending on the training requirements of the particular POI.

sq
SCOPE. For the purpose of this CTEA, the base case used was the current

moving target POI as taught at the DTR. Nine alternative programs were

considered for the purpose of this CTEA:

. Base Case - the current moving target POI and live-fire of the 42/42

scenario at the DTR RETS range.

. Alternative 1 - modification of the current moving target POI,

intermediate live-fire practice using a 39/39 scenario and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario.

Alternative 2 - device-based training using the MACS, Weaponeer II, and

LOMAH devices, and live-fire of the 42/42 scenario.

Alternative 3 - device-based training using the MACS, Weaponeer II, and

LOMAH devices, intermediate live-fire using the 39/39 scenario and live-fire of

the 42/42 scenario.

Alternative 4 - device-based training using the MACS system and

live-fire of the 42/42 scenario.

Alternative 5 - device-based training using the MACS system,

w intermediate live-fire using the 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the 42/42

scenario.

Alternative 6 - device-based training using the Weaponeer II and

live-fire of the 42/42 scenario.

Alternative 7 - device-based training using the Weaponeer II,

intermediate live-fire using the 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the 42/42

scenario.

. Alternative 8 - device-based training using the LOMAH system and

live-fire of the 42/42 scenario.

. Alternative 9 - device-based training using the LOMAH system,

intermediate live-fire using the 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the 42/42

scenario.

ASSUMPTIONS.

(a) Alternatives 1, 4, 6, and 8 are projected to be one-day training

programs. Other proposed alternatives are expected to be either one-and-onehalf or two-day POIs.

*0 (b) The modified POI will be implemented in FY86.

(c) Current device facilities would be insufficient to support the

modified POI. Ten MACS systems, 10 Weaponeer II systems, and a 10-lane LOMAH

range were used for this CTEA.

2

Jil
(d) The MACS and Weaponeer II systems would be housed in a central

location.

(e) It was assumed that three troop transporters would be required for

transportation.

(f) It was assumed that an average training company would consist of 160

personnel.

DETERMINATION OF COST. Cost was calculated using the following equation:

Cave = (R + T + A + I + S + Dom + Dedl) X L / Ntot

where:

Cave = average cost of training per trainee.

R = range operation and maintenance (O & M) costs for personnel and

equipment for the DTR for FY85.

T = transportation costs to transport a company of 160 soldiers to and from

* a training area. The cost of a transporter was $1.56 per mile and the cost of a

driver was $9.33 per hour.

A = ammunition costs for all live-fire used for a particular training

schedule. These figures were computed using exact ammunition requirements,

based on a figure of $0.16 per round.

I = instructor salaries (pay rate x fraction of day preparing for and

providing instruction summed over all instructors).

S = salaries of trainees (pay rate x fraction of day in training summed

over all trainees).

Dom = device operation and maintenance costs for all devices used in the

training program. It was assumed that there would be 10 systems for each

training device.

Dedt = device Edi for all devices used in the training program.

The equation used for calculating Edi was as follows:

Edi = (El/ L x Nr ) x Nt

where:

E = training equipment costs.

L = expected life of equipment in years.

-r = number of trainees using the equipment per year.

J,

N, = number of trainees per current application.

3
Ntot = total number of trainees over all applications.

This analysis will use FY86 dollar costs provided by various U.S. Army

agencies at Fort Benning, Georgia, and by manufacturers of the training devices

used during this research effort (see Note 1). The projected CTEA is for a 10

year period through FY96 without an inflation factor.

Ammunition, manpower, range facilities, and transportation costs were

provided by various Army agencies at Fort Benning, Georgia. These agencies were

the Ammunition Supply Point, Finance and Civilian Personnel Budget Office, Chief

of Range Control, and the Transportation Cost Planning Office, respectively.

Operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs for the MACS, Weaponeer II, and LOMAH

devices were provided by the U.S. Army Research Institute Field Unit, Fort

Benning, Georgia, Spartanics Ltd., Rolling Meadows, Illinois and Australasian

Training Aids, Columbia, South Carolina respectively.

It is important to note that there is a definite cost savings associated

with shooting on one of the three devices mentioned in this report compared with

shooting on a live-fire range. The average cost of firing one round on a DTR

range is $.58, compared with $.22 per round on the LOMAH system, $.02 per round

on the Weaponeer II, and $.01 per round on the MACS system. These data provide

important information in determining the relative value of device-based training

compared with live-fire training.

44

i.
'4 ANALYSIS OF COST. The cost analyses for the base case and the nine

alternatives are outlined below.

Base Case (1 Day): current moving target POI and live-fire of the 42/42

scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & M costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 41454.27

Ammunition costs per year : $153753.60

Instructor costs per year : $ 14177.02

Trainee costs per year : $145745.60

TOTAL : $555724.72

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $5557247.2

N Cave = $5557247.2/228800

= $24.29

Alternative 1 (1 Day): modification of the current moving target POI,

additional live-fire using an intermediate 39/39 scenario and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & M costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 41454.27

Ammunition costs per year : $296524.00

Instructor costs per year : $ 14177.02

Trainee costs per year : $145745.60

TOTAL : $698495.12

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $6984951.2

Cave = $6984951.2/228800

= $30.53

5
Alternative 2 (2 Days): device-based training using the HACS, Weaponeer II,

and LOMAH devices; and live-fire of the 42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & Ai costs per year : S200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $226969.f0

MACS 0 & M costs per year : $ 750.00

Weap. II 0 & M costs per year : $ 4500.00

LOMAH 0 & M costs per year : $ 10000.00

Edi for MACS per year : $ 6.99

Edi for Weaponeer II per year : S 272.73

Edi for LO:IAH per year : $ 349.65

Instructor costs per year : $ 28354.04

Trainee costs per year : $291491.20

TOTAL $821454.41

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $8214544.1

Cave = $8214544.1/228800

= $35.90

Alternative 3 (2 Days): device-based training using the MACS, Weaponeer iI,

and LOYAH devices; an intermediate 39/39 live-fire scenario and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & M costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $369740.00

MACS 0 & M costs per year : $ 750.00

Weap. II 0 & M costs per year : $ 4500.00

LOMAH 0 & M costs per year : $ 10000.00

Edl for MACS per year : $ 6.39

Edl for Weaponeer II per year : S 272.73

Edt for LOMAH per year : S 349.55

Instructor costs per year : S 28354.04

Trainee costs per year : $291491.20

TOTAL $964224.31

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $9642240.1

Cave = $9642248.1/228800

= $42.14

0L_ ., _LIA.14t_ 0
Alternative 4 (1 Day): device-based training using the FACS system and

live-fire of the 42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & 11 costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $153756.60

MACS 0 & M costs per year : $ 750.00

Edi for MACS per year : $ 6.99

Instructor cost per year : $ 14177.02

Trainee cost per year : $145745.60

TOTAL $573196.41

TOTAL FOR FYS6-96 : $5731964.1

Cave = $5731964.1/228800

= $25.05

Alternative 5 (1.5 Days): device-based training using the MACS system, an

intermediate live-fire exercise using a 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & A costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $296524.00

MACS 0 & Y costs per year : $ 750.00

Edi for MACS per year : $ 6.99

Instructor cost per year : $ 21265.53

Trainee cost per year : $218613.40

TOTAL $795925.12

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $7959251.2

. Cae = $7959251.2/223800

.= $34.79

S7

NM.

V.

Ci'

PC
Alternative 6 (1 Day): device-based traiLung using tht Weaponecr I: and

li.*e-fire of the 42/42 sce-nario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & ': ccosts pe r year S200594.2.3

Transpcrtaticn ccsts p.:r y--ar $%~9

4 ~~~A-Muniticn costs per y~:ar :857K6

Weap. 0 & 14 costs per ye:ar : 450020.

E&ii for Weap. per year ~ 3 

Instructor cost per ycar $1417.2

Trainee cost per year 'S.15745.60

TOTAL $577212.15

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 :$5772121.5

Cd'e =S -721..5/228800

= $25.23

Alternativ.e 7 (1.5 Days): device-based training using the WEapcneer II, an

Intermediate li-.e-fire exercise using a 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & M, costs per year : S200594.23

Transportation costs per year : S 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $296524.00

Weap. 0 & 11 costs per y--ar : $ 4500.00

Edl for Weap. per year : S 272.73

Instructor cost per year : $ 212631.53

Trainee cost per year : W213613.40

TOTAL S7:"99940.c*:'

TOTAL FOR FY36-96 :$7999408.6

Ca,.= S7999498.6/228800

= S34.96
Alternative 8 (1 Day): device-based training using the LOMAH system and

live-fire of the 42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & .1 costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : $226969.60

LO.IAH 0 & M costs per year : S 10000.00

Edl for LOMAH per year : $ 349.65

Instructor cost per year : S 14177.02

Trainee cost per year : $145745.60

TOTAL $656002.07

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $6560020.7

Cave = $6560020.7/228800

= $28.67

Alternative 9 (1.5 Days): device-based training using the LOMAH system, an

intermediate live-fire exercise using a 39/39 scenario, and live-fire of the

42/42 scenario at the DTR.

DTR 0 & . costs per year : $200594.23

Transportation costs per year : $ 58165.97

Ammunition costs per year : 3369740.00

LOMAH 0 & M costs per year : 10000.00 1 

Edt for LOMAH per year : S 349.65

Instructor cost per year : $ 21265.53

Trainee cost per year : $218618.40

TOTAL $878733.73

TOTAL FOR FY86-96 : $8787337.8

Cave = $8787337.8/228800

= $38.41 S

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS. The outlined alternatives represent a list

of possible modified POIs that could be implemented using the current range

facilities and assuming that 10 units of each of the three devices were

available if required by the alternative selected. The cost-effectiveness of

the alternatives using just one device, however, cannot be determined because

the recent research effort did not evaluate the effectiveness of one device over

the other. Alternatives 4-9 are included to provide some insight into the cost

involved in implementing a POI using each of the respective devices and current

range facilities.

The cost-effectiveness of the base case and the first three alternatives

were computed using a baseline performance figure of trainees who had completed

9

@4
Basic Rifle M!arksmanship (BRM) training but had received no ARM training. The

performance criterion used for this baseline was the mean number of target hits

on the DTR. The purpose for this was that it provided a measure of importance

to scoring above the base line, whereas an absolute numerical scale assigns no

measure of importancc to one number over another. The comparisons for the base

case and alternatives 1-3 are reported below:

1. Base Case vs. Alternative I

*Base Line Mean = 18.17 target hits = 100%

Base Case Mean = 17.95 target hits = 98.8%

Alternative 1 Mean = 21.43 target hits = 117.9%

Alternative 1 is 19.1% more effective than the Base Case.

The Base Case costs S24.29 per trainee for no performance improvement above

Base Line. Alternative 1 costs $30.53 per trainee. The superior performance of

Alternative 1 over the Base Case costs $30.53/19.1 = $1.60 per 1% improvement,

or $30.53 - $24.29/19.1 = $0.33 per 1% improvement if the cost of the Base Case

is considered.

2. Base Case vs. Alternative 2

VBase Line Mean = 18.17 target hits = 100%

Base Case Mean = 17.95 target hits = 98.8%

Alternative 2 Mean = 21.89 target hits = 121.0%

Alternative 2 is 22.2% more effective than the Base Case.

Alternative 2 costs $35.90 per trainee.

The superior performance of Alternative 2 over the Base Case costs

$35.90/22.2 = $1.62 per 1% improvement, or $35.90 - $24.29/22.2 = $0.52 per 1%

improvement if the cost of the Base Case is considered.

3. Base Case vs. Alternative 3

Base Line 'ean = 18.17 target hits = 100%

Base Case Mean = 17.95 target hits = 98.8%

Alternative 3 Mean = 20.52 target hits = 112.9%

Alternative 3 is 14.1% more effective than the Base Case.

Alternative 3 costs $42.14 per trainee.

The superior performance of Alternative 3 over the Base Case costs

$42.14/14.1 = $2.99 per trainee for a 1% improvement, or $42.14-$24.29/14.1 =

* $1.27 per 1% improvement if the cost of the Base Case is considered.

An additional comparison was made which contrasted the Base Case with good

shooters and poor shooters (see Hunt et al., in preparation) from the

device-based training program (Alternative 2). This comparison is reported

below:

Base Case Pretest Mean = 17.46 target hits= 96.1%

. Base Case Posttest Mean = 17.95 target hits = 98.8%

Poor Shooters Pretest Mean = 11.48 target hits = 63.2%

Poor Shooters Posttest Mean = 19.32 target hits = 106.33%

Good Shooters Pretest Mean = 23.0 target hits = 126.6%

Good Shooters Posttest Mean = 21.89 target hits = 120.5%

10
The Base Case costs $24.29 per trainee for a 2.7% increase in Performance,

however, this is not above Base Line. The costs for good shooters in

Alternative 2 was $35.90 per trainee for no performance improvement, however,

their performance for both pretest and posttest scores were consistently above

Base Line.

The costs for poor shooters was $35.90 for a 43.1% increase in performance

(6.3% above Base Line). The superior performance of the poor shooters over the

Base Case costs $35.90/43.1 = $0.31 per 1% improvement, or $35.90 - $24.29/43.1

= $0.27 per 1% improvement if the cost of the Base Case is considered.

RECO'IMENDATIONS. The analysis indicated that Alternatives 1 and 2 represented

viable POIs for moving taraet engagement. Alternative 1 could be implemented

immediately because it utilizes existing range facilities and does not require

the procurement of special training devices. Alternative 2, in contrast,

requires procurement of 10 MACS systems, 10 Weaponeer IIs, and a 10-lane LOMAH

system. The cost-effectiveness of these alternatives is almost identical ($1.60

and $1.62, respectively); however, when the diagnostic capabilities of

Alternative 2 are compared with AltErnative 1, the use of special device

training in conjunction with live-fire appear particularly attractive.

The cost-effectiveness data for poor shooters in Alternative 2 indicated a

considerable decrease in cost (approximately 50%) ccmpared with Alternative 1.

In addition, this improvement in performance was achieved without the need for

increased ammunition costs. In summary, the implementation of Alternative 1

would increase hit probability for noving target engagement for a modest cost

increase for each trainee over the current training cost. However, if the

proposed special devices are procured and Alternative 2 is implemented then a

comparable level of performance could be obtained, additional diagnostic

capabilities would be realized, and the cost of additional ammunition required

for Alternative 1 would be neqated. If Alternative 2 is implemented this would

also llow the cost-effectiveness of Alternatives 4-9 to be investigated which

could result in further cost reductions depending on the specific requirements

of the chosen Alternative POI.

II
FOOTNOTE

Note 1. More detailed information regarding costs and sources of cost data are

available from the authors.

12

0
REFERENCES

Evans, K. L. & Schendel, J. D. (1984). Development of an advanced rifle

marksmanship program of instruction (ARI Research Product 84-16).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. AD A160 268

Hunt, J. P., Parish, J. R., Martere, R. F., Osborne, A. D., & Evans, K. L. (In

preparation). The development and evaluation of moving target engagement

training progrrns with the Ml6Al rifle (ARI Technical Report). Alexandria,

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

United States Army Infantry School (1985). Program of Instruction (POI)

for One Station Unit Training (Infantry) (P017-11 B/C/H). Fort Benning,

'4

GA

413

4?.,

0.9,

4.