Research Note 85-60

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPURPOSE ARCADE COM4BAT SIMULATOR (MACS)

FOR THE M16, M203, AND M72A2

Mary N. Perkins, R. Dale Selby, John M. Broom, and Alan S. Osborne

Mellonics Systems Development Division, Litton Systems, Inc. U)

WOO

for

Alternate Contracting Officer's Representative

James E. Schroeder

ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

Seward Smith, Chief

Training Research Laboratory

Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Uj U. S. Army

U-Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1985

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

* 5 10 7 ,U UU

...........
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under t-he Jurisdiction of the

". Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSIBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel. IN

Technical Director Comnander

"" Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Litton Mellonics

* Technical review by

James E. Schroeder

........... ..... .... ...

H

- I -

Dist

"eo. as subnittedti Wcontractor. has been cleared fer reteas to Defense Technical Infornmation Cener (DTIC| to conly with reulatory reuirememt. 11 has been given no prinary distribtion other than to DTIC

and will be available only through DTIC or other reference smim such a the National Technical Infornson ervi W TIS. The vicws, cainien, end/or findings contained in ibis report we the of the author id should not be contrueJ as an official Copsitmwi of the Army Position, Policy, or decision, unless so designated by other oflicial documentation.

l i I I izI
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W*e,, Dole Entered)

REPRTDOUMNTTIN AG READ INSTRUCTIONS REPOT DCUMNTATON AGEBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

IREPORT NUMBER 2GOVr ACCESSION NO. 3 NECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 85-60 [4p_.5' ~ OFRPR ERO OEE

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 15 YEO EOT6PRO OEE

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPURPOSE )Final Report

ARCADE COMBAT SIMULATOR (MACS) FOR THE IMarch 1984-May 1984

'16, uM203, AND M72A2 6.PRIING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

*7. AUTNOR(e) B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

Mary N. Perkins, R. Dale Selby, III,

John M. Broom, and Alan S. Osborne MDA 903-80-C-0345

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Litto MellnicsAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

*P0 box 2498 2Q263743A794

FortBenning,_Georgia__31905_______________

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

*ARI Field Unit June 1985

P0 Box 2086 IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

* Fort Benning, Georgia 31905 53_____________________

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(lf different no Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of tia report)

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Unclassified

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600' 15. OECLASSIVICATrON/'DOWNGRADING

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tise Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. 04STRIOUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, it different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Seward Smith, contracting officer's James E. Schroeder, alternate contracting

*representative officer's representative

it. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side If necessay and Identify by block number)

M16 rifle simulator

M203 grenade launcher training

M72A2 light antitank weapon weapons

marksmanship

microcomputer

20. AGITWACr rcenrthmme revere ef*p nt nmea, amd identify by block number)

SLimited experimental evaluations were performed on the Multipurpose

Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS) configured for the M16 Rifle, M203 Grenade

* Launcher, and M72A2 Light Antitank Weapon. Computer training programs were

written for each configuration and field tested using soldiers undergoing

-One .Station Unit Training (OSUT). The results indicate that MACS training, * when given prior to live fire instruction, may give soldiers a head start on

acquiring marksmanship skills. In the studies in which MACS training was

Llimited to a brief exposure prior to live-fire training, there was a trend for

*DD rom 347 EDITION or I NOV $&IS OBSOLELTEUCLSIED-'

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA-.t frten noete Fntet1)
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPURPOSE ARCADE COMBAT SIMULATOR (MACS)

FOR THE M16, M203, AND M72A2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The purpose of this investigation was to conduct limited experimental

* evaluations of the current Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS) software

compared to standard training. This part-task simulator is composed of an

inexpensive microcomputer, light pen attached to a weapon, and a color video

monitor. Configurations were developed for three U.S. Army Infantry weapons

that were identified in a previous study as likely candidates for MACS. These

weapons are: M16 Rifle, M203 Grenade Launcher, and the M72A2 Light Antitank

Weapon.

Procedure:

Computer training programs, tailored to the One Station Unit Training

(OSUT) program of instruction, were written for each of the three IACS

configurations: MACS M16, MACS M203, and MACS M72A2. Separate evaluations,

using different OSUT companies, were conducted for each weapon. The primary

dependent variable was the live-fire performance of the experimental group

(soldiers who received MACS training in addition to regularly scheduled

training) compared to the control group (regularly scheduled training only).

Additionally, an opinion questionnaire was administered to the experimental

group to assess subjective usefulness of MACS.

Findings:

The data indicated that MACS training, when given prior to live-fire

instruction, may give soldiers a head start it the acquisition of marksmanship

skills. In the MACS M203 and MACS M72A2 studieb, which limited MACS training

to a brief exposure prior to live-fire training,khere was a trend for the

experimental groups to hit more targets and to place live rounds closer to

the center of mass of the target, especially on the farther targets.,Vt4ACS was

found to have a statistically significant live-fire transfer effect for .

M203 grenade launcher. The MACS M16 experimental group spent over 500% more

time on the simulator than did the trainees in the MACS M203 or MACS M72A2

studies, and the exposure was distributed concurrently with regularly scheduled

training. However, although statistically significant within-MACS M16 improvements were found, comparisons with control subjects in live-fire tasks were

not statistically significant.

The favorable responses on the opinion questionnaires support the

potential usefulness of MACS as a training aid. The soldiers reported that

MACS training was very interesting and helpful, and preferable to traditional

concurrent training.

iii
Utilization of Findings:

The results of this investigation indicated that MACS has potential

as a cost-effective training aid and could contribute to a more favorable

learning environment by providing (1) standardized instruction, (2) one-on-one

instruction, and (3) a motivating head start to live-fire training. The

experimental evaluations performed on the MACS M16, MACS M203, and MACS M72A2

configurations should be considered preliminary field tests which should be

followed by further development. Since the results indicated that the effectiveness of MACS may vary as a function of exposure schedule, further investigation is recommended to determine the most appropriate stage of training to

use MACS, and the amount of time needed to impart an effect.

iv

* . .... . a .... - N 6 -

.i~a*n -. ** . . . .. ..... ... | " -
*' CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

EVALUATION 1: MACS N16 . .. ... . .. . .. . .. . 4

Method 1 . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

EVALUATION 2: MACS M203 ....................... 19

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . . . . .. .. 19

Results and Discussion *. .................. . 20

EVALUATION 3: MACS M72A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

:..Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 27

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 28

GENERAL DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . 36

APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTION OF MACS M16 PROGRAMS . . ......... . . A-i

B. TARGET SCALE VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oB-1

C. PREVIOUS SHOOTING EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . C-1

D. DESCRIPTION OF MACS M203 PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

E. DESCRIPTION OF MACS M72A2 PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . .. E-i

LIST OF TABLES

Table i. Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Target Hits Using the M203 . . . . . 22

2. Correlations Between MACS M203 and Live-Fire Performance

on the 200 Meter Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 24

3. Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Target Hits Using the M72A2 . . . . 28

4. Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Lost Rounds Using the M72A2 . . . . 28

5. Correlations Between MACS and M72A2 Live Fire Performance - - 30

-. 6. Target Scale Verification .......... . . . . . .. B-2

v

.o

N 0.

* .. * - .
CONTENTS Continued

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

" Figure 1. Illustration of the MACS P416 Configuration . . . . . . . . . 2

2. MACS M16 evaluation schedule ................ 6

3. Mean performance during Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM)

training of soldiers vho did (experimental) and did not

(control) use MACS . . . ............... .

4. Prior shooting experience of soldiers participating in

the MACS M16 evaluation ...... . . . . . . . . . 12

5. Frequency distribution of percentage of soldiers placing zero

to nine rounds on target during BRM Period 3 training .... 13

6. Frequency distribution of number of soldiers achieving 0 to 40

target hits on the second exposure to MACS Record Fire (RF-2)

and on the live-fire Record Fire qualification test ..... 15

7. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses: Steady

Position and Aiming Program . . . .. .. . . .. ..... 16

8. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses: Dow

Range Feedback Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

9. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses: Field

Fire and Record Fire Program ................ 18

10. Mean horizontal distance M203 round landed from the

target's center of mass . .. . . . . . . . . ... . 21

ll. Mean vertical distance M203 round landed from the

target's center of mass . . . . . .......... .... 23

12. Prior shooting experience of soldiers participating in

the MACS M203 evaluation . . . . ... . . . . . ..... 25

13. MACS M203 opinion questionnaire median responses - . o . . . 26

14. Mean distance M72A2 rounds landed from the target's

center of mass . ................. . . . . . 29

15. Prior shooting experience of soldiers participating in

the MACS M72A2 evaluation . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . ... 31

16. MACS M72A2 opinion questionnaire median responses .. .... 33

17. Instructional Design for MACS M16 Steady Position and

Aiming Training Program . . . . .......... . . . . A-2

Vi

!

b
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE

MULTIPURPOSE ARCADE COMBAT SIMULATOR (MACS)

FOR THE M16, M203, AND M72A2

INTRODUCTION

Simulators are a viable response to efforts to contain training expenses

yet maintain high standards of instruction. Every soldier in the Army must

complete initial entry training, during which the Army will spend a minimum of

$1,185 per soldier on ammunition alone (Perkins & Schroeder, 1983). Although

this financial outlay is substantial, it is not enough. For example, some

soldiers need additional firing practice to pass the Basic Rifle Marksmanship

test. Furthermore, budget cuts have reduced M203 Grenade Launcher training

from a 15-round qualification program to a 5-round familiarization program.

Simulators can help bridge the training gap between what is financially

practical and what is necessary to produce combat-ready soldiers.

Simulators also can make substantial contributions to high quality

standardized instruction. The lower the student-to-instructor ratio, the more

favorable the conditions are for learning, and simulators are a cost-effective

way to optimize this ratio. Furthermore, simulators provide standardized

instruction that ensures all trainees receive the same high quality training.

Finally, motivation is an important factor for learning and simulators can

stimulate interest in dry-fire exercises.

More than any factor, the microprocessor is responsible for the proliferation of simulators. The core element of most simulators is a computer of

some sort, and the small size and low cost of the microprocessor has made many

simulators feasible that would have been prohibitively large and expensive if

run by a minicomputer. For example, in 1973 a minicomputer, plus peripherals,

for one simulator cost $30,000 and was the size of a small refrigerator. In

contrast, by 1980 the device had been redesigned around a microprocessor that

cost about $3,000 (including peripherals) and was the size of a typewriter

(McGlasson, 1983).

There is a commitment in the US Army to low-cost simulators oriented

toward part-task training (Ludvigsen, 1981). However, a recent literature

search for weapon simulators indicated that there are several very expensive

simulators (e.g., the stationary target Weaponeer for $35,000, or the Unit

Conduct of Fire Trainer for about $1.5 million), but nothing in a lower price

range, around $2,000 to $4,000 (Perkins & Schroeder, 1983).

The Army Research Institute (ARI) Fort Benning Field Unit has developed

an inexpensive part-task simulator (Schroeder, 1982). This development was

partly in response to military training requirements that effective Infantry

weapons simulators be developed inexpensively enough to be fielded in sufficient

quantities to meet wide-spread needs. Factors contributing to the development

of simulators of this type include the expense of ammunition for weapons

training, high cost of competing simulator devices, and technological advances

-. - - ..... ..... ... .. . ... ..... ......-

. .. .n .~ . , .. , ,n =L: =n =n, nkW~. , .. . . . . ... * .. . . . .-
* which sake low-cost training aids financially practical. As illustrated in

Figure 1, this simulator ', called MACS (Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator)

is composed of an inexpensive microcomputer, a light pen attached to a

* demilitarized weapon, and a color video monitor (Schroeder, 1982). The

* simulator Is multipurpose In that different weapons can be "plugged into" the

* system by removing the light pen sensing device from one weapon and attaching

I it to another, and inserting a software disk into the computer's drive so

that a training scenario appropriate for that weapon appears on the monitor.

Figure 1. Illustration of the MACS M16 configuration.

2
An earlier study established which US Army Infantry weapons are most

suitable for MACS, and the order in which these weapons should be addressed

(Perkins & Schroeder, 1983). The following weapons, listed in order of

suitability, were identified: (1) M16Al/A2 5.56mm Rifle, (2) M72A2 Light

Antitank Weapon (LAW), (3) M203 Grenade Launcher, (4) M60 Machinegun, (5)

Dragon, (6) TOW, (7) .45 Caliber Pistol, (8) M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

(SAW), (9) M202A1 FLASH, and (10) .50 Caliber Machinegun. Instructional

designs and computer software then were modified from the original ARI prototypes for the first three weapons, M16, M72A2, and M203.

Marksmanship training for the M16 receives considerably more time than

the M203 or M72A2; therefore, program development was more extensive for the

M16. The training guides available for the M16 (Basic Training POI 21-114;

BP Shooter's Book, and Unit Rifle!Marksmanship Training Guide) describe the

basic skills necessary for marksmanship: steady position, aiming, breath

control, and trigger squeeze, and these formed the instructional objectives

for the M16 software. All initial entry soldier- receive 48 hours of Basic

Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training prior to taking an M16 marksmanship qualification test, and this program provided the guidelines for the training

scenarios simulated by MACS. Similarly, the tasks stated in the OSUT Program

of Instruction (POI) for the M203 and the M72A2 (8 hrs training each) were

simulated for the MACS M203 and MACS M72A2 scenarios.

This report details the results of preliminary evaluations performed on

prototype MACS configurations for the M16, M203, and M7ZA2. These evaluations

represent initial efforts to test equipment and courseware which are still in

the developmental stage. The results of these investigations will provide

guidelines for modifications, which will a~ain be subjected to further testin.

The presentation of the findings is organized into three sections, one for

each configuration: MACS M16, MACS M203, and MACS M72A2. The major goe"

of this effort was to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the current MACS

software and to provide recommendations for future directions for MACS

development.

3
EVALUATION 1: MACS M16

The pilot evaluation of the MACS M16 programs began with introducing

* the soldiers to the M16 and ended with a qualification test of M16 marksmanship.

-" Live-fire performance data generated during regularly scheduled BRM exercises

were collected and comparisons were made between soldiers who did and did not

receive supplemental MACS M16 training. It should be noted that the field

data are possibly contaminated by a number of sources of error which were

beyond the experimenters' control. Nevertheless, the data generated provide

" preliminary input about which MACS programs train the best, where potential

hardware/software problems lie, where MACS should be implemented, and where

changes, additions, or deletions in the software should be made.

Method

Subjects. The experimental and control groups were drawn from a company

of Army trainees beginning Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training at Fort

Benning, GA. All subjects were male. This company volunteered to participate

.n the MACS 16 study. Moreover, this company was composed of two regular

Army platoons, and two platoons of National Guardsmen and Reservists, many of

whom could not claim English as their first language. In the interest

- of sample homogeneity, a decision was made to draw subjects only from the

* two regular Army platoons. Because the platoon members had to stay together,

a sample from one platoon became the experimental group and a sample from the

other platoon became the control group. A flip of the coin decided which

group would be the experimental group. Twenty-six soldiers were used from the

experimental platoon and 30 soldiers from the control platoon. Inclusion of

soldiers in the study was based on roster number: soldiers with the first 26

roster numbers in the experimental platoon formed the original experimental

group, and the first 30 roster numbers formed the control group. However,

during the investigation, two subjects were unavailable and the company

commander replaced them with two soldiers who were not in roster sequence

(i.e., roster #34 and #42.) It was assumed that assignment of roster number to

each soldier was unbiased and inquiries into this process failed to identify

any biases. Group size was based upon the maximum number of soldiers that

could receive MACS training under the existing time and equipment constraints,

with 6 and 10 additional subjects in the experimental and control groups,

respectively, to control for attrition.

Apparatus. The hardware configuration of MACS is described in Schroeder

(1982). For the M16, existing ARI programs were modified and new programs

were written resulting in six programs, each compatible with the training

objectives in the different stages of BRM instruction. A description of the

MACS M16 programs is provided in Appendix A. The scale of the targets presented

in MACS was verified by comparing the measurements taken from the screen to

the values calculated mathematically, and by comparing photographic images of

the targets as they appear on the monitor screen to photographs of targets at

actual distances on a firing range. The target scale verification procedure

is presented in more detail in Appendix B.

4
Procedure. Prior to the field evaluation, two pilot tests were conducted

in which two sets of five troops beginning BRM training were brought into the

ARI field station to try out the MACS M16 programs. At this time, any detected

problems with the equipment or software were corrected. For the field evaluation, four MACS units were set up in a range shack near the BRM training

sites. For each BRM period, the experimental group performed the live-fire

exercises scheduled for that period of BRM with the rest of the company. The

experimental group then was separated from the company and transported to the

MACS range shack to receive training on the MACS program compatible with the

BRM training just completed. BRM training also includes concurrent training

which is held simultaneously with the live-fire exercises. During each BRM

period, the platoons rotate through the live-fire and concurrent training

stations. For the experimental group, concurrent training was conducted at

the MACS evaluation site by an instructor provided by the Infantry Training

Group. MACS was not intended to substitute for any training, rather it was

intended to provide additional instruction. It should be noted that the

experimental group received the concurrent training in a different training

site than the rest of the company and, therefore, did not have access to any

of the training aids (diagrams, posters, etc.) normally available.

The week long evaluation schedule is summarized in Figure 2. On the

first day of MACS training, following BRM Period 2, the experimental group

received AID (Aiming Instructional Device), and MACS Steady Position and

Aiming Pretest, Training, and Posttest programs. However, there was not

enough time to run everyone in the experimental group before they had to

return to their mess area for lunch. Also, it was discovered that one of the

light pens was not functioning properly, so the soldiers who had used the

weapon with this pen needed to be retested. Consequently, 15 soldiers were

exposed to MACS in the morning only (after BRM Period 2, but before any live

firing in Period 3), 7 soldiers were tested that afternoon after Period 3, and

4 soldiers were run in both the morning and afternoon. After completing

BRM Period 4, the experimental group received AID, MACS Steady Position and

Aiming Training and Posttest, and worked through the MACS Down Range Feedback

(DRF) program two times (DRF-1 and DRF-2). There was no time for MACS following

Period 5. Following Period 6, the troops trained on three more iterations of

MACS DRF (DRF-3, 4, and 5). MACS Field Fire I was presented twice following

Period 7 (FFI-l and FFI-2). Following Period 8, soldiers were given two

presentations of the MACS Field Fire II Program. On the last day before

qualification, the experimental group trained on MACS Record Fire after

Period 9 (RF-l) and then again following Period 10 (RF-2). Each soldier spent

at least 96 min. on MACS, and fired a minimum of 380 rounds over the 5-day

period. There was no MACS training on the day of Record Fire qualification.

After training on each of the MACS programs, members of the experimental

group completed an opinion questionnaire. Copies of the questionnaire,

with median responses, are presented in the results section. To determine the

extent of shooting experience prior to entering the Army, a questionnaire was

administered to all subjects prior to BRM or MACS training. A copy of this

questionnaire is provided in Appendix C.

5

- - - - • --. -" . "... .A-,.. .. '. , ',/. , : .- . " , , ." . ... .. . - ..L ..... , -. i -- . . . ,.... .1 - . - -
U..

E-4-

mn 04 0N ad0

' -4 V4 i

co 1I-4 ~HrP4 C4

1.T 04 l0CS -4 1-4

14 .4C4 0.4 

04 "4

w '-4 O-4 H w0A ftd 4 P4ow P, 0

bI.4.

enU

P4.

-. 41

.I4 0 §WQ 1 1 4

9241 C-4

"4 4A 4 1

U~0 .19 $d0 c

ILI " 0 

.14 4V r4 41

Cfl 4~0.14 0

0.4.-0.

f-4

%Of-4
P.

During each period of BRM training, the live-fire performance of both the

experimental and control groups was recorded. The following is a short

description of each period of BRM instruction and the dependent measures

(field data) collected for each period. However, the program was currently in

revision at the time of this test. Unless otherwise specified, the performance

of the experimental group was compared to that of the control group using

t-tests.

Periods I and 2 - No data were collected.

Period 3 - Fundamentals of Shooting (Live Fire). The soldier learns how

to shoot tight shot groups and to zero a rifle. Period 3 also introduces

concurrent training in which an instructor presents new subjects or reviews

previously presented material. Whenever the soldier is not on the firing

line, he attends one or more concurrent training stations. The dependent

variable was the number of rounds, out of 9 maximum, that hit a 25 m zero

target. After the soldiers fired, the targets were collected and bullet

holes were counted. This measure is confounded by not knowing why targets

were missed. Absence of hits on targets can be classified broadly as either

due to poor marksmanship, or due to factors unrelated to marksmanship, such as

the weapon not being zeroed, a magazine containing fewer than 9 rounds,

unzeroed weapon, weapon or ammunition malfunctions, or firing at the wrong

target. These factors may have contributed to measurement error, but for

statistical reasons it must be assumed that error was randomly distributed

among both the experimental and control groups.

Period 4 - Practice Firing (Zero). During Period 4, each soldier fires

as many 3-round shot groups needed to zero his rifle. An introductory

lecture about the effects of wind and gravity on the flight of the bullet also

is given. The dependent variable was the number of rounds (no maximum)

needed to place a 3-round shot group within the 4 cm circle of a zero target

presented at a range of 25 m. This can be a long exercise which does not end

until all soldiers have zeroed or at dusk, whichever comes first. There was

not enough time to close the range after each soldier zeroed to collect

targets, therefore, data for this period were taken from the company's records

which were generated by student coaches spotting for the firers. It is not

known whether some soldiers needed more rounds to zero because of weapon

malfunctions, confusion about how to adjust sights, difference in quality

of original zero, inability to fire a tight shot group, etc.

Period 5 - Practice Firing (25 Meter Silhouette). Targets are scaled

silhouettes representing 75, 175, and 300 m. Soldiers fire six rounds at

each range in 3-round bouts for a total of 18 rounds. Firers and instructors

walk down range to evaluate shot location after the first 9 rounds (fired from

a foxhole supported position) and again after the last 9 rounds (fired from a

prone unsupported position). The dependent variable was the number of rounds,

out of 18, that hit six silhouettes scaled to represent 75, 175, and 300

targets, presented at a range of 25 m. Each soldier records hits and misses

for each target on score cards provided by the instructors. An attempt

was made to collect each soldier's targets, but the rain that day made this

impossible. It is doubtful that the rain biased potential group differences

since weather conditions were similar for both groups. The experimenters

relied on soldiers resorts.

7

,-
%"7

Period 6 - Down Range Feedback. 75 and 175 Meters. During this period,

soldiers engage targets at 75 and 175 m and then walk down range to see

the results. These targets are actual size and at actual distances. They are

placed on background paper so the soldier can see the location of most misses.

Soldiers fire 30 rounds: 5 rounds supported position at the 75 m target,

5 rounds unsupported position at the 75 a target, and 10 rounds from each

position at the 175 a target. Target presentations are timed at 5 sec for

the 75 m target and 10 sec for the longer ranges. Evaluation of shot location

occurs after 15 and 30 rounds. The dependent variable-was the number of

rounds, out of 30, that hit six silhouettes scaled to 75, 175, and 300 m.

Each soldier records hits and misses for each target on score cards provided

by the instructors. Additionally, Litton/ARI personnel provided the experimental

and control groups with copies of the Basic Rifle Marksmanship Shooter's Book

(Heller, Thompson, and Osborne, 1981), which contains miniature scaled targets,

to record location of each round fired. Unfortunately, since there were

insufficient Litton/ARI personnel to supervise accurate recording of shot

location, and the cadre changed their instructions between the experimental and

control groups, these data were very incomplete. However, the 10 rounds fired

at the 75 m target were salvaged for both groups. In addition, the soldiers,

reports about hits and misses were used in the analysis.

Period 7 - Field Fire (Single Tariets) and Target Detection. Period 7 is

conducted on a field fire range with two sizes of pop-up targets that fall

when hit. The first size is the "E"-type representing a kneeling enemy

soldier, and the second is the "F"-type representing an enemy soldier in the

prone position. Only one target (75, 175, or 300 m) comes up at a time.

The soldier has 5 sec to find, aim, and shoot the 75 and 175 m targets, and 10

sec for the 300 m target. An introduction to target detection also is included

*. in Period 7. The dependent variable was the number of hits, out of 42 possible,

* on targets at ranges of 75, 175, and 300 m. Each firer has a student coach

who records the firer's performance on a scorecard provided by the instructors.

Data for this measure were taken from these records. Scoring of pop-up

targets is subject to error such as failure by the scorer to detect a target,

". failure to recognize a target hit due to a target malfunction in which the

* target does not go down when hit, or assigning a hit when in fact the target

was missed.

Period 8 - Field Fire (Single and Multiple Targets). Period 8 is similar

to Period 7 except that more than one target may be exposed at a time. The

75, 175, and 300 m targets are again used for this instruction. The soldier

has a time limit of 3 to 12 sec depending upon which target or combination of

" targets appear. The dependent variable was number of hits, out of a possible

36, on targets presented one or two at a time, for 5 to 12 sec, at ranges of

- 75, 175, and 300 m. Data collection and error sources were the same as for

Period 7.

*" 8

'. ".
Period 9 - Zero and Timed Fire. Period 9 contains two different exercises.

First, the rifle's zero is reconfirmed and improved if necessary. The second

exercise is firing at a target containing several scaled silhouettes similar

to those in Period 5, but with six ranges represented (50, 100, 150, 200, 250,

and 300 m) and a limited time to fire at all the silhouettes (45 sec in the

foxhole position and 55 seconds in the prone position). The dependent variable

was the number of hits, out of 20 rounds, on 10 silhouettes scaled for 50,

100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m. Litton/ARI personnel collected the targets and

counted hits and misses for each range and firing position. Although Litton/ARI

personnel were on the range to observe this exercise, there were not enough

observers to carefully monitor all firing stations.

Period 10 - Practice Record Fire. This practice for record fire helps

the soldier to see how well he is shooting and to learn about the qualification

test to improve his score. The dependent measure was the number of targets

hit, out of a possible 40, at ranges of 50 to 300 m, exposed one or two at a

time, for 3 to 12 sec. Student coaches recorded the firer's number of hits on

a scorecard. Possible sources of error are the same as those described for

pop-up targets in Period 7. Again, there were insufficient Litton/ARI personnel

to monitor every firing station.

Period 11 - Combat Firing and Record Fire. Period 11 is broken into two

stages. In the first stage (Combat Firing), the soldier fires at 20 targets

from the foxhole supported firing position, and 20 targets from the prone

unsupported firing position. Firers are required to change magazines in the

middle of firing and also are allowed to fire more than one round at missed

targets. Combat Firing is so named because it is designed to simulate

combat.

The second portion of Period 11 is Record Fire qualification. There

are 40 timed targets (20 from the foxhole supported firing position and 20

targets from the prone unsupported firing position) with single and multiple

exposures. Scoring for record fire is:

36-40 hits: Expert

30-35 hits: Sharpshooter

23-29 hits: Marksman

22 or less: Unqualified

Three firing lanes were designated for the experimental group, and three

lanes for the ccitrol subjects. A Litton/ARI staff member was assigned to

each lane and provided back-up scoring of hit/miss information to the range

personnel. At the end of the day, the pop-up silhouette targets from these

six lanes were collected, and the bullet holes in each target were counted to

provide another measure of scoring reliability.

9

*. p . . . . . .-.. . ..-. -..- -.-
Results and Discussion

MACS M16 training did not improve BRM performance as measured by the

number of hits in each of the BRM periods. Figure 3 illustrates that mean

scores for each period of BUM were similar for soldiers who received MACS

training compared to the control group. All w-tests were statistically

nonsignificant.

It is possible that the groups were not matched on marksmanship ability

prior to training, but a reliable measure of this was not available. Figure 4

illustrates that the two groups, in general, had a similar amount of shooting

• .experience prior to BIR training. The most notable differences were in the

*" amount of minimum experience and at the opposite extreme. Compared to the

control group, there were 162 more soldiers in the experimental group with

minimum experience (fired 1 to 50 rounds) but 82 fewe soldiers who reported

to have fired over 1000 rounds. However, neither a- test using a median

split nor a t-test of log number of rounds fired revealed significant differences

in the two groups. Another indication of baseline marksmanship ability is

performance in Period 3. Although there was a tendency for the control group

to place more rounds on target, there was no significant difference in mean

number of rounds on target (Figure 5). Performance during BRM Period 3 was a

better predictor of later Record Fire scores than was previous experience.

For the control group, there was a statistically significant correlation

between Period 3 performance and Record Fire score (r - .43, p < .05).

It was intended that the experimental group receive the first program

of MACS instruction prior to any live firing. However, due to time constraints,

seven soldiers did not receive MACS training until after BM Period 3 live-fire

training. Nevertheless, soldiers in the experimental group who received MACS

training prior to Period 3 had a similar number of rounds on target (3 - 7.4)

compared to the soldiers in the experimental group who did not receive

MACS training until after Period 3 (N - 7.5).

During MACS exposure, a number of within-subject comparisons were made to

determine within-MACS training effects for the experimental group. One such

test assessed MACS's ability to train steady position. On the first MACS day,

experimental subjects were given a test (pretest) during which six targets

were presented. For each target presentation, numerous readings were taken by

the MACS program prior to and during trigger manipulation in order to assess

the subjects' ability to maintain a steady position. Next, the MACS Steady

Position and Aiming program was presented. The instructional objective of

this program is to train steadiness during trigger manipulation. Following

this training program, the same test (now a poattest) was given to assess any

training effects. Subsequently, the five readings prior to trigger switch

closure were analyzed to determine steadiness. The resulting dependent

variable was the sum of the standard deviation for "x" readings and the

standard deviation for the "y" readings. A significant reduction was found in

this index of variability (t(24) = 2.14, y < .05) indicating a positive

training effect.

10

.a.-o*, . . °o° o .- *.. o.o v -. . *- -o ..- . "° *~ . . . . . ... °o o -... -. •o . . ..

t_ O. 4**_
00

4

LL 0

C2--

000

LL- (. 0 $

ix - Ad "

ixLL.

IQ -,4

-4*

(.; C: 04

LLC rqC/ to 04~

_ Ismw

CLa. r~ en

- 00

CC
V -V

I 0

SL)

.0. 

19-

2uipodsr jo *.-ja5. s-iipjo ........... 12
00 0

4

4)

00

CU

0 00

4

00(

00

~.fH 0

P" r

Q0

co~ $40

S.1alplos*.- ju oa haas 

134.
,

Other significant training effects within MACS performance were found.

On the Aiming Instructiontl Device program (AID), there was a significant

* improvement in number of acceptable sight pictures (scores higher than 80)

from MACS day 1 to M&CS day 2 Lt(25) - 3.49, y < .01). There vas steady

* improvement in mean performance over the five exposures to the MACS Down

Range Feedback program but the training effect was not significant QF(4,100)

< 1.0). There was a significant improvement in mean median performance from

the first to the second exposure of the MACS Field Fire I program (mean median

score, t(25) - 2.66, y < .01). Similarly, there was a significant increase in

* mean median score from the first to the second exposure to the MACS Field Fire

* II program (1(25) - 2.16,.B < .05). Finally, there was improvement in mean

- median score for the MACS Record Fire program from the first to the second

exposure, but this was not statistically significant (t(24) - .97, Y > .05).

The correlation between scores on mean median for the two MACS Record

Fire exposures and qualification scores recorded by Litton/ARI personnel was

not significant U~ - +.17). However, inspection of the data indicated that

one subject scored next to the lowest score on MACS Record Fire but the

* highest score on live-fire Record Fire. When that subject was removed, the

correlation increased to (r - +.34) but was still not statistically significant.

The absence of a significant correlation between performance on MACS Record

* Fire and live-fire Record Fire may be due to the MACS program being too easy

* and, therefore, not producing a discriminating measure of marksmanship ability.

* Figure 6, which compares the distribution of scores on MACS RF-2 and on the

live-fire Record Fire qualification test, shows that the MACS RF-2 scores are

negatively skewed. Seven times more soldiers fired in the Expert class (36-40

hits) on the simulator than in live fire.

Scoring of Record Fire qualification is subject to several sources of

* error, such as failure by the scorer to detect a target, failure to recognize

a target hit due to a target malfunction in which the target does not go down

when hit, or assigning a hit when in fact the target dropped because time had

expired. Although various sources of error exist, scoring of hits and misses

* was highly reliable. Each firing point had two scorers; one provided by the

* range and another from Litton/ARI. The correlation between hit/miss records

* from range scorers and Litton/ARI scorers was .96. Furthermore, after the

soldiers had fired, the targets were collected and bullet holes were counted.

There was a high correlation between the number of rounds recorded to have hit

a target and the number of bullet holes (r~ - .94, between number of rounds in

each target and the number of recorded hits).

The soldiers found MACS interesting and helpful, and preferable to

BRM concurrent training they had received (although that may have differed

from concurrent training received by the control group). Responses to the

Opinion Questionnaire were positive for all MACS training programs (Figures 7,

8, and 9). Willingness to use MACS during off-duty hours also was very high.

Moreover, the soldiers considered MACS to be more interesting and more useful

than concurrent training.

14

; g ~ . * . .~ * . ~. * *. . *- * . * *

., * . . *.*.*. . . . . * * . .,'*~~* - .
15 D MACS RF-2

'.[ RANGE RF

0

(n

t"- 10-

0

-o

El

z

5- - //J/l

below 23 23 -29 30 -35 36 -40

Number of Target Hits

Figure 6. Frequency distribution of number of soldiers

achieving 0 to 40 target hits on the second

exposure to MACS Record Fire (RF-2) and on

the live-fire Record Fire qualification test.

15

'.'..%.".' .... ,' .......*-". . -.*. ,• . ,- ; -,,. .,- -,,.. . .. , , -. ,.,,..- .. -. . . - .... . . .
1. In your opinion, the MACS training you just received was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

very very

boring interesting

2. Do you feel the MACS training you just received would help to

make you a better marksman?

1 2 3 4 5

not very

helpful helpful

3. If MACS were available in your company's dayroom, how often

would you practice on it during your off-duty hours?

1 2 3 4 5

never very

often

4. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . . .

-- I --- I---- ..- .. I

1 2 3 4 5

less more

interesting interesting

5. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

less more

useful useful

6. How much did you learn about marksmanship from using MACS?

1 2 3 4 5

very very

little much

Figure 7. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses (*):

Steady Position and Aiming Program.

16

,o•~~~~~~~~~~~~ o o ~~~~~~ . . ." . . .o . . .. "o . . '---" m " . " o° • . . ° . o o , o . o . • ° o . . .
-~V . _77 -a%-- -- -

I. In your opinion, the MACS training you just received was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

very very

boring interesting

2. Do you feel the MACS training you just received would help to

make you a better marksman?

1 2 3 4 5

not very

helpful helpful

3. If MACS were available in your company's dayroom, how often

would you practice on it during your off-duty hours?

, --------I--.... -...- ,

1 2 3 4 5

never very

often

4. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

less more

interesting interesting

5. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

less more

useful useful

6. How much did you learn about marksmanship from using MACS?

1 2 3 4 5

very very

little much

Figure 8. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses (*):

Down Range Feedback Program.

17

.................................
1. In your opinion, the MACS training you just received was . .

1 2 3 4 5

very very

boring interesting

2. Do you feel the MACS training you Just received would help to

make you a better marksman?

1 2 3 4 5

not very

helpful helpful

3. If MACS were available in your company's dayroom, how often

would you practice on it during your off-duty hours?

1 . 3 4 5

never very

often

4. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was •

1 2 3 4 5

less more

interesting interesting

5. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was

1 2 3 4 5

less more

useful useful

" "6. How much did you learn about marksmanship from using MACS?

1 2 3 4 5

very very

little much

Figure 9. MACS M16 opinion questionnaire median responses (*):

Field Fire and Record Fire Program.

18
EVALUATION 2: MACS M203

The MACS M203 evaluation was small in scope. The M203 receives only

eight hours of instruction during OSUT compared to over a week for the M16,

and there was a very narrow window of time the troops were available for MACS

training immediately before M203 training. As with the MACS M16 evaluation,

this study should be considered a preliminary test of the MACS M203 program

rather than a definitive evaluation.

Method

Subjects. Twelve and fifteen soldiers, drawn randomly from an OSUT

company, served as the experimental and control subjects, respectively.

Sample size was limited by time and equipment constraints.

Apparatus. The hardware configuration for MACS M203 differed from the

M16 in using a Commodore 64 microcomputer instead of an Apple. The Commodore

64 has several advantages compared to the Apple including sprite graphics

capabilities, a three-voice music synthesizer for sound effects, and a cartridge

port. This latter feature allows MACS to be configured without floppy disk

drives, thereby reducing the cost while increasing the durability of the

system. Rather than using disk drives, the software can be put onto an

erasable, programmable chip (E-PROM) which plugs into the Commodore's cartridge

port. However, such a configuration has not yet been developed. The light

pen was mounted on the M203 quadrant sight such that adjustment of the quadrant

sight resulted in identical movement in the alignment of the light pen.

A detailed description of the MACS M203 program is provided in Appendix

D. Briefly, the program presents six targets, one at a time, in random order

and the user fires three rounds per target. Targets include point and area

targets at ranges of 100 to 350 m. Range estimation requirements are built

into the program as is nominal (hit/miss) as well as ratio (radial distance)

scoring.

Procedure. Three MACS M203 systems were set up in the company's day room

two days prior to the company's regularly scheduled M203 training. Before

using MACS, the experimental subjects received a brief tutorial, conducted by

Litton/ARI personnl, on how to hold and sight the M203. Each subject tried

several warm-up shots on MACS, and then went through the MACS M203 program for

approximately 15 min. Both the experimental and control subjects were given a

shooting experience questionnaire to determine the extent of marksmanship

experience with a pistol, rifle, or shotgun prior to entering the Army. Also,

the soldiers' M16 Record Fire scores were used as an indication of baseline

marksmanship ability.

Soldiers in OSUT receive eight hours of training on the M203 during which

they fire three TP (training practice) rounds from a kneeling supported position

at a zero panel (2 m x 2 m sheet metal) located 200 m down range, and two

rounds (one TP and one HE, high explosive) from a foxhole position at an

armored personnel carrier (APC, approximately 2.5 m wide x 2 m high) at a

19

Q..
distance of 250 m. Using binoculars equipped with reticles marked in 10 mil

increments, Litton/ARI personnel recorded the location of impact (either on or

near the target) of each round fired by the experimental and control subjects.

By placing the crosshairs of the reticle on the center of mass of the target,

the x (horizontal) and y (vertical) coordinates of round impact could be

recorded in mils. The recordings in mils were then converted to meters.

Distance each round landed in reference to the target's center of mass was

analyzed in terms of the x coordinate (horizontal distance) and y coordinate

(vertical distance). Also, hit and miss data were recorded.

The performance of the experimental and the control subjects was compared

using a three-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on

two factors. Factors were Group (experimental and control), Range (200

m and 250 m targets), and Trials (the first two of the three rounds fired at

the 200 m target, and the two rounds fired at the 250 m target). The dependent

variables were the horizontal and vertical distance the round landed from the

target's center of mass. Following a significant main or interaction effect,

post hoc pairwis comparisons among means were performed using a Scheffe'

test. Comparisons were made only between means for the experimental and

control groups since these were of primary interest.

Results and Discussion

Observations of the live-fire M203 exercise revealed that accuracy of

* target engagement was primarily a function of target range and practice.

* Analyses were performed on horizontal and vertical distance the rounds landed

* from the target's center of mass. The results indicated that both the experimental and control groups hit closer to the center of mass of the target on

• the 200 m target compared to the 250 m target (as would be expected be'.se of

constant angular error), and the second round fired was aimed more aczurately

*" than the first round. It should be noted that target range was confounded by

firing position. The 200 m target was engaged from an unsupported kneeling

%"position, whereas the 250 m target was fired at from a foxhole supported

position. The frequency of target hits also was analyzed although this is a

- less informative measure than location of round impact. In the opinion of

*- three of the four Litton/ARI observers, the reliability of detecting whether

or not a round hit the target was greater than estimating the distance the

• .round landed from the target's center of mass. None of the observers had

"- prior practice with quantifying location of round impact, and interobserver

reliability measures were not collected.

The ANOVA on horizontal distance indicated statistically significant

.* Range (200 m vs. 250 m target, F(1,25) - 4.98, y < .05) and Trials (first

. vs. second round fired, F(1,25) - 9.80, y < .01) main effects, and a signi-

*- ficant Group x Range x Trials interaction effect Q(1,25) - 5.14, < .05).

-The Group main effect did not reach statistical significance (F(1,25) - 0.77).

Inspection of the data (Figure 10), and post hoc comparisons revealed that the

' difference between the experimental and control groups on the 250 m target that

was not present for the 200 m target produced the interaction effect. The first

round the controls fired at the 250 m target generally fell wide of the mark.

The Scheffe' test indicated that the mean horizontal error for the first

* round fired at the 250 m target was statistically greater for the control

group than the experimental group (y < .05).

*20

" " ... " ... "" . . . . . .* -. . , . . .* . . . . " * " * . . ." " " . . .. .
C14

C1

71-4

-'-4

j 0 S.IIaU a:)t.'Sl~lJUILOZ110H P,4

4 -1
Figure 11 illustrates the average vertical location of round impact. It

should be kept in mind that this vertical estimate of round impact is a gross

measure, confounded by being a perceptual composite of two spatial dimensions,

depth and height, and should be considered a less precise measure than the

horizontal estimate of round impact location. An ANOVA on vertical distance

resulted in statistically significant Group L(1,25) - 8.16, 1 < .01) and

Range (Q(1,25) - 7.69, . < .05) main effects, and a significant Group x

Range interaction effect (1(1,25) - 11.79, . < .01). Post hoc analysis

indicated that the experimental group hit closer to the target's center

on the 250 m target for both the first (R < .001) and second (I < .001) rounds

fired. On the 200 m target, both groups performed similarly on the first

round fired, but the control group performed better than the experimental

group on the second round (1 < .05).

The results of the analyses on frequency of target hits were similar to

those on location of round impact. Soliders who had received MACS training

tended to hit the 250 m target more frequently than the controls, where as

*the reverse was observed for the 200 m target. Table 1 summarizes the

proportion of total rounds fired by the experimental and control subjects at

the 200 and 250 m targets. Also presented are the probabilities that the two

groups differed in the frequency of hits, as determined by the Fisher exact

* probability test (Siegel, 1956). For the closer range target, the control

. group did better than the experimental group. However, only the comparison

* for the third round was statistically significant. The control group also

showed improvement across trials with more soldiers being able to hit the

target with each successive attempt. In contrast, the experimental group

showed no such improvement. The experimental group did achieve more hits

on the farther range target than the control group. However, none of the

comparisons were statistically significant.

Table 1

Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Target Hits Using the M203

Proportion of Hits

Target Round Experimental Control Probability

200 m 1 8.3% 33.3% .14

2 16.7% 40.0% .19

3 8.3% 46.7% .04

250 m 1 16.7% 0.0% .19

2 16.7% 6.7% .41

1

Fisher exact probability test (Siegel, 1956).

There were no significant correlations between performance on MACS and on

the live-fire range. The overall correlation between median radial error on

MACS nnd mean error (sum of x error and y error) in live-fire was r - +.12.

22

.
0

-41

C14

0u

-4-4

.1 O I JO~ll) 11 uOJ XI 0 I It?) )IA t'0P

23 C
I S

Since the experimental subjects fired at a 200 m target on both MACS and on

the range, each of the three rounds fired at this target was compared in terms

of radial distance and hit/miss. As can be seen in Table 2, the distance a

round landed from the center of mass on the 200 m MACS target was not related

to point of impact during the live-fire exercise for any of the three trials.

Similarly, whether or not a soldier was able to hit the 200 m MACS target was

of little relation to hitting the live-fire target.

Comparisons betweem performance on MACS and on the live-fire range

should be interpreted cautiously since the instructional procedure used on the

range seldom permitted the soldier to apply the principles learned from using

MACS. MACS requires the soldier to estimate the target's range, set the M203

quadrant sight, fire, observe location of round impact, and then adjust point

of aim and/or readjust the range on the quadrant sight to obtain a more

accurate target engagement on the next round fired. In contrast, during the

live-fire exercise, the soldiers are told the target's range (i.e., there is

,* no opportunity to practice range estimation). Immediately after firing, but

- prior to round impact, they are told to reload and therefore cannot always

"" observe the location of round impact. Instead, the instructor tells the

soldier how to adjust point of aim and/or how to readjust the quadrant sight

for firing the next round. Occasionally, soldiers had the opportunity to

observe location of round impact, but they rarely were given the time to do

.. their own problem-solving, which is a primary purpose of MACS.

Figure 12 illustrates that the experimental and control soldiers had a

similar amount of experience with firearms prior to entering the service.

Soldiers were asked to estimate the number of times they had fired a pistol,

rifle, and shotgun before joining the Army. The proportion of soldiers whose

estimates fell within a class interval is presented in Figure 12. As another

measure of baseline ability, mean M16 Record Fire scores were similar for the

experimental (I - 28.7) and control (I - 26.7) groups t(24) - 0.88.

The reactions to MACS M203 were quite favorable. Responses to the

opinion questionnaire, presented in Figure 13, indicated that MACS M203 was

very interesting and helpful, especially compared to concurrent training.

Moreover, soldiers reported that they would use MACS "very often" during their

off-duty hours if it were available in their dayroom.

Table 2

Correlations Between MACS M203

and Live Fire Performance on the 200 Meter Target

Observation Dependent Variables r Trial 1 Live-Fire Radial Error and Score on MACS .01

Trial 2 Live-Fire Radial Error and Score on MACS .09

Trial 3 Live-Fire Radial Error and Score on MACS .08

Trial 1 Hit/Miss in Field Fire and Hit/Miss on MACS .36

Trial 2 Hit/Miss in Field Fire and Hit/Miss on MACS .00

Trial 3 Hit/Miss in Field Fire and Hit/Miss on MACS .25

Note: All correlations are statistically nonsignificant, df 1 10.

24

_41.
-- IV.

I"

i-iudH -opo 1 t u

25

-7Q '.-X§> ~ :.::~.:...§-
%M

:'.

1. In your opinion, the MACS M72A2 training you just received was . •

I---- I--- I ----- I ---- * 1 2 3 4 5

very very

boring interesting

2. Do you feel the MACS training you just received would help you to

fire the M203 more accurately?

1 2 3 4 5

not very

helpful helpful

3. If MACS were available in your company's dayroom, how often

would you practice on it during your off-duty hours?

1 2 3 4 5

never very

often

4. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . .

1 2 3 4 5

less more

interesting interesting

5. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was .

1 2 3 4 5

less more

useful useful

6. How much did you learn about the M203 from using MACS?

1 1 2 3 4 5

0 very very

little much

Figure 13. MACS M203 opinion questionnaire median responses (*).

26

. .- . . . . .- . . . .- . .. . .. -.-.- - -
EVALUATION 3: MACS M72A2

The final weapon system in this series of evaluations was the MACS M72A2

* Light Antitank Weapon. As with the M16 and M203 studies, the M72A2 study

should be considered a preliminary investigation of the system.

Method

Subjects. Thirteen and nineteen soldiers, selected randomly from an OSUT

company, served as the experimental and control participants in the MACS M72A2

study, respectively. (A different company was used for each of the MACS

studies). These soldiers had completed M16 and M203 training, but had not yet

received any training on the M72A2.

Apparatus. The hardware was the same Apple configuration used for the

MACS M16. A light pen was mounted inside the barrel of an expended M72A2 near

the end with the front sight. The instructional design of the software was

the same as for the MACS M16 Steady Position and Aiming Training Program.

Targets included a Russian BRDM vehicle at four ranges: 100, 175, 250, and

325 m. A detailed description of the software is provided in Appendix E.

Procedure. Three MACS M72A2 units were set up in a classroom in the

company's area the day before M72A2 live fire training. All subjects were

given a "prior shooting experience" questionnaire and a 10 min. tutorial

conducted by Litton/ARI personnel on the M72A2. The experimental subjects

then received training on the MACS M72A2 program for approximately 15 min.

Soldiers in OSUT receive eight hours of "hands on" training with the

M72A2, part of which is devoted to a live-fire exercise. During the livef ire training, Litton/ARI personnel were on the range with the experimental

and control troops to record their performance. Each soldier fired three 35mm

subcaliber rockets, one round at each target range of 100, 175, and 275 m.

Targets were armored personnel carriers. The procedure for recording the

location of round impact was the same as for the M203 study. Following

the live-fire exercise, the experimental subjects completed an opinion

questionnaire similar to the one used in the M16 and M203 studies. Additionally,

the soldiers'* M16 Record Fire scores were used as an indication of baseline

marksmanship ability.

Dependent variables were the same as those in the M203 study: horizontal

and vertical distance the rocket landed from the target's center of mass.

Unfortunately, several of the rounds that missed the target also were outside

the field of view of the binoculars, so data for these "lost" rounds were

unavailable for analysis. Some of the lost rounds were known to be duds in

which point of impact was unknown because they did not explode. Due to the

unequal number of data points, separate comparisons between experimental and

control subjects were performed, using a t-test, for each range.

27

..........................................
Results and Discussion

Table 3 shows that the experimental group hit the target more frequently

than the control group, especially on the longest range target; however, these

differences were not statistically significant. The experimental group also

tended to hit closer to the target's center of mass compared to the control

group. Figure 14 illustrates the average horizontal and vertical distance the

M72A2 rockets landed from the target's center at ranges of 100, 175, and 275

m. Again, there were no statistically significant differences between groups,

nor did the groups do better on closer than farther targets. It should be

noted that performance at the different ranges is confounded by trials. That

is, the 100 m target represents the first round fired, whereas the 275 m

target is also the soldiers' third live-fire trial. All rounds were fired

from the same position.

Table 3

Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Target Hits Using the M72A2

Proportion of Hits

* Target Experimental Control Probability

100 m 69.2% 57.9% .39 1

175 m 69.2% 68.4Z .641

275 m 61.5Z 26.3% <.20

1 Fisher exact probability test (Siegel, 1956).

2 22L test for smallest expected frequencies > 4 and 20 < n < 40

(formula 6.4, Siegel, 1956).

These distance measures may not accurately reflect the group differences

in that only data for rounds that exploded within the binoculars' field of

view were available. Table 4 sumarizes the proportion of total rounds fired

at each target range that were lost (outside the binopulars' field of view or

duds) for the experimental and control groups. The-Z test showed the two

groups to be similar in the frequency of lost rounds.

Table 4

Probability that the Experimental and Control Groups

Differed in Frequency of Lost Rounds Using the M72A2

Proportion of Lost Rounds

Target Experimental Control Probability

100 m 7.7% 26.3% .201

175 m 7.7% 10.5% .64 1

275 m 38.5% 26.3% <.802

* I

Fisher exact probability test (Siegel, 1956).

?22 Zr2 test for smallest expected frequencies > 4 and 20 < n < 40

(tormula 6.4, Siegel, 1956).

28

-2-'--.-- .: .: . --- ', .'.' ,", ', ." . .. ", . ." " i' .. ., , . . -- " -. ,.''' - .-. ,. ' .,: ... , " "" ' ' -, -. ,. , ''
: .2' .-. ,... -- i - O _ ,-r--.-.- "

• .'- ." " r r ' - - m , .. .wrrrw; -' . -.

Experinrntal

2

IC.

'2 l~m175 m 2 75 M,

I Target Range

'."Figure 14. Mean distance M72A2 rounds laded fr x the

• target's center of mss.

°N

22

7

cz

- I/i
There was no significant correlation between the experimental group's

performance on MACS and their performance on the live-fire range. The overall

correlation between MACS performance (Z of scores outside the first ring)

and mean error (sum of x error and y error) in live fire was r - +.24.

Table 5 illustrates that for the two target ranges common to both the MACS

.72A2 scenario and the live-fire exercise (100 and 175 i), location of round

". impact on MACS was not predictive of location of round impact during live fire

as measured by horizontal, vertical, and radial distance from the target's

center of mass. Furthermore, the total number of target hits achieved using

MACS was not significantly correlated to the number of target hits during live

fire.

Figure 15 shows that overall thr roups did not differ remarkably in

experience with firearms prior to entteing the service, although there were a

few more soldiers firing over 300 rounds in the experimental than control

group. As another measure of baseline ability, mean Record Fire scores were similar for the experimental ( - 28.3) and control (I - 30.5) groups

(,(29) - 0.98).

Table 5

Correlations Between MACS and M72A2 Live-Fire Performance

Dependent 1

Variable Target r

Horizontal distance 100 m .20

175 m -.01

Vertical distance 100 m .57

175 m .44

Radial distance 100 m .07

175 m .08

Total number of hits all .41

All correlations are statistically nonsignificant, df - 10.

30

• • .* . * - . . . . * . ...

., o fo ' ..." ' +oo . o o., , ~o, ,•=.,o, ••o.•. -. * -***'° . ° o° . . . . *o. . . o ... ..
ad

GJ)CI

r~T~zKT~T7CI

a.

CNc

311
Soldiers were divided on their opinions of the MACS M72A2. Most soldiers

thought that the MACS M72A2 was interesting (Figure 16, question #1), helpful

(question #2), and that they learned (question #6) from using it. Most

soldiers were noncommital about whether they would use MACS during their

off-duty hours (question #3). This could be attributed to equipment problems

giving the impression that the system is finicky to us,,. The M72A2 is not

designed as a reuseable weapon. In fact, it is issued as ammunition and

intended to be thrown away after firing. Budget considerations require the

ranges to retain the expended M72A2 tubes and reuse them many times for

training. Similarly, MACS uses a standard M72A2 tube which suffers considerable

wear from recocking and makes the weapon difficult to prepare for firing. A

switch was added at the rear of the M72A2 which is tripped when the weapon is

cocked and tells the computer that the soldier has prepared the weapon for

firing. During the study, hardware problems were encountered with the switch

such that when the weapon was c6cked, the switch mechanism was banged, causing

improper functioning. Additionally, although the light pen was mounted as

securely as possible inside the inner tube of the weapon, repeated cocking of

the weapon would slightly displace the light pen, resulting in inaccurate

" readings. Despite the equipment problems, most soldiers thought MACS was

*better than concurrent training (questions #4 and #5).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The purpose of this effort was to conduct limited experimental evaluations

on prototypic versions of MACS configured for the M16, M203, and M72A2. These

results should be interpreted as preliminary and applicable as guidelines for

* further development and more controlled investigations.

MACS showed potential as a cost-effective training aid. This simulator

" can contribute to a more favorable learning environment by providing (i)

* standardized instruction that ensures all trainees receive the same high

quality training, (2) one-on-one instruction, and (3) a motivating supplement

to traditional dry-fire exercises. This last factor was especially . highlighted in the responses to the opinion questionnaires. Soldiers reported .- that MACS training was very interesting and helpful, and preferable to

traditional concurrent training. When evaluating a training method, it is

*' important to consider the student's attitude toward the method because

motivation to master a skill is a critical factor for learning.

The data indicated that MACS training, when given prior to live-fire

instruction, may give soldiers a head start in the acquisition of marksmanship

* skills. In the MACS M203 and MACS M72A2 studies, which limited MACS training - to a brief exposure prior to live-fire training, there was a trend for the

" experimental groups to hit more targets, and to place live rounds closer to

the center of mass of the target, especially on the farther targets. In

contrast, the MACS M16 experimental group spent over 500% more time on the

simulator than did the trainees in the MACS M203 or MACS M72A2 studies, and

the exposure was distributed concurrently with regularly scheduled training.

Since the results indicated that the effectiveness of MACS may vary as a

* function of exposure schedule, further investigation is recommended to

determine the most appropriate stage of training to use MACS, and the amount

of time needed to impart an effect.

32

. -... ........ .. ,, ,-.:. - .. ,, . .. . ... . . .. ., .,. .. -. -.- .. . .... . . ,,,,,, .. ,, . ,... -.. ...., - .. . .....,. . . . ...... .... .. ... • ** - .... • .. .. ; . . •. ...-. •-. .
1. In your opinion, the MACS M72A2 training you just received was . . .

1 2 3 4 5

very very

boring interesting

2. Do you feel the MACS training you just received would help you to

fire the M72A2 more accurately?

1 2 3 4 5

not very

helpful helpful

3. If MACS were available in your company's dayroom, how often

would you practice on it during your off-duty hours?

1 2 3 4 5

never very

often

4. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was

1 2 3 4 5

less more

interesting interesting

5. Compared to today's concurrent training, MACS training was . . .

i---------I----*---I------I

1 2 3 4 5

less more

useful useful

6. How much did you learn about the M72A2 from using MACS?

1 2 3 4 5

very very

little much

Figure 16. MACS M72A2 opinion questionnaire median responses (*).

33
The present study encountered numerous uncontrolled factors which may

have biased the results. Common to all three studies is the question of

quality of weapons. Prior to any live-fire exercise, all weapons should be

checked for proper functioning and zero. This was not done in the present

study and especially may have been a factor during early exposure to live fire

for all three weapons.

During the M16 live-fire exercises, there were not enough Litton/ARI

personnel on the range to observe every firing station. Therefore it is not

known whether all soldiers had the opportunity to fire all allotted rounds

or whether their performance was biased by weapon, ammunition, or target

malfunctions. Also, accuracy of data could not be ensured since records were *. obtained from the instructors, as recorded by the soldiers, rather than being

collected first-hand by the experimenters. Although these and other factors

*. may have contaminated the M16 results, when conditions were subjected to more

control, a treatment effect was still not evident. During the M16 Record Fire

*: qualification test, hit/miss data were collected first-hand by Litton/ARI

personnel, yet the mean scores for the control and experimental soldiers were similar. It is recommended that future investigations begin by screening

weapons for proper function and zero, or perhaps have everyone fire the same

weapon. Then, prior to any training, all subjects should be tested for

baseline marksmanship ability, perhaps using Location of Miss and Hit (LOMAH)

equipment or Known Distance (KD) ranges so that precise information about

location of hits and misses can be collected. Any subsequent live-fire data

should be monitored closely to account for all rounds fired.

Further research is needed to determine the most effective use(s) for

-* MACS. The programs in the study were designed to replicate current OSUT

training. Perhaps MACS could be used more effectively for training skills . that cannot be taught adequately on the range. For example, ARI has already

- developed MACS training for many of the BRM familiarization topics such as

night firing, moving targets, hold off due to wind, or firing while wearing a

protective mask. Perhaps this is the area where MACS benefits will be the

* .greatest.

The hardware components of MACS held up well under field use, but not

without some anticipated difficulties. The most sensitive component is the

light pen (attached to the weapon) which reads the raster scan on the monitor

and provides the microcomputer with the x and y coordinates signifying where

the weapon is currently aimed. Previous research found that the reliability

- of the light pen is affected by the brightness of the monitor's screen (Schroeder

". & Cook, 1983), and it was with this variable that some problems were encountered - during the MACS M203 study. Occasionally, the light pen would fail to read

'- the screen coordinates, even though the light pen apparently had been working

correctly. Readjustment of the screen's brightness corrected the problem.

Another important factor is the physical stability of the light pen. All

of the MACS programs begin with a zero routine which requires the user to aim

the weapon at a target on the screen and fire several shots. This routine

allows the computer to calculate the offset between the trainee's point of aim

and the location of the screen that the light pen is reading. If the light

pen is accidentally bumped so that it is no longer in the same position

34

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
relative to the weapon, the previously calculated offset will no longer apply

and the light pen has to be re-zeroed. It is therefore critical that the

light pen be securely mounted to the weapon. Even through normal use, the

light pen may become displaced as was the case in the MACS M72A2 study,

causing inaccurate reading. The M72A2 itself was difficult to use since it

does not (and was never designed to) withstand repeated use. A more durable

version of the M72A2 equipped with a more stable light pen mount and more

rugged cocking switch would be valuable additions to future versions of the

MACS M72A2.

The addition of noise and recoil may improve the training effectiveness

of the MACS M16 system. However, MACS was intended to be a low-cost, part-task

simulator and additional features mean additional cost. Although increased

cost could be justified by training effectiveness, the use of Weaponeer, which

has noise and recoil, has not been demonstrated to improve record fire qualification scores (Schendel, Heller, Finley, & Hawley, 1983). Nevertheless, the

possibility exists that repeated exposure to a simulator without noise and

recoil may sensitize the firer to these characteristics and perhaps promote

"gun shyness."

These preliminary evaluations provided valuable guidelines for further

research on MACS. Most importantly, stricter experimental control procedures

need to be applied to the collection of live-fire data in order to demonstrate

training effectiveness. Also, research is needed to identify the most appropriate training goals for MACS. It would be helpful to consider which stage(s)

of instruction (i.e., skill acquisition, diagnosis of problems, remediation of

problems, and sustainment of skill) would most benefit from MACS. Additionally,

MACS programs in the present study were oriented toward simulating current

live-fire training. However, MACS may have more training value when it presents

scenarios that teach skills that are difficult to practice on the range, such

as night firing or compensating for wind effects.

35

E2

-S . % . . % =a ' .. = . . - , . . ' ' '- . .'- ', . -. . ' -. . . .- . -. .. .. - . . % , -. .
REFERENCES

* Belier, F. H., Thompson, T. J., &Osborne, A. D. (Draft, 1981). Basic rifle

marksmanship shooter's book. (All Research Report). Alexandria, VA:

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

Ludvigsen, Eric C. (1981, August). Computer In a box. Ary pp. 14-21.

* McGlasson, W. D. (1983, January). Simulators are wave of the future. National

Guard, pp. 15-19+.

Osborne, A. D. (Draft, 1984, May). Unit Rifle Marksmanship Guide. Litton

Mellonics Contract Report.

* Perkins, Mary N., & Schroeder, James E. (1983, August). Applicability of

low-cost video training to various U.S. Army weapons. Alexandria, VA:

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

Schendel, Joel D., Heller, Frederick H., Finley, Dorothy L. & Hawley, John K.

(1983, September). Use of Weagoneer marksmanship trainer in predictinit

Ml6AI rifle qualification performance. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Schroeder, James E. (1982, October). Multipurpose arcade combat simulator

(MACS). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

* Schroeder, James. E., & Cook, W. Alfred.. Jr. (1983, June). Preliminary

evaluation of the light jen as the key-comonent in a microcomputerbased simulator. (ARl Research Note #83-31). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

* Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences..

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

U.S. Army Infantry School and Center. (1980, November). Program of Instruction

(POI) for U.S. Army Basic Training. POI 21-114. Fort Benning, GA.

36

S-- .. * . w **.* * * - *.*, .*.* ... - - -

. . . C . r . . .. C.C. C* ~ .,.
APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF MACS M16 PROGRAMS

For the M16, six computer training programs were developed, each compatible with training objectives in the Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) program

of instruction. These programs are:

1. HACS Steady Position and Aiming - Pretest and Poattest (BRM Period 2).

This program records the soldier's ability to engage the target and to

hold a steady position before the trigger squeeze. This program was given

to all subjects before (pretest) and after (posttest) training on Program

2 below. Performance is recorded using both a supported and unsupported

firing position.

2. MACS Steady Position and Aiming Training (BRM Period 2). This program

features immediate audio and video feedback, as well as delayed video

playback. A flow chart of the instructional design for this program is

provided in Figure 17. Silhouette targets scaled to one of four distances

(75, 150, 250, or 300 meters) appear randomly on the screen, and the

soldier is instructed to aim and fire at the target. In Stage I of the

two-stage exercise, the soldier receives immediate audio feedback about

the accuracy of point-of-aim. Additionally, an instructor or partner can

monitor the simultaneous video feedback and relate points of correction

to the shooter. After the soldier fires, a dot appears on the screen

indicating the location of the shot. In Stage II, the soldier no longer

receives audio feedback pertaining to point-of-aim. After each shot, the

computer replays the soldier's point-of-aim during the 2-5 second period

prior to the shot. Trajectory is built into all MACS software for all

target ranges.

A-1

-. .. ....... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
______Option #1 option #2

NOTE: A, B, & C 4areOpin3

counters incremented C

at each iteration A 0 Ye0-

No through the loop.

8

B.i --- Yes

aage

Yes TagetsnstCructeion

DImnsttrelyo Cl

No dio Feedback

hitYs wihi c get ir l. riterio oTagt

~6, 7 o

F~guu.~ 7. I~tr~ctioai IDsig truMcos 16Sed Poiin nd iig

TraiDengnPrograon

Tart -2t
3. MACS Down Range Feedback (BRM Periods 5 and 6). In this program, the

soldiers are presented with single, untiied, stationary, scaled silhouette

targets. Simulated target ranges include 75, 150, and 300 meters. Each

target distance appears in the lower right-hand corner of the screen. The

soldiers fire a three-round shot group at each target and receive immediate

audio and visual feedback for each round. The x and y cartesian coordinate

of each shot is stored. Soldiers receive scores dependent on radial

distance from center mass for each round and cumulative scores. Hard copy

records of soldier performance are optional. As with all of the MACS M16

programs, the soldier must perform the scenario from a supported, as well

as unsupported position.

4. MACS Field Fire I (BR! Period 7). This program presents single, timed

targets that fall when hit. The times vary from 5 sec for th,_ closer

targets to 10 sec for the farther ones. The ranges presented are the same

as those in MACS Down Range Feedback. The soldier has one round per

target, and records are kept of each round fired. The records contain

radial distance from center mass, hit/miss, target range, and presentation

number (a presentation is any time one or more targets appear on the

screen). At the end of the scenario, the computer displays the number of

hits, number of misses, and number of no fires. These records may be

printed if the instructor desires.

5. MACS Field Fire II (BR! Period 8). This program includes all of the

features in MACS Field Fire I, with the addition of multiple as well

as single target presentations. Record keeping is similar to Field

Fire I with the addition of penalties assessed when the soldier kills

the farther target before the closer one.

A-3
6. MACS Record Fire (BRM Periods 10 and 11). This program simulates

record fire exercises in BM . The computer generates scaled silhouette

targets which are presented for a limited amount of time and includes single .'

and multiple presentations. Simulated ranges include 75, 100, 150, 200, 250,

and 300 meters. Showing the location of bullet strike is optional, depending

upon whether the instructor or soldier wishes to simulate record fire by not

being able to see bullet strike, or whether more feedback is desired by

• showing where the bullet hit the target. Hard copy records of student

performance may be maintained. The record keeping is the same as that in

Field Fire II.

A-4

o...S
, ' ' ' Z ' ' - ' ' 

- ' - ° -. " ' . L-- i '

L - - o : -- _ - . . .• . °. . :. . -. -jl 0

APPENDIX B

TARGET SCALE VERIFICATION

The scaled size of each target range was computed using the following

formula:

actual target size scaled target size

actual target distance scaled target distance

where

actual target size - 32.7 cm high x 66.0 cm wide for "F" silhouette;

86.4 cm high x 49.2 cm wide for "E" silhouette

actual target distance - 75 and 100 m for "F" silhouette

150 to 300 m for "E" silhouette

scaled target size - unknown

scaled target distance - 3.048 m (or 10 feet) the distance from the

firer's eye to the TV screen

The scaled size in centimeters was converted to pixels. The number of pixels

per centimeter varies depending upon the monitor.

After the scale of each target was programmed, the scaled size was

verified by measuring the width of each target as it appeared on the screen

using a caliper. Two people took two measurements of each target and the four

scores were averaged. As can be seen in Table 9 the screen measurements

compared favorably with the computed sizes.

Target scale also was verified using a photographic procedure. Photographs (35mm) were taken of each target as it appeared on the monitor screen.

Photographs also were taken out on a firing range of "E" silhouette targets

placed at actual distances. Again, the sizes of the MACS scaled targets

compared favorably with actual range targets (Table 6).

"V B-1

• " "•" *o" "°

"- °

. . • . "-" ' •.. . . • . . . . .. w . . . ,... . . ..- . . .. . .... .. . . ......... °°- °'. . -
Table 6

Target Scale Verification

Computed Screen I Photo Width

Target Width Width MACS Ranite

50 m (6.00)I

75 a 2.68 cm Baseline: 2.49 cm

Shoulders: 2.08 cm

100 m (2.00) Baseline: 1.79 cm

2.01 Shoulders: 1.49 cm

150 m (1.00)

1.01 cm 0.99 cm I 0.14 0.14

200 m (.75)I

0.75 cm 0.80 cm I 0.10 0.09

250 m (.60)I

0.60 cm 0.53 cm I 0.09 0.08

300m (.50)I

0.50 cm 0.50 cm I 0.07 0.07

B -2
APPENDIX C

* PREVIOUS SHOOTING EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME ____________________ DATE_____________

ROSTER # __________________

How many times have you fired a pistol? ______

How many times have you fired a rifle? ______

How many times have you fired a shotgun? _____

How many times have you been huntin?______

How many times have you been target shooting? ______

Do you consider yourself a good shot? Yes _ __ No

Don't Know_____

C -1
APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTION OF MACS M203 PROGRAM

1. Zeroing panel is displayed. The program begins with the instructor

firing five rounds at the panel to allow the computer to zero the light

pen to the weapon. During the zero phase, the computer is constantly

taking light pen readings. After each shot, the computer takes the last

five light pen readings. Both the x values and y values are sorted and

the median value of each is assigned to the x and y coordinates of that

shot. After all five shots have been fired, the computer sorts the x and

y coordinates of the five shots. The median values of each are then

defined as the coordinates for the center of the shot group. The offset

from the center coordinates to the center of the zeroing panel are then

calculated. This offset is added to all shots fired during the remainder of

the simulation. The five zero shots are then displayed to show the shot group.

2. Scene is displayed. 100, 200, and 300-meter markers are displayed together

with a message telling the soldier to take note of the ranges relevant to

the scene displayed. This is the only time these range markers are shown.

3. Range selection menu. Ranges from 25 to 400 meters in 25-meter increments

are displayed. These ranges match those on the quadrant sight. One at a

time, each range is highlighted. When the desired range is highlighted,

the soldier squeezes the trigger to select it.

4. Keep or reselect range. After range selection, the computer allows

the soldier to keep this range or select a new range:

a. Reselect - will display the range selection menu once again.

b. Keep - soldier is told to set the quadrant sight at the selected

range and engage the target.

D-1

.i ' .... . .- .. .'.'. '. ... . ".' .. ... .. . .. .. .- . . .,. - '.. - .- -. .-
.... ... . 7,* '.- 7-7 7-7- -7 7.'77- 77'.

5. Targets. Six targets appear in random order and within a random range on

the horizontal axis:

window 100 a

troops 300 m

bunker 150 m

weapon position 200 m

bunker 125 m

troops 350 m

6. Engaging the target. The appropriate time delay from firing to impact is

incorporated along with an explosion and appropriate time delay from round

impact to sound of explosion. After each round, the computer provides

feedback about the outcome of that round. For point targets (windows and

bunkers), the computer displays hit, direct hit, or miss. For area

targets (weapon positions and troops in the open), the computer displays

kill, direct kill, or no kill. The computer also provides the following

error messages:

Incorrect range selected

Incorrect point of aim

No error

The soldier fires three rounds per target and has the option to select a

new range after each firing if the previous range selected is incorrect.

7. Scoring and Record Keeping.

a. Scoring is determined by the radial distance from round impact

to center mass of the target with a maximum score of 100 points per

round. At the end of the scenario, the computer displays the total

number of hits and misses, cumulative score, and percentage of

maximum possible score. It also displays hits and score broken down

for each target range.

b. Scores are saved on disk and/or printed as selected by the instructor/

user. Scores printed will contain soldier identification number,

range selected, radial distance and score for each round fired.

D-2

*.,, * .,- . ," ," ,*,. 
I

APPENDIX E

DESCRIPTION OF MACS M72A2 PROGRAM

i. Targets. The target chosen for the M72A2 training is the Russian BRDM

vehicle. There are four ranges at which the vehicles appear: 100 meters,

175 meters, 250 meters, and 325 meters. The order in which they appear is

random. Included is the appropriate missile time delay from firing to

impact. There is a simulated'explosion and the point of impact is shown.

2. Initiation. The program begins with the student firing 5 rounds at

the BRDM at 175 meters to allow the computer to zero the light pen to

the weapon. The M72A2 does not need to be recocked between shots and

the student should be told to maintain the most steady position possible

during the zeroing process. If the shot group is tight enough, the shot

group is shown, otherwise the student will have to rezero. An appropriate

message will be displayed whenever the weapon needs to be recocked.

3. Stage I. After a successful zero, the student proceeds to the training

portion of the program. The instructional design is the same as for the

MACS M16 Steady Position and Aiming Training Program. Instructions are

shown on the use of the program and then a demonstration for Stage I is

given. Stage I is completed when the firer hits 3 consecutive BRDM

vehicles near center of mass.

4. Stage II. Upon completing Stage I, the student advances to Stage II.

Instructions and a demonstration are given for Stage II before beginning.

This stage is completed when the student consecutively hits 3 BRDM vehicles

near center of mass or at a critical area (drive train or fuel tank).

L

E-1

=-., .. p, . ,k r d ',- ; . l . ,. . . " " -', ' - , . i...'_ ' .'./
5. Record Keeping. Records may be kept by inserting a diskette in Drive

#2 and selecting "Y" at the beginning of the program when asked "Do

you wish to keep records? (Y/N)." A separate program is included that

allows a hardcopy of the records to be obtained. The printout includes

the soldier's identification number, the range of the target, and the

point of impact. The point of impact is given by a ring number and angle.

A set of bull's eye-type rings are superimposed over the target with the

innermost ring at the target's center of mass. This inner ring is designated Ring 0 and the remainder of the rings are numbered consecutively.

The angle is determined by imagining a clock, where 12:00 is a 900 angle

and 9:00 is a 180 0 angle.

E-2

....... .. ..........