Launch Dynamics of the XM1002 Cartridge, 120-mm Target 

Practice Multipurpose Projectile, TPMP-T 

by James F. Newill, James Garner, Anthony Farina, 

Rollie Dohrn, and Dipak Kamdar 

ARL-TR-3068 September 2003 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

ARL-TR-3068 September 2003 

Launch Dynamics of the XM1002 Cartridge, 120-mm Target 

Practice Multipurpose Projectile, TPMP-T 

James F. Newill and James Garner 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Anthony Farina 

U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center, 

Picatinny Arsenal 

Rollie Dohrn and Dipak Kamdar 

Alliant Techsystems Inc. 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

Report Documentation Page Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2001–May 2002 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Launch Dynamics of the XM1002 Cartridge, 120-mm Target Practice Multipurpose 

Projectile, TPMP-T 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

1L162618AH80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

James F. Newill, James Garner, Anthony Farina,* Rollie Dohrn,** 

and Dipak Kamdar** 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-WM-BC 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3068 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

*U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806 

**Alliant Techsystems Inc., Arden Hills, MN 55112 

14. ABSTRACT 

This report details the launch performance of the experimental XM1002. The study compares the accuracy performance of 

candidate XM1002 designs to aid the development. The results show significant differences in launch characteristic of the two 

types of projectiles, which are related to their transverse moment of inertia. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

gun/projectile launch dynamics, HEAT projectile 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

James F. Newill 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 20 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6097 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

2. XM1002 Projectile 2

3. Development Plan 2

4. GPDS 3

4.1 What Are They? ..............................................................................................................3 

4.2 How Are They Done?......................................................................................................4 

5. Versions of the XM1002 Projectile Used in This Report 7

6. Launch of the XM1002 7

7. Conclusions 12

8. References 14
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The XM1002. ..................................................................................................................1 

Figure 2. XM1002 performance specification risk levels...............................................................3 

Figure 3. Components of the models. .............................................................................................4 

Figure 4. Definition of projectile jump...........................................................................................5 

Figure 5. Projectile rates, and projectile motion relative to the bore..............................................5 

Figure 6. Definition of projectile jump and variability for the simulations....................................6 

Figure 7. Description of the Plan A and Plan B projectile..............................................................7 

Figure 8. Gun tube centerline shape. ..............................................................................................8 

Figure 9. Types of defects seen in gun tube centerlines. ................................................................8 

Figure 10. Ideal tube shapes............................................................................................................9 

Figure 11. Torturous path tubes (based on SN2658). .....................................................................9 

Figure 12. Results from ideal tube shapes. ...................................................................................10 

Figure 13. Results from torturous path shapes..............................................................................11 

Figure 14. Relative jump vs. tube shape magnitude. ....................................................................12 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Physical properties of the projectiles................................................................................7 
1

1. Introduction 

The XM1002 is the multipurpose, antitank (MPAT) training round being developed for use in 

the M1A1 Abram’s 120-mm M256 gun system by the Project Manager for Tank and MediumCaliber Armament Systems, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. The projectile development program is low 

cost with an accelerated timeframe that uses less (Figure 1) firing than traditional training 

projectile development programs. In order to meet the demands of the program, Alliant 

Techsystems Incorporated (ATK)* proposed a development plan using a mix of ballistic tests, 

wind tunnel tests, and high-fidelity aerodynamic range tests coupled with gun/projectile 

simulation. This report describes the approach used for the gun projectile simulation work along 

with typical results. 

Figure 1. The XM1002. 

In order to understand the launch performance of the XM1002 projectile, the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory’s gun/projectile dynamics simulation (GPDS) codes were used. This 

method relies on a numerical-experimental approach to design, where projectile changes are 

assessed for performance changes in projectile muzzle jump. The approach mimics traditional 

experimental development, which uses system performance to drive projectile design decisions. 

The projectile configurations are assessed through a range of theoretical gun centerline profiles 

and defects to show the design’s sensitivity to the system. The performance characterization of 

the projectiles is an extension of the simulation work that has been accomplished on other tank 

ammunition. 

The results describe the launch dynamics of the XM1002, which are compared to the kinetic 

energy (KE) and high-explosive antitank (HEAT) projectile counterparts. From these results, a 

 *

Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK), Arden Hills, MN 55112. 
2

definition of performance will be developed and used in the comparison of different projectiles 

and the source of their performance differences. 

2. XM1002 Projectile 

The requirements for the XM1002 projectile include a maximum range of ≤8000 m at 10° gun 

elevation, and a target impact dispersion of ≤0.3 mil. Additionally, the tracer, which must be a 

different color than other 120-mm training rounds, must be visible to a range of 3000 m. The 

design must be as low cost as possible. A unique fire control solution will be developed and 

incorporated into the M1 Abrams tank fleet. 

The original concept, early designing, and testing were done by the Government at Picatinny 

Arsenal, NJ. This work included initial design studies, wind tunnel tests, and fabrication and gun 

firing of prototype projectiles (the firings took place at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD). The results of this early work were provided to the contractor 

for information to be used in the full-scale engineering development of the cartridge. 

The main challenges in designing the XM1002 lie in the conflicting requirements of having 

ballistic performance similar to a tactical design while having a restricted maximum range. 

These requirements drive tradeoffs in nearly all other performance and design areas. For 

example, through careful design, a conical stabilizing flare and boattail have been incorporated 

that provide adequate stability for good dispersion performance while adding enough drag to 

reduce the maximum range from >10 km for the tactical projectile to <8 km for the XM1002 at 

10° gun elevation. This has been accomplished while having a wind sensitivity of just two times 

that of the tactical projectile (the current KE training projectile has a wind sensitivity of five 

times that of its tactical counterpart). 

Of great importance to the on-target performance of the XM1002 is the in-bore behavior, the 

study and simulation of which are addressed in this report. 

3. Development Plan 

The XM1002 performance specification has over 50 requirements. Most of the requirements are 

easily met using production and design methodology derived from previous training round 

experience (M865 and M831A1). Seventeen specifications were identified as potential risks that 

required special consideration. These specifications are identified in Figure 2 with an associated 

risk level. 
3

Figure 2. XM1002 performance specification risk levels. 

As can be seen in the figure, target impact dispersion (TID) and unit production cost (UPC) 

provided the most risk to this program. Manufacturing methods and accurate understanding of 

key characteristics facilitate UPC. Physical understanding of launch and flight are required to 

obtain good TID. 

Full-scale testing was prohibitively expensive. Therefore, ATK proposed a development plan 

that relied heavily on subscale testing and modeling. The plan uses three iterations. The first 

iteration included a wind tunnel, subscale spark range, and a full scale TID test. This iteration 

was primarily used to obtain reliable aerodynamic data and physical information to be used in 

modeling. The second iteration uses the iteration one information for modeling to narrow 

candidate designs. A TID test coupled with predicted performance would be used to identify a 

final design. The third iteration would provide confirmation of the final design through a final 

TID test, maximum range test and rough-handling tests. Modeling and laboratory testing are 

used in all iterations. Progressive iterations provided additional information to improve the 

fidelity and confirm the validity of the models. 

Launch dynamics are a primary driver in TID performance and UPC is directly affected by key 

characteristics. The modeling described in this report provided information that allowed the 

XM1002 team to minimize both risk areas. Launch differences in candidate designs were 

recognized and identification of key characteristics to launch remains an ongoing task. 

4. GPDS 

4.1 What Are They? 

The GPDS code uses a numerical-experimental approach to design, where projectile changes are 

assessed for their influence on projectile muzzle jump. The approach mimics traditional 

experimental development, which uses system performance to drive projectile design decisions. 

The projectile configurations are assessed through a range of theoretical gun centerline profiles 

and tube defects to show the design’s sensitivity to the system. 
4

4.2 How Are They Done? 

GPDS use three-dimensional (3-D) finite element (FE) models of the M256 120-mm tank 

cannon launching projectiles. The method is described in references (1–6). The hydrocode FE 

formulation was chosen to allow investigation of stress wave propagation due to elements of 

launch. The models are 3-D to capture the asymmetric response of the projectile and gun system 

resulting from the nonlinear path of the projectile during launch, asymmetric boundary 

conditions, general lack of symmetry in the centerline profiles of the gun tube, and asymmetric 

gun motion. 

The projectiles and gun systems are both built in similar manners. Models are developed for the 

components and then integrated (see Figure 3). Relative motion is obtained by defining the 

proper physics to allow interaction between the parts. Because this projectile is relatively 

simple, the nose, body, sabots, stabilizer, and obturator are welded together, and sliding 

interfaces are defined between the sabot, stabilizer, and the gun bore. One of the purposes of the 

study is to estimate tank fleet performance. In order to do this, the projectile model is integrated 

into (and fired from) a number of gun models that have unique tube centerlines (the centerlines 

are covered later in this report). The propellant pressure loading for the gun system and 

projectile is generated from IBHVG2 (7), which provides good quality interior ballistic 

prediction for production charges. 

Figure 3. Components of the models. 

Projectile performance is often defined in terms of jump (see Figure 4). Jump is fully defined in 

references (8, 9) and is also detailed in the previous references to GPDS, along with how the 

jump models have been adapted to the GPDS. 
5

Figure 4. Definition of projectile jump. 

A primary use of GPDS is to predict shot-exit conditions (i.e., the average transverse velocity 

component of the projectile and the average angular rate of the projectile around its center of 

gravity [CG]). The definition of these quantities is given in Figure 5. Modeling the small 

clearances between the projectile bourrelets and the inner diameter of the gun tube, as well as 

bourrelet deformation under launch and balloting loads, allows the projectile to move 

(somewhat) independently of the tube. 

Figure 5. Projectile rates, and projectile motion relative to the bore. 
6

Two of the jump vector components that are affected by the in-bore dynamics of the projectile 

are total CG jump and aerodynamic jump (AJ). Total CG jump is a combination of CG jump, 

crossing velocity (CV), and muzzle pointing angle (MP), as shown in Figure 6. Total CG jump 

is directly related to the transverse velocity of the projectile’s CG at muzzle exit in the laboratory 

coordinate frame (see equation 1). AJ is directly related to the initial angular rate at muzzle exit, 

coupled with the angular rate imparted during sabot discard (see equation 2), 

CG V

V total

transverse

muzzle

= ; (1) 

AJ k C

C

d

V y

n

m muzzle

= − 2 α

α

α& . (2) 

Figure 6. Definition of projectile jump and variability for the simulations. 

In these equations, Cnα is the coefficient for the aerodynamic normal force, Cmα is the 

aerodynamic moment coefficient; d is the subprojectile reference diameter, Vtransverse is the 

velocity in the transverse direction at the muzzle, Vmuzzle is the velocity parallel to the axis of the 

tube at the muzzle, α& is the angular rate at the point of entry into free flight, and ky

2

 is the square 

of the transverse radius of gyration. 

Jump variability is used in this report to determine good vs. poor shooting performance. Because 

initial conditions are not known precisely on a shot-by-shot basis, gun dynamic codes assume a 

range of initial conditions to predict an envelope of performance. Essentially, a range of initial 

projectile cocking angles (up, down, left, right, and straight) are chosen, and then a series of 

simulations is run to determine the jump variability. 
7

5. Versions of the XM1002 Projectile Used in This Report 

XM1002 has used a variety of flight projectiles during development. The two projectiles, Plan A 

and Plan B, that were used in the simulations work in this report are shown in Figure 7. 

Figure 7. Description of the Plan A and Plan B projectile. 

Plan A has an 80-mm-diameter body that transitions into a 6° boattail and a flare stabilizer 

(indicated by the dark shading). Plan B has an 80-mm cylindrical body with a flare stabilizer 

attached to the back. The primary difference in the two projectiles is the transverse moment of 

inertia and the aerodynamic coefficients. Two slightly different versions of the Plan A projectile 

will be used. The only difference in these projectiles is the diameter of the stabilizer. The first 

has a 114-mm flare and the second has a 110-mm flare. 

The physical attributes of the two projectiles are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Physical properties of the projectiles. 

 114 Plan B 114 Plan A 110 Plan A 

CG (mm) 219.610 247.080 245.490 

CG (cal) 2.745 3.089 3.069 

Mass (kg) 7.596 8.053 8.004 

I axial (kg mm2) 5616 6091 5984 

I transverse (kg mm2) 88740 138500 135100 

6. Launch of the XM1002 

The XM1002 projectile is relatively heavy (~22 lb), with a launch velocity of ~1400 m/s. 

There are a number of influences on the projectile that result in its jump characteristics. Some of 

these influences are as follows: gun motion, gun tube centerline, projectile structure, flight 

characteristics, and propellant variability. However, this report will focus only on the effects of 

gun tube centerline for total projectile jump. 

Gun tubes are described with a coordinate system originating at the rear face of the tube. 
8

The x axis is along the tube with the y axis being vertical. The z axis is positive to the right 

(looking down the tube). The centerline is described as a displacement from a perfectly straight 

gun tube in the y and z directions as is shown in Figure 8. 

Figure 8. Gun tube centerline shape. 

The guns are measured using a variety of systems. The original systems were optical and have 

been replaced by laser locating devices, which have improved both the speed and accuracy of the 

measurements. A large portion of the M256 gun system’s tubes has been characterized and the 

analysis of the shapes has resulted in classification of types of defects. Figure 9 shows some of 

the important quantities that impact projectile jump. 

Figure 9. Types of defects seen in gun tube centerlines. 
9

For this study, two types of theoretical tubes were selected to investigate the differences in the 

two projectiles’ jump performance. The first set of tubes is a series of smooth bends that span 

the magnitude of tubes in the fleet (see Figure 10). It should be noted that the distributions of the 

magnitudes are not symmetric. The bends start at two different locations changing the relative 

velocity that the projectile navigates the direction changes. The starting locations of the bends 

are at 2 and 3.8 m. The tubes have been modified in either the vertical and horizontal directions. 

This set of tubes shows how a projectile responds to smooth changes in direction. 

Figure 10. Ideal tube shapes. 

The second set of tubes investigates performance from a more practical sense. These tubes are 

based on a tube which possesses many of the shape defects noted in Figure 11. 

Figure 11. Torturous path tubes (based on SN2658). 

These tubes were built by scaling the magnitude of a particular gun tube in the fleet, SN2659. 

These tubes are modified in both vertical and horizontal planes concurrently. Due to the nature 

and quantity of the defects, these tubes are denoted as the torturous path tubes. The purpose of 

including these tubes is to investigate more realistic performance due to nonideal tube centerline 

shapes. 
10

The results from the simulations show jump at the muzzle, Figure 12, for the ideal tubes shapes. 

The first is that the area swept out by the two versions of the Plan A projectile is nearly the same. 

This is an expected result because the 4-mm change in stabilizer diameter has minimal impact on 

the projectile attributes, especially the transverse moment of inertia and mass. The second result 

seen in the figure is that the Plan A projectiles sweep out a larger area than the Plan B projectiles. 

Figure 12 shows the individual shots for the ideal tube shapes along with bounding boxes for 

each of the groups. The size of the area swept out by Plan B is 24% smaller than the size of the 

area swept out by Plan A. This is probably due to the mass differences in the projectiles. With 

Plan A, the higher mass of the two projectiles means more transverse energy is imparted to the 

projectile as it is forced to navigate the bend. The transverse energy manifests itself in jump. 

Figure 12. Results from ideal tube shapes. 
11

Figure 13 shows the results from the torturous path tubes. There are several items to note from 

this figure. First, the magnitudes of the total jump are very high. This was caused by the large 

magnitude of the centerline shape scaling. This will be examined in a more realistic range at the 

end of this section. The second item is the similar performance of the two versions of the Plan A 

projectile. Again, this is an expected result because the differences in the projectile are minor. 

The third item is the relatively large magnitude of the area swept out by the Plan B projectile 

relative to the Plan A projectile. This is seen in more detail in Figure 13. In this figure, the area 

swept out by Plan A is 35% smaller than Plan B. The explanation for this is related to the 

moments of inertia for the two projectiles. 

Figure 13. Results from torturous path shapes. 

Plan A has a higher moment of inertia than Plan B due to its higher mass and longer length. As 

the tube forces Plan A to change direction, its higher moment of inertia resists these changes 

more than the Plan B projectile. Unlike the smooth tube shapes, the torturous path tube shapes 

force the projectile to navigate many changes during launch. The lower moment of inertia of 

Plan B makes it less resistant to the gun tube influence resulting in higher jump. 
12

This is further illustrated in Figure 14. This figure focuses on scaling magnitudes of tube 

SN2658 from 0 to 1, well within the size and locations of defects in tubes in the fleet. The jump 

of the center of impact (COI) of each group is plotted vs. the magnitude of the tube shape. What 

is seen in this figure is that not only is the total area swept out by Plan B in Figure 13 larger than 

Plan A, but for each increment in the magnitude of the shape of SN2658, the jump for Plan B 

increases faster than Plan A. 

Figure 14. Relative jump vs. tube shape magnitude. 

7. Conclusions 

The simulation accomplished on the different versions of the XM1002 projectiles was able to 

show differences in the jump performance. The two variations of the Plan A projectile, 114-mm 

vs. 110-mm stabilizer, show very similar performance in both sets of tubes used in the study. 

This was an expected result because the stabilizer changes only slightly changed the mass and 

moment of inertia of the projectile. The results show significant differences between the Plan A 

and Plan B projectile. The Plan B projectile shows better jump variability (24%) in the ideal 

tube shapes when compared to the Plan A projectile. The difference is attributed to the lower 

mass of the projectile. When the projectiles were testing in the torturous path tubes, the Plan A 

projectile showed lower variability (34%) when compared to Plan B. Because the torturous path 

tubes require navigating a complex shape with many turns in both the horizontal and vertical 
13

directions, the differences in performance are attributed to the differences in the projectile’s 

moment of inertia. Because Plan B has a lower moment of inertia, it is not as able to resist the 

path changes imposed by the tube which results in higher jump variability. This result is very 

consistent regardless of the magnitude of the tube shape because Plan A always showed more 

jump. The difference in jump variability in both the ideal case and the torturous path case 

manifest themselves in accuracy through occasion to occasion error. In all, simulations were 

used to assess the theoretical accuracy of various XM1002 projectiles during development. This 

information was used to mitigate risk during down selection between the different designs. 

Validation of the results is planned in the next phase of development. 
14

8. References 

1. Burns, B. P.; Newill, J. F.; Wilkerson, S. A. In-Bore Projectile Gun Dynamics. Proceedings 

of the 17th International Ballistics Symposium, Midran, South Africa, 26 March 1998. 

2. Newill, J. F.; Burns, B. P.; Wilkerson, S. A. Overview of Gun Dynamics Numerical 

Simulations; ARL-TR-1760; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD, September 1998. 

3. Newill, J. F.; Hoppel, C. P. R.; Kamdar, D.; Guidos, B.; Drysdale, W. H.; Livecchia, C.; 

Luciano, M. Geometric and Material Changes to the Forward Bourrelet to Optimize 

Performance of KE Ammunition; ARL-TR-2328; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September 2000. 

4. Newill, J. F.; Hoppel, C. P. R.; Soencksen, K. P.; Plostins, P. Simulation of the M865 

Kinetic Energy Projectile With Experimental Validation. Proceedings of the 18th 

International Ballistics Symposium, San Antonio, TX, November 1999. 

5. Newill, J. F.; Hoppel, C. P. R.; Drysdale, W. H.; Kamdar, D. S. Effects of Bourrelet Stiffness 

on the Interior Ballistic Performance of Kinetic Energy Ammunition; ARL-TR-2002; U.S. 

Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June 1999. 

6. Newill, J. F.; Wilkerson, S. A.; Hoppel, C. P. R.; Drysdale W. H. Numerical Simulation of 

Composite Kinetic Energy Projectiles Launched by an M1A1 Abrams M256 Gun System. 

Proceedings of the 30th SAMPE Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX, 23 October 1998. 

7. Anderson, R. D.; Fickie, K. D. IBHVG2 – A User’s Guide; BRL-TR-2829; U.S. Army 

Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 1987. 

8. Bornstein, J.; Celmins, I.; Plostins, P.; Schmidt, E. M. Techniques for the Measurement of 

Tank Cannon Jump; BRL-MR-3715; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD, December 1988. 

9. Guidos, B.; Plostins, P.; Webb, D.; Newill, J. F. 120-mm Tank Gun Accuracy Demonstrator 

(TGAD) Jump Test; ARL-TR-2199; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, December 1999. 
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1

2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

INFORMATION CENTER

DTIC OCA

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD

STE 0944

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 COMMANDING GENERAL

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD

AMCRDA TF

5001 EISENHOWER AVE

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001

1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY

THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400

AUSTIN TX 78759-5316

1 US MILITARY ACADEMY

MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE

MADN MATH

THAYER HALL

WEST POINT NY 10996-1786

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL D

DR D SMITH

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL CS IS R

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

3 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL CI OK TL

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

3 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL CS IS T

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

2 DIR USARL

AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305)

AMSRL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600)
NO OF NO OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

2

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL CP CA

D SNIDER

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

3 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL OP SD TL

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL SS SD

H WALLACE

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

2 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL SS SE DS

R REYZER

R ATKINSON

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL WM MB

A FRYDMAN

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DPTY ASST SECY FOR R&T

SARD TT

THE PENTAGON

RM 3EA79

WASHINGTON DC 20301-7100

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD

AMXMI INT

5001 EISENHOWER AVE

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001

4 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CC

G PAYNE

J GEHBAUER

C BAULIEU

H OPAT

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

2 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR AE WW

E BAKER

J PEARSON

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR FSE

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR TD

C SPINELLI

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

6 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CCH A

W ANDREWS

S MUSALLI

R CARR

M LUCIANO

E LOGSDEN

T LOUZEIRO

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CCH P

J LUTZ

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000
NO OF NO OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

3

4 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR FSF T

T FARINA

J GRAU

C LIVECCHIA

B WONG

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA ASF

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR QAC T C

C PATEL

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR M

D DEMELLA

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

3 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR FSA

A WARNASH

B MACHAK

M CHIEFA

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

2 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR FSP G

M SCHIKSNIS

D CARLUCCI

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

2 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CCH C

H CHANIN

S CHICO 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR QAC T

D RIGOGLIOSO

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR WET

T SACHAR

BLDG 172

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST

AMSTA AR WEL F

M GUERRIERE

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

11 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CCH B

P DONADIA

F DONLON

J KOSTKA

P VALENTI

C KNUTSON

G EUSTICE

S PATEL

G WAGNECZ

R SAYER

F CHANG

K HENRY

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

6 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR CCL

F PUZYCKI

R MCHUGH

D CONWAY

E JAROSZEWSKI

R SCHLENNER

M CLUNE

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000
NO OF NO OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

4

1 PM ARMS

SFAE GCSS ARMS

BLDG 171

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

AMSTA AR WEA

J BRESCIA

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

11 PM MAS

SFAE GSSC TMA 

W SANVILLE

D GUZIEWICZ

E KOPACZ

R ROESER

R DARCY

R KOWALSKI

P CARDELL

F STEINBERG

C ROLLER

J MCGREEN

B PATTER

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY ARDEC

PRODUCTION BASE

MODERN ACTY

AMSMC PBM K

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY TACOM

PM ABRAMS

SFAE ASM AB

6501 ELEVEN MILE RD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY TACOM

AMSTA SF

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY TACOM

PM BFVS

SFAE GCSS W BV

6501 ELEVEN MILE RD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY TACOM

CHIEF ABRAMS TESTING

SFAE GCSS W AB QT

T KRASKIEWICZ

6501 ELEVEN MILE RD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 COMMANDER

WATERVLIET ARSENAL

SMCWV QAE Q

B VANINA

BLDG 44

WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050

3 ARMOR SCHOOL

ATZK TD

R BAUEN

J BERG

A POMEY

FT KNOX KY 40121

3 HQ OSC TANK

AMMUNITION TEAM

AMSIO SMT

R CRAWFORD

B DAVIES

D PORTERFELD

ROCK ISLAND IL 61299-6000
NO OF NO OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

5

14 BENET LABORATORIES

AMSTA AR CCB

R FISCELLA

M SOJA

E KATHE

M SCAVULO

G SPENCER

P WHEELER

S KRUPSKI

J VASILAKIS

G FRIAR

R HASENBEIN

AMSTA CCB R 

S SOPOK

E HYLAND

D CRAYON

R DILLON

WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050

8 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC

C CANDLAND 

C AAKHUS 

B SEE 

N VLAHAKUS 

R DOHRN 

S HAGLUND 

L NELSON 

D KAMDAR 

4700 NATHAN LANE

PLYMOUTH MN 55442

9 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC

T ROCKNE 

T TOMPSON 

T HUNGERFORD 

J PERSOON 

R DOHRN 

L OSGOOD 

G BLACKMAN 

M TAYLOR 

J DAVID 

TCAAP BLDG 104

ARDEN HILLS MN 55112

1 SAIC

M PALMER

1410 SPRING HILL RD STE 400

MS SH4 5

MCLEAN VA 22102 

1 APPLIED COMPOSITES

W GRISCH

333 NORTH SIXTH ST

ST CHARLES IL 60174

3 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC

J CONDON

E LYNAM

J GERHARD

WV01 16 STATE RT 956

PO BOX 210

ROCKET CENTER WV 26726-0210

3 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS

B PERKINS

P RADCZENKO

L BUONODONO

10101 NINTH ST NORTH

ST PETERSBURG FL 33702

3 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS

FLINCHBAUGH DIV

E STEINER

B STEWART

T LYNCH

PO BOX 127

RED LION PA 17356

1 UDLP

G THOMAS

PO BOX 58123

SANTA CLARA CA 95052

2 UDLP

R BARRETT MAIL DROP M53

V HORVATICH MAIL DROP M53

328 W BROKAW RD 

SANTA CLARA CA 95052-0359

3 UDLP

GROUND SYSTEMS DIVISION

M PEDRAZZI MAIL DROP N09

A LEE MAIL DROP N11

M MACLEAN MAIL DROP N06

1205 COLEMAN AVE

SANTA CLARA CA 95052

2 UDLP

R BRYNSVOLD

P JANKE MS 170

4800 EAST RIVER RD

MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421-1498
NO OF NO OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

6

1 GDLS DIVISION

D BARTLE

PO BOX 1901

WARREN MI 48090

2 US ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH

DEVELOP & ENG CNTR

A FARINA

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806

4 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC

R DOHRN (2 CPS)

D KAMDAR (2 CPS)

ARDEN HILLS MN 55112

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

2 US ARMY MATERIEL

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY

AMXSY TD

P DIETZ

D NORMAN

392 HOPKINS RD

APG MD 21005-5071

1 US ARMY ATC

W C FRAZER

CSTE DTC AT AC I

400 COLLERAN RD

APG MD 21005-5059

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

AMSRL OP AP L

APG MD 21005-5066

43 DIR USARL

AMSRL CI

AMSRL CI S

A MARK

AMSRL CS IO FI

M ADAMSON

AMSRL SL BA

AMSRL SL BL

D BELY

R HENRY

AMSRL SL BG

AMSRL WM

J SMITH

AMSRL WM B

A HORST

AMSRL WM BA

D LYON

AMSRL WM BC

P PLOSTINS

J NEWILL (5 CPS)

M BUNDY

J GARNER (2 CPS)

D WEBB

B GUIDOS (2 CPS)

A ZIELINSKI

AMSRL WM BD

B FORCH

R FIFER

R PESCE RODRIGUEZ

B RICE

AMSRL WM BE

C LEVERITT

AMSRL WM BF

J LACETERA

AMSRL WM BR

C SHOEMAKER

J BORNSTEIN

AMSRL WM M

D VIECHNICKI

G HAGNAUER

J MCCAULEY

AMSRL WM MA

L GHIORSE

S MCKNIGHT

AMSRL WM MB

B FINK

J BENDER

W DRYSDALE

C HOPPEL

AMSRL WM T

B BURNS

M ZOLTOSKI

AMSRL WM TC

R COATES