U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1754

Analysis of Mission-Based Scenarios for Training

Soldiers and Small Unit Leaders in Virtual

Environments

Robert J. Pleban

U.S. Army Research Institute

David E. Eakin

Auburn University

Consortium Research Fellows Program

Margaret S. Salter

U.S. Army Research Institute

20000224 108

January 2000

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DTIC QUALITY INSPECTED 4
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Technical review by

Paul Dumanoir, STRICOM

Michael D. Matthews, ARI

Donald R. Lampton, ARI

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution ofreports to: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5001

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

January 2000

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Analysis of Mission-Based Scenarios for Training Soldiers and Small Unit

Leaders in Virtual Environments

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert J. Pleban (U. S. Army Research Institute), David E. Eakin (Auburn

University), and Margaret S. Salter (U. S. Army Research Institute)

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

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

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IJ

P.O. BOX52086

Fort Benning, GA 31995-2086

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

April 1999 to December 1999

5a CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

5d. TASK NUMBER

212C

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

C05

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1754

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

This report describes a multi-tiered process fa generating a set of high payoff tasks that can r»cc>st effectively represented in virtual environmente^

were used to guide the development of small unit (squad/team) demounted Infantry training scenarios which were evaluated at the Dismounted Battespace

BatHelab (DBBL) Land Warrior Test Bed. Scenarios were based on five major tasks, Assault Move Tactically, Enter Building and Clear a Room, Reccnnorter

Area, and React to Contact Solders, working as teams or part of a squad, executed all task-based scerwkjs through the use of IrKivttjalcombatart simulators.

Solders indfcated that simulations improved their reaJ-worid performance on similar tasks. Overall, the simulators were seen as effective fa small unit training,

eg temcoordnatiOT,conTrminicat^ The scenarios which provided the most training value integrated sokierswflh computer generated

forces to provide live forceon-force capability. The research showed the potential training value of demounted Infantry simulation technologies fa solder and

smafl unit traning, partiailarly, cognilive-based activities. Subsequent research will focus on the use of this technology to enhance the decision-making skills of

solders and smaH unit leaders.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Virtual environments, Individual combatant simulators, Dismounted Infantry simulation, Soldier and small unit leader training

§11"

HUUMUMU

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

i''•-•-•-•••-•-•-•-

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

82

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. Robert Pleban

(706)545 3617
FOREWORD

This report describes selected aspects of the first year work effort under the Science and

Technology Objective (STO) entitled Virtual Environmentsfor Dismounted Soldier Simulation,

Training, and Mission Rehearsal. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI) Infantry Forces Research Unit performed this research in collaboration

with the ARI Simulation Systems Research Unit, the U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and

Instrumentation Command, and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. The primary objective of

the STO was to address selected technological and training issues related to high fidelity

dismounted soldiersimulation.

This report describes a multi-tiered process for identifying potential high payoff tasks for

training small unit dismounted Infantry soldiers in simulated urban operations. The tasks were

used to guide the development of small unit (squad/team) dismounted Infantry training scenarios

which were evaluated at the Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab (DBBL) Land Warrior Test Bed,

Fort Benning, Georgia. This research identifies training and scenario-related factors that can

improve the utilization of virtual environments for training soldiers and small unit leaders. Taskbased training simulation scenarios enable soldiers to rehearse a variety of battlefield situations

at reduced cost to the unit in eifher training time or actual expense. Extensive exposure to

simulations allows soldiers to familiarize themselves with specific aspects of selected tasks. The

identified high payoff tasks, combined into scenarios, can improve training for dismounted

soldiers and small unit leaders and leverage the potential of virtual simulations. Critical aspects

of the research were briefed to all key STO participants including the Chief of the DBBL

Simulation Center, at separate STO meetings on 27 May, 29 July, and 3 November 1999.

Q/$S***3*v

A M. SIMUTIS

echnical Director
ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirements:

Soldiers must be able to train effectively even when they do not have the opportunity to

participate in realistic field training exercises. Cost-effective methods for developing soldier

decision-making and leadership skills are especially needed in urban operations. One solution is

to conduct a portion ofthis training, such as mission rehearsals, in virtual environments through

the use ofindividual combatant simulators. There is an immediate need to generate a set of high

payofftasks that can be cost effectively represented in virtual environments. These tasks will

provide the foundation for the development ofsoldier and small unit leader training scenarios.

Once developed, the training value ofthese scenarios must be established.

Procedure:

A methodology for selecting high payofftasks was developed. Twenty-three potentially

suitable tasks were identified. Five tasks and five subtasks were retained to form the basis ofthe

training scenarios. The tasks were Assault, Move Tactically, Enter Building and Clear a Room,

Reconnoiter Area, and React to Contact. The subtasks were Engage Targets with an Ml6Al or

M16A2 Rifle, Move as a Member ofa Fire Team, Control Movement ofa Fire Team, Perform

Movement Techniques During MOUT [Military Operations on Urban Terrain], and Report

Information ofPotential Intelligence Value. Scenarios were developed based on the five major

tasks. Soldiers, working as teams or part of a squad, executed all task-based scenarios through

the use ofindividual combatant simulators. Soldier performance was assessed by observers. In

addition, soldier responses to the scenarios and the simulation systems were obtained from

paper-and-pencil instruments and interviews.

Findings:

Soldiers were able to perform all task-based scenarios, although aspects of clearing a

building were difficult to perform. While the evidence was indirect, soldiers felt that simulations

improved their real-world performance on similar tasks. Overall, the simulators were seen as

effective for small unit training, e.g., team coordination, communication, decision-making skills.

The scenarios which provided the most training value integrated soldiers with computer

generated forces to provide live force-on-force capability.

Vll
Utilization ofFindings:

This research showed the potential training value of dismounted Infantry simulation

technologies for soldier and small unit training, particularly, cognitive-based activities.

Subsequent research will focus on the use ofthis technology to enhance the decision-making

skills ofsoldiers and small unit leaders.

vm
ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS .

Page

INTRODUCTION l

Dismounted Warrior Network User Exercises l

Dismounted Warrior Network Enhanced Restricted Terrain Exercises 2

Individual Combatant Simulation: System Characteristics, Technology, and

Training Issues

Science and Technology Objective (STO) Work Program for Virtual Environment

Research •

Identification of High Payoff Tasks for Virtual Environments 3

PART 1: THE HIGH PAYOFF TASK SELECTION PROCESS 4

Establishing an Appropriate Initial List of Dismounted Soldier Tasks 4

Selecting a Smaller Pool of Tasks that are Executable in Existing Virtual

Environments •

Behaviors Supported by Current and Near-Term Simulation Technology 6

Transfer Value °

Frequency of Occurrence °

Cost Effectiveness/Feasibility of Performing Activities in Virtual Environments 8

Identifying an Initial Set of High Payoff Tasks 9

Specifying a Final Set of High Payoff Tasks 10

CONCLUSION • ;

U

PART 2: PHASE I OVERVIEW n

PHASE IA: INITIAL EVALUATION OF SMALL UNIT LEADER TRAINING

SCENARIOS 12

IX
IP!

ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS fCONTINUED)

Page

.. 12 METHOD

.. 12 Participants

Materials

Development of Small Unit Leader Training Scenarios 13

13 Apparatus

14 Design and Procedure

RESULTS •

15

Subjective Assessment of Task Performance 15

Observer Assessment ofTask Performance 19

Performance on Revised Scenarios (Clear a Building) 23

Most Difficult Tasks to Perform in the Simulator 23

24 Learning Transfer •

Use of Simulators for Small Unit Training •

24

Oft Simulator Improvements •

Non-Simulator Related Training Enhancements 26

DISCUSSION •

27

Soldier Performance on Task-Based Scenarios 27

Integration of DI-SAF into Task-Based Scenarios 27
ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS ^CONTINUED) —

Page

Scenario Revisions for Phase IB ••• ^°

PHASE IB: EVALUATION OF REVISED SOLDIER AND SMALL UNIT LEADER

TRAINING SCENARIOS 29

METHOD 29

29 Materials

Development of Revised Soldier and Small Unit Leader Training Scenarios 29

an Design and Procedure JKJ

RESULTS 31

Subjective Assessments of Small Unit Scenarios 31

General Observations •

JJ

Implications for Future STO Research (FY 99) - 35

CONCLUSION •

36

Implications for Future Research.... 36

REFERENCES 38

APPENDIX A. Jacobs et al. (1994) Original Task List Annotated for Selection A-l

B. Lockheed Martin (1997) Modified Task List Annotated for

Selection B_1

C. Biographical Information Questionnaire C-l

D. Simulator Capability Questionnaire (Part 1) D-l

E. Simulator Capability Questionnaire (Part 2) E-l

XI
mmmmm

ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS (CONTINUED) .

Page

F. Behavioral Observation Checklist F_1

G. Structured Interview • G-l

H. Scenario Scripts for Move Through Built-Up Area, Reconnoiter Area,

React to Contact, Assault, and Clear Building H-l

I. Post Experiment Questionnaire I_1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Representative Behaviors Rated High in Transfer Effectiveness and

Frequency of Occurrence in the Performance of Infantry Tasks 7

2. Potential High Payoff Tasks for DI Small Unit Training in

Virtual Environments —• "

3. High Payoff Tasks for DI Small Unit Training in Virtual

Environments •

10

4. Technical Specifications of the SVS and SVS Desktop Simulation

Systems 14

5. Soldiers' Ratings of their Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for

the Task "Move Through Built-Up Area" ••••• 17

6. Soldiers' Ratings of their Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for

the Task "Reconnoiter Area" 17

7. Soldiers' Ratings of their Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for

the Task "React to Contact" 18

8. Soldiers' Ratings of their Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for

the Task "Assault" 18

Xll
^^^

ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

rONTENTS rrONTTNUED) . —

Page

LIST OF TABLES

9. Soldiers' Ratings of their Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for

the Task "Clear a Building" • •

19

10. Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team)

for the Task "Move Through Built-Up Area" 20

11. Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team)

for the Task "Reconnoiter Area" •

20

12. Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team)

for the Task "React to Contact" •

21

13. Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team)

for the Task "Assault" 22

14. Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team)

for the Task "Clear a Building" 23

15. Simulator Features which Need to be Improved or Added to the Next

Generation SVS •

26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Soldiers' overall mean ratings of their abilities to perform five high

payoff tasks in the SVS 16

Xlll
ANALYSIS OF MISSION-BASED SCENARIOS FOR TRAINING SOLDIERS AND SMALL

UNIT LEADERS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

Introduction

Preparing soldiers and small unit leaders (platoon, squad, and team) for the diversity of

operations facing the Army now and in the future will provide many challenges to military

trainers Units no longer have the resources (time and money) needed to prepare for and conduct

large-scale field training events and exercises to adequately address the variety ofmissions

envisioned. Time, cost, and safety considerations associated with these training events and

exercises will force trainers to rely more on alternative methods oftraining these soldiers.

Cost-effective methods for developing decision-making and leadership skills ofthese

leaders are especially needed in urban operations. Conducting such training at existing realworld urban training sites, however, is very costly. One solution is to conduct a portion ofthis

training, such as mission rehearsals, in virtual environments (VE) through the use ofindividual

combatant simulators.

At the Land Warrior Test Bed at Fort Benning, Georgia, for example, the individual

soldier or small unit can explore innovative approaches for conducting urban operations and

mission rehearsal activities in virtual settings. Through the use ofindividual combatant

simulators soldiers can immerse themselves in virtual representations (data bases) ot urban

training sites such as the McKenna site at Fort Benning, and conduct limited missions, e.g., clear

a building conduct area reconnaissance. Virtual environments, in theory, offer soldiers the

opportunity to thoroughly rehearse missions to familiarize themselves with the procedural

aspects ofspecific tasks as well as offering a chance to examine new tactics and techniques.

These simulators allow the soldiers to play out scenarios and determine the impact of various

courses of action on the likely success of a mission.

While promising, opportunities for individual dismounted soldiers to train in these

immersive (virtual) environments are severely limited. The Army's current simulation systems

SIMNET (Simulation Networking) and its successor, the Close Combat Tactical Trainer, provide

effective training for soldiers fighting from vehicles, but not for individual dismounted soldiers

(Pleban Dyer Salter, & Brown, 1998). Despite an organizational structure that includes light

forces few attempts have been made by the Army to model component behaviors ofindividual

soldiers Individual combatant simulations are needed to portray the roles and vulnerabilities ot

dismounted personnel in the virtual battle. Without some sort ofindividual combatant

simulation, it is difficult to estimate the impact ofthe individual soldier or soldiers in squad or

team size elements in conjunction with their mounted counterparts (Jacobs et al., 1994).

Dismounted Warrior Network User Exercises

A number of candidate individual combatant simulator systems were examined over the

past few years under the cognizance ofthe U.S Army Infantry Center's Dismounted Battlespace

Battle Lab (DBBL). Pleban, Dyer, Salter, and Brown (1998) conducted an exhaustive functional

analysis offour prototype virtual individual combatant simulator technologies as part ofthe
Dismounted Warrior Network (DWN) User Exercises. The DWN work effort was a _

collaborative venture between the Infantry Forces and Simulation Systems Research Umts ofthe

U S Army Research Institute (ARI), the U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrimientation

Command (STRICOM) and its contractor Lockheed Martin Information Systems (LMIS) under

the Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology II program. One objective ofthe research was

to identify requirements for simulator systems to support the integration ofindividual soldiers

into the virtual battlefield. This was accomplished through a series of engineering experiments

and partially structured free play user exercises conducted at the LMIS facility in Orlando

(engineering) and in the DBBL Land Warrior Test Bed (LWTB) at Fort Benning. Exercises

involved both urban and desert scenarios. Pleban et al. (1998) detailed the strengths and

weaknesses of each prototype system as well as needed modifications.

Dismounted Warrior Network Enhancements for Restricted Terrain Exercises

A follow-on to the DWN User Exercises was the DWN Enhancements for Restricted

Terrain (DWN ERT) exercises (Salter, Eakin, & Knerr, 1999). The DWN ERT effort built upon

the lessons learned from the DWN User Exercises and focused exclusively on urban operations.

The virtual urban operations data base (environment) was modeled after the Fort BenningMcKenna urban operations training site. ,

The objective ofthe DWN ERT exercises was similar to the DWN User Exercises, to

compare and contrast the characteristics and capabilities offour simulation technologies The

systems were based, in part on the earlier technologies used previously and descnbed by Pleban

et al (1998) Salter et al. (1999) identified key technological issues related to weapon aiming,

position tracking» and locomotion that must be addressed for the system to have any value for

conducting mission training or rehearsal activities. The candidate systems were also evaluated

for strengths and weaknesses.

Individual Comhatant Simulation: System Characteristics. Technology, and Training Issues

Until recently, individual virtual environments have been unable to provide the richness

of environmental cues and/or adequate response sensing mechanisms to be considered useful

substitutes for natural world alternatives (Jacobs et al., 1994). Emerging VE technologies such

as low cost computer image generators, immersive helmet mounted displays, locomotion

platforms and intelligent computer-controlled forces have attempted to address some ofthese

deficiencies with varying degrees ofsuccess. However, hardware and software limitations must

still be addressed, as well as the lack of documented effective methods, strategies, and traimng

support packages for simulator use.

The best performing ofthe currently existing individual combatant simulation systems is

a prototype version ofthe Soldier Visualization Station (SVS) described in Salter et al. (1999)

and developed by Reality by Design (RBD). This system represents the currently most viable

overall technical approach for enabling soldiers to shoot, move, and communicate in virtual

environments. The SVS is a PC (Pentium) based system with an inertial/acoustic tracker for

body position and weapon pointing. It includes an integrated head assembly subsystem that can

be used for aiming and looking around the corners of buildings. The SVS has one flat screen on
which images are presented by a rear projection device. Movement is accomplished byq>P^°8

pressure to a weapon-mounted thumbstick. This allows the individual to move rather effortlessly

throughout the virtual battlefield to include open terrain and urban environments.

Sdrmce and Technolog Objective (ST(Y> Work Program for Virtual Environment Research

ARI recently established a four year Science and Technology Objective (STO) entitled

Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation Training and Mission Rehearsal

(1998) The purpose ofthe STO is to examine selected technological and trainingissues that

currently limit high fidelity dismounted simulation. Technological topics include limited field oi

view and resolution of visual display systems, simulating locomotion, tracking weapons and

body positions, creating realistic performance of computer-controlled dismounted friendly and

enemy soldiers, simulation of night equipment and sensor images, and making terrain and

structures dynamic. Training issues addressed include the development of effective and

appropriate training strategies and methods, assessing individual and unit performance,

developing training materials, and determining transfer oftraining from virtual to live

environments.

A collaborative STO effort was established between the Infantry Forces and Simulation

Systems Research Units ofARI, the U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation

Command, and the Human Research and Engineering and Information Sciences and Technology

Directorates ofthe U.S. Army Research Laboratory to address these issues. The first year SIO

program was divided into five phases:

Phase IA - First Pilot Test (Initial Evaluation of Soldier and Small Unit Leader Training

- Phase IB - Second Pilot Test (Evaluation ofRevised Soldier and Small Unit Leader Training

Scenarios)

Phase II - ACRT Look (SVS system check)

Phase III - Voice Instructor/Operator Evaluation

Phase IV - DI SAF (Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces) Face Validation and

Review ofNew DI SAF Behaviors

Phase V - STO Training and SAF Evaluation

Only issues relevant to Phase I will be addressed in this report.

Identification of High PayoffTasks for Virtual Environments

Fundamental to the STO Phase I work effort was the identification of high payofftasks

for training small unit dismounted Infantry soldiers and leaders in simulated urban operations.

As noted earlier, budget, environment, safety, and operational pressures severely limit the

frequency and quality of unit field training. A major concern for trainers is how to adequately

prepare soldiers and small unit leaders for urban operations. Of particular interest was the use of

innovative technologies (e.g., individual combatant simulation) to enhance the decision-making

skills training ofthese soldiers in urban settings.
Farlier reoorts detailing task requirements for training dismounted soldiers in virtual

environmentsSbs et al 1994; Lockheed Martin Information Systems, 1997) were extremely

SSHÄäJ lition criteria for identifying tasks which could be used for honing the

rcSon-making skills ofthese soldiers in urban settings. However, the task lists generated from

Seffortsiäfuired additional refinements since the specific criteria used by Jacobs et al and

Seed Martin did not address the specific simulator characteristics ofthe system (SVS) to be

used during the Phase I evaluation (See Pleban, 1999).

The first part ofthis report will describe the process used by Pleban (1999) to generate a

high payofftask list for near-term use in the LWTB employing currently available individual

combalt simulation technologies (SVS). The second part ofthe report will describe the

development ofthe small unit (soldier and leader) training scenarios sunman»^ra*>

observer reactions to the scenarios, and discuss the implications ofthe findings for Phase V of

the STO year one work effort.

PART 1

THE HIGH PAYOFF TASK SELECTION PROCESS

The selection of high payofftasks (i.e., key Infantry tasks which can be eost-effective^

represented in virtual environments for training small unit dismounted Infantry (DI) soldiers in

ZuSed urban operations) was a four-phase process. The phases involved: a) estabhsiiing an

a^priateTm^L of dismounted soldier tasks; b) selecting a smaller pool oftasks that are

exSlin existing virtual environments; c) identifying an initial set of high payofftasks and,

d) specifying a final set ofhigh payofftasks.

F.tshlishir.g an Arr r

te Tnitial T ist "f dismounted Soldier Tasks

An initial search was conducted by Pleban (1999) to identify existing task lists that had

been created recently. The search revealed two potentially relevant task lists that were

mentionedeaSe, Lfinal set of high payofftasks was based on refinements ofthe lists fouad

mmeJacobsetal (1994)report: Training Dismounted Soldiers in Virtual Environments. Task

^^£L*!J.**Lockheed Martin Information Systems; (1997]graining

Exercises and Military Operations Functional Definition Reportfor Individual-to-Squad,

Platoon, and Company Organization Levels.

The two task lists did not use the same sources. Jacobs et al. (1994) relied primarily on

the following documents:

ARTEP 7-8-MTP (1988) Mission Training Planfor the Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad;

- ARTEP 7-8-DRILL (1990) Battle Drillsfor the Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad;

ARTEP 31-807-31-MTP (1989) Mission Training Planfor the Special Forces Company:

Special Reconnaissance;

- ARTEP 31-807-32-MTP (1989) Mission Training Planfor the Special Forces Company.

Direct Action.
Sixty-seven tasks and drills were identified by Jacobs et al. (1994) for further analysis to

determine their suitability for representation in virtual environments. Tasks identified by Jacobs

were accompanied by multiple ratings from subject matter experts (SMEs) and frequency scores

reflecting their standings on three key criteria: a) occurrences oftask component activities; b)

transfer effectiveness; and c) availability oftechnology to support task-related activities.

Lockheed Martin (1997) borrowed from many sources to include ARTEPs 7-8-MTP and

DRILL in addition to a number of other ARTEPs, Soldier Manuals, Special Texts, and Tables of

Organisation and Equipment for different Infantry units, e.g., Light, Mechanized, and for United

States Marine Corps Infantry units. (See Lockheed Martin Information Systems IW.Ml.ior

a complete list ofsources used.) Pleban (1999) focused primarily on tasks found in ARTEPs 7-

8-MTP and DRILL.

Lockheed Martin (1997) identified 167 tasks and drills for possible representation in

virtual environments. These tasks were also rated by SMEs for suitability for virtual

environments. Suitability ratings were based on a functional performance code assigned to each

task. The code reflected the degree to which existing simulation systems support the training of

the task This code was then converted to a single numerical rating by following a

predetermined set of decision rules. (See Lockheed Martin Information Systems, 1997 pp. 18-

23.) Ratings did not reflect the transfer potential, cost-effectiveness or importance ofthe task to

be simulated.

Tasks were considered for potential inclusion (by Jacobs et al., 1994, and Pleban, 1999) if

they a) applied to an Infantry platoon, squad, or individual within the squad; b) involved

dismounted operations; c) were generally applicable to virtual environments; and d) were

available in an unclassified mode (See Jacobs et al., 1994, p. 13.)

Tasks not considered (by Lockheed Martin, 1997) for selection for the final high payoff

task list included, for example, a) tasks involving passive activities such as selecting temporary

fighting positions, practicing noise and light discipline; b) maintenance ofweapons and

equipment- c) those that deal strictly with zeroing weapons and the aligning and calibrating of

equipment; or d) tasks dealing with operational and safety checks of weapons and equipment;

and e) tasks in which the users are mounted in any kind of vehicles (ground, aircraft, boats) with

the possible exception ofselected Bradley Fighting Vehicle tasks to accommodate the mounting

and dismounting ofthe vehicle. (See Lockheed Martin Information Systems, 1997, pp. 14-17.)

(Tasks involving the zeroing or alignment ofitems of equipment, e.g., night vision, thermal, and

acquisition and aiming devices, with their associated weapons were retained for later selection.)

In addition Pleban (1999) eliminated thirty-five ofthe lowest rated tasks from Lockheed

Martin's initial list of 165 tasks as unsuitable for inclusion in the virtual training scenarios, e.g.,

Cross Water Obstacles, Establish a Roadblock, Occupy Observation Post.

SpWtinp a Smaller Pool ofTasks that are Executable in Existing Virtual Environments

From this initial combined set of 199 tasks and drills (see Appendixes A and B) Pleban

(1999) examined candidate tasks and drills by applying the criteria described in the following

sections. These criteria were essentially the same or slightly modified versions ofthose Jacobs

used in rating each task:
a) occurrences oftask component activities; b) transfer effectiveness; c) availability of

tecSgy to support task-related activities. In addition, another criterion was applied to the

^^cLJlctiy^ss/f^m^y of performing behaviors in virtual environments

tt^vinrs Surmor^ hv Current and N^r-Term Simulation Technology

Tasks were evaluated, in part, based on the current and near term capabilities ofiavailable

individual combatant simulation systems to support the behaviors or actmties associated with

mftlsk Task assessments were based on features characteristic ofthe Soldier Visuahzat on

Station (Svl) which will be used during the preliminary evaluation ofsmall unit soldier and

^^LriM. Results from this pilot investigation will feed into a more comprehensive

X^Suatkminvolving nine SVS immersive simulators and one desktop^ystem

foSelyTermed the Squad Synthetic Environment (SSE). Salter, et al. (1999) provides a full

description ofthe original SVS system and its variant.

Ifthe SVS system could not support the critical behaviors that compose the major aspects

ofthe task men the task was not selected for the final task list. Using this criterion, examples of

teskTnm se ected included those involving the operation and use ofsuch weapons as the M60

SÄÄmachine gun, M203 grenade launcher, M9 pistol, M47 antitai*weapon

M18A1 claymore mine, and various pieces of night vision equipment (e.g. night vis»on sight,

titeLl viewers, night vision goggles-NVG). The SVS does not yet support toate _

weapons. But it does support limited night operations (dark and low fidelity NVG simulation).

It is important to note that while Lockheed Martin (1997) acknowledged the importance

ofindiv du^l combatant simulation systems to be able to support specific human behaviors^d

activities their task selections were based on more general considerations (see p 3 and Lockheed

behaviors or activities that could be supported by current, mid- or far- term technology This

caSriition was used to help identify promising tasks for final selection for use on the SVS.

Analysis ofJacobs' et al. (1994) projections on the availability oftechnologies to support

key task behaviors shows that progress has been slower than anticipated in <^«~^

technologies identified by Jacobs et al. in 1994 as being available in the next 30-42 months to

support vaXusbehaviors are still not completely developed in 1999. The most problematical

SoWesinstances where the soldier must actively manipulate the virtual terrain m some

wav TWs dynamic interplay between soldier and terrain includes such activities as construction

ÄSons<e£ digging foxholes, hasty firing positions, or^^S

overhead cover); removing signs of presence, camouflaging ^^^^^^„^

demolitions; camouflaging trails after passing, and crossing water^

]

^^^naA

SVS system is not capable ofsupporting these activities, tasks involving these or similar

activities were not considered for selection.

Transfer Value

Tasks were selected, in part, based on Jacobs' et al. (1994) ratings^^^^^

effectiveness of practicing component activities individually in a virtual environment. Jacobs et
al based their assessment on the following criteria: a) the primary sensory and effector

modalities used to perform the task; b) the projected performance ofthe virtual simulation

subsystems to realistically simulate the task using primary and secondary modalities; and c) the

likelihood that virtual simulation.artifacts may affect a negative transfer oftraimng (e.g.,

simulator response latencies, visual resolution). Tasks regarded as having potentially high

transfer value were, in general, composed of highly generalizable activities Tasks involving the

types of activities shown in Table 1 were rated by Jacobs et al. as potentially high in transfer

effectiveness.

Table 1

Representative Behaviors Rated High in Transfer Effectiveness and Frequency of Occurrence

in the Performance ofInfantry Tasks

High Occur

Activity Transfer Frequently

Communication X Give verbal orders X

Hear orders X

Give hand and arm signals X X

Weapon Engagement

X X Aim and fire individual weapon

Visual Identification-People

X Perceive relative position of other units X

Visually search for enemy X X

Identify actual squad members X

Identify activity of personnel X X

Identify enemy soldiers X X

Identify civilians X

Visual Identification-Location

X Identify safe and danger area X

Identify support position X X

Perceive relative position ofweapon fire X X

Identify areas that mask supporting element fires X X

Identify overwatch position X X

Identify covered and concealed route X X

Identify assigned sectors X X

Estimate distance from selfto distant point X X

Discern location within area X

Identify firing positions in a building X

Movement

Move X in accordance with directions X

Maintain position relative to other personnel X X

Move upright tactically I

Move upright, reconnoiter 1

x

Note: This table summarizes Jacobs' et al. (1994) ratings t()r these two criltena.
Frequency of Occurrence

Another consideration in determining whether or not a task was selected as a potentially

high payofftask was the frequency with which underlying component activities; occur in

performing the tasks. (SeeTablel.) Jacobs et al. (1994) analyzed each ARTEP task to identify

me fundamental behaviors. Frequency counts were made ofthe total number oftimes a behavior

occurred across all 67 tasks and for each individual task. Based on the Jacobs et al. analysis

activities occurring 25 or more times across all tasks were retained for further analysis. While

there were a few exceptions, activities meeting this criterion were examined separately for

selected tasks (generally, tasks supported by current and near-term simulation technology and

rated high in transfer value by Jacobs et al.). Task selections were based in part, on the

frequency with which the actions occurred in performing the task, typically, three or more times,

and on subjective judgments ofthe criticality ofthe action to the performance ofthe task, i.e., is

the action a core component ofthe task?

This selection process was performed only on the tasks identified by Jacobs et al. (1994)

and by extrapolation, to matching tasks found in Lockheed Martin's (1997) list. Tasks

identified for potential inclusion on the final list generally included such activities as shown in

Table 1 based on Jacobs' et al. frequency counts.

Host-effectiveness/Feasibility ofPerforming Activities in Virtual Environments

The final criterion for task selection was the cost-effectiveness/feasibility of performing

the task (and its component activities) in the virtual environment in the near-term. Tasks from

Jacobs et al. (1994) which had been rated (by Jacobs et al.) across the three previous criteria

(behaviors supported by current simulation technology, transfer value, frequency' of activity) and

matching tasks from Lockheed Martin (1997) were individually analyzed by Pleban (1999).

Tasks and their component activities that could not be supported by current simulation

technology were classified as non-feasible and eliminated from further consideration. Those

tasks and component activities that received low ratings for transfer effectiveness or whose

component activities did not meet the frequency criterion described earlier were deemed noncost-effective and thus, unsuitable for the current SVS system.

Tasks from both Jacobs et al. (1994) and Lockheed Martin's (1997) lists that were judged

to be non-cost-effective and/or feasible for performance in virtual environments tended, for the

most part to involve exfiltration/infiltration tasks (e.g., Infiltrate/Exfiltrate by Air, Infiltrate/

Exfiltrate by Water), Helicopter and Boat Movement, and NBC operations, e.g., PrepareJor

Chemical/Nuclear Attack, React to Chemical/Biological/Nuclear Attack, Operate in a Nuclear

Environment. Simulation ofNBC tasks, for example, was not considered practical for the

current SVS. Similarly, tasks involving soldiers in aircraft or boats, and to a lesser extent in

ground vehicles, are not cost-effective to simulate from a training standpoint. For the small unit

leader (or soldier), little, if any training value is provided by having soldiers simply entering and

exiting air and boat craft or land vehicles.
Identifying an Initial Set of High Pavoff Tasks

Based on the considerations discussed above, an initial list ofpotentially suitable tasks

was identified. Again, there was a clear subjective component involved in trying to juggle the

task (and its component behaviors) among the four major criteria. Different objectives and

simulation systems with improved capabilities might have led to a different and/or an expanded

set oftasks. It is important to note that the final list represents a snapshot in time based on

current and short-term future capabilities of existing prototype simulation systems (i.e., the

SVS). Table 2 combines the tasks/drills from both Jacobs et al. (1994) and Lockheed Martin's

(1997) original task lists that were identified as potentially suitable for dismounted Infantry (DI)

small unit training in virtual environments, with a particular emphasis on urban operations.

Table 2

Potential High PayoffTasks for DI Small Unit Training in Virtual Environments

Tasks

Movement

Move as a Member of Fire Team

Move Dismounted

Move Tactically

Perform Movement Techniques During MOUT

Control Movement ofa Fire Team

MOUT

Enter a Building and Clear a Room-Squad (Drill)

Defend MOUT/Building

Reconnaissance

Recon Objective

Report Information of Potential Intelligence Value

Reconnoiter Area

Engage Targets with an M16A1/A2 Rifle

Execute Assault

Perform Overwatch/Support by Fire

Perform Hasty Ambush

React to Contact (Battle Drill)

Jacobs et al.

(1994)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Lockheed

Martin

(1997)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note: Move Dismounted and Recon Objective were not specifically listed by

Jacobs et al. (1994) but were judged as integral aspects ofthe respective tasks

Move Tactically and Reconnoiter Area.

The combination oftask lists yielded some redundancy, e.g., Assault, Overwatch, Hasty

Ambush, Defend Built-Up Area/MOUT-Building. After further analysis ofthe tasks shown in

Table 2, it was apparent that Lockheed Martin's (1997) task list represented a combination of

tasks from FM 7-8 and component task activities similar to those identified by Jacobs et al.

(1994). Indeed, these behaviors appeared more like subtasks which could be subsumed under the
larger tasks from FM 7-8 and identified by both sets of authors. For example, the task Move

Tactically would include, to varying degrees, the activities (subtasks) Moving as a Member ofa

Fire Team, and Performing Movement Techniques During MOUT. Soldiers role playing the

squad-fire team leader positions would also be responsible for Controlling the Movement ofa

Fire Team.

Engaging Targets with an M16A1 or M16A2 Rifle is a key behavioral component or

subtask which underlies the tasks Assault, Enter a Building and Clear a Room, and React to

Contact. Similarly, Report Information ofPotential Intelligence Value was viewed as a critical

subtask falling under the task Reconnoiter Area as well as for Move Tactically, React to Contact,

Assault, and Enter a Building and Clear a Room.

Süecifvine a Final Set of Hieh Pavoff Tasks

Further analysis ofTable 2 resulted in the elimination ofsome additional tasks. For

example, Overwatch and Defend Built-Up Area were removed from consideration because they

were judged as too passive (too little movement for individual combatants) to be effectively

crafted into small unit leader training vignettes. Hasty Ambush was also eliminated from

consideration because ofthe difficulty in executing the task using the prototype SVS systems in

conjunction with the urban-based context ofthe scenarios. The final task list determined to be

appropriate for virtual environments is shown in Table 3 with redundant/inappropriate tasks

removed and the remaining ones reorganized into tasks and supporting subtasks.

Table 3

High PayoffTasks for DI Small Unit Training in Virtual Environments

Tasks

Assault

Move Tactically

Enter Building and Clear a Room

Reconnoiter Area

React to Contact

Subtasks

Engage Targets with an M16A1 or M16A2 Rifle

Move as Member of a Fire Team

Perform Movement Techniques During MOUT

Report Information of Potential Intelligence Value

Control Movement of a Fire Team

10
Conclusion

The development of DI small unit leader training scenarios for execution in the

simulation environment is described in Part 2 (Phase I) ofthis report and is based on the tasks

and subtasks shown in Table 3. As previously noted, the selection ofthese tasks was based on

the systematic reduction of a great number oftasks down into a manageable, useful task list

which may provide researchers and trainers the material necessary to maximize the effectiveness

ofindividual combatant simulation for training and mission rehearsal activities. In terms ot

training value, these tasks should offer the highest payoff potential for soldiers and small umt

leaders.

The results from a preliminary evaluation ofthe training scenarios is described in Part 2.

The maior objectives ofthe evaluation were to identify vignettes (and their associated tasks)

which may be performed in the simulation environment and which appear to have training value

for Infantry soldiers. The training scenarios served as the primary instructional vehicles for the

Phase V follow-on evaluation involving the Squad Synthetic Environment and is described in a

separate report.

PART 2

PHASE I OVERVIEW

The second part ofthis report describes the Phase I scenario development process, the

major findings from the evaluation, and research and design implications for the final phase

(Phase V) ofthe year one STO work program. Phase IA involved the initial development and

evaluation offive sets oftask-based scenarios. Phase IB focused on the potential training value

ofmodifications made to selected sets ofscenarios from Phase IA.

The scenarios were evaluated across a number oftraining issues. Key research issues are

listed below.

- Could the tasks and their component behaviors be performed adequately in the virtual

environment?

What tasks were the most difficult to perform in the virtual environment?

Could practice in simulations lead to improved performance in the real world?

How could simulators be used most effectively for small unit training?

Were the scenarios appropriate for small unit leader training?

What types ofscenarios provide the most training value?

What enhancements or modifications are needed to improve the training value ofthe

scenarios?

11
- mat do scenarios need to emphasize from the perspective ofsmall unit training?

What were the strengths and weaknesses ofthe scenarios?

- How do dismounted Infantry semi-automated forces (DI-SAF) impact the training value of

the scenarios?

PHASE 1A

INITIAL EVALUATION OF SMALL UNIT LEADER TRAINING SCENARIOS

Method

Participants

Participants were six male soldiers from Fort Benning. All soldiers had from two-andone-halfto thirteen years in service time (mean time in service - five and one-haf years) and

wTre MOS UM (Fighting Vehicle, Infantryman) qualified. The average age of ^participants

wS8 vearsTrange - 23 to 34 years). The sample contained all E-5s (one squad leader, four

Z^tSSZB^dley Fighting Vehicle gLier). All soldiers had completed the Pnmary

Lei Deve opment Course. Two soldiers had received some gaming in urbanjerat ons and

toee soldiers had some prior simulation experience (Conduct of Fire Tramer/SIMNET).

Materials

T^aranhical Inform^ Questionnaire. The Biographical Information Questionnaire

(AppenoS) was a multiple choice/short answer paper-and-pencil instrument designed to assess

SÄormilitary training and experience, as well as experience with computers and

military simulations.

<^,1atnr Capability Questionnaire fnart 1). The Simulator Capability Questionnaire

(Appena xD) was a four-point multiple choice rating form that soldiers completed following the

compleffon of each cluster oftask-based scenarios. The forms consisted ofspecific behaviors

wM were judged critical for the performance ofthe task. For example critical behaviors for

me SoeThrough a Built-Up Area included: "Maneuver around obstacles'; Maneuver

dLetoo1hers»;ld «Determine other team members' positions." Soldiers rated their ability to

perform each behavior in the simulator from Very Good to Very Poor.

fi^lktnr Capability Questionnaire (Part 2). The second part ofthe Simulator Capability

Questionnaire (Appendix E was filled out by the soldiers after they had completed all the

sienarioTTh^Questionnaire was primarily short answer and tapped the soldiers' opinions on the

Sgvdue'utility ofthe simulators, realistic and unrealistic aspects ofthe simulations, and

training distracters.

D-w^l Qhservation Checklist. The Behavioral Observation Checklist (Appendix F)

was completed by ARI researchers each time they observed a soldier's performance during a

pa^icuS^scenario. The checklists were similar to the Simulator Capability Questionnaire which

12
the soldiers completed, but were more detailed. Observers checked whether the soldier

performed a specific behavior. Space was allocated for comments where appropriate.

swtured Interview. After completion of all scenarios for Phase IA the soldiers werey

also interviewed (Appendix G) by the researchers to clarify issues noted in the observations and

to obtain specific information related to:

The best use ofsimulator technology

The training value provided by specific tasks

Which tasks were the most difficult to perform in the simulator

Simulator improvements needed

Factors limiting simulator effectiveness

Training transfer

Features needed for improving simulator capabilities

Ftevelonment of Small Unit Trader Training Scenarios

The majority ofscenarios involved some degree ofinteraction between soldiers(in their

individual combatant simulators) and computer-generated DI-SAF Q»«^**£^

Automated Forces). The DI-SAF provided either an Opposing Force OPFOR) or a^FO*

(Blue Forces) element in support ofthe soldiers. Some scenarios involved both DI-SAF OPFOR

and BLUFOR elements.

Scenarios were based on the five tasks (Move Through Built-Up Area, Reconnoiter Area,

React toCoZl Assault, and Clear Building) and subtasks shown in Table 3. Three scenarios

we developed for each task. Scripts were drafted for each scenario detailing the assembly area,

Se positioning of enemy, civilians, and vehicles (Appendix H). Draft^scenanos; were

reviewed Lmodified, where appropriate, by military SMEs. ARI and -^ S^p^-

tested each scenario and made additional refinements. Maps were made ofthe McKenna urban

operations training site which served as the virtual setting for the scenarios. The maps were

SuSTsolSers prior to each scenario and showed the direction their team would take through

TMcKerma database. As an aid to the soldiers, key procedures ^^^J^^.

critical to the successful performance ofthe scenario were summarized and placed at the corner

ofthe map.

Apparatus

Two full-immersion SVS systems were employed along with a desktop version. The

desktop system wasjoystick controlled. The two stand alone systems were inked to the desktop.

T^oZ^cJoL ofthe two systems are shown in Table 4 Soldiers in each SVS couM

communicate with each other and their squad/team leader on the desktop ^e two SVS systems

were housed in their own enclosures. These enclosures were made of a thick black cloth-like

material and fastened to a metal frame surrounding the SVSs. They were designed to dampen

Extraneous sound, reduce light, and minimize distractions from other people moving around the

area.

13
Table 4

Technical Specifications ofthe SVS and SVS Desktop Simulation Systems

SVS System Specifications

System Hardware

(Stand-up and

Desktop)

Movement Control

Motion Capture/

Weapon Tracking

Visual Display

Enclosures

Software

Pentium III —450 MHz microprocessor

128 Mb RAM

Obsidian 200 - 8440 3D Graphics Card

SoundBlaster AWE 64 Gold Audio Card

Removable 4.55 GB SCSI Hard Drive

Weapon-mounted thumbswitch

Desktop SVS - Microsoft joystick control

InterSense Mark2 X-Bar Tracking System

Weapon tracking accurate to within lA of 1

90° x 60° FOV at center of enclosure (varies with position change)

Rear screen projection resolution 1024 x 768

Desktop SVS resolution 800 x 600

Aluminum frame over black sound-dampening fabric. (10 x 10 x

12) .

Reality By Design proprietary software

Design and Procedure

Training phase. Training took place at the DBBL's Land Warrior Testbed at Fort

Benning Prior to the start oftraining, soldiers were briefed on the objectives ofthe research and

filled out the Biographical Information Questionnaire. Soldiers were then given a bnet

orientation on the SVS systems and shown how to operate them. Training concluded with the

soldiers performing two scenarios which required them to move through urban areas move

within buildings, engage, and shoot targets. During training, ARI researchers, aided by two

(active duty and retired) Army Infantry officers observed the soldiers performance and provided

immediate feedback to correct inappropriate behaviors as well as assistance to the soldiers

regarding any problems they may have had with the simulators. The orientation and traimng

phase lasted approximately one half-day.

F.xnerimental phase. For the next two-and-one-half days soldiers worked as three-man

teams- two soldiers operated the more immersive SVS and the team/squad leader operated the

SVS desk top Prior to the start ofthe scenarios, soldiers were reminded to operate in as

tactically correct manner as possible, e.g., use appropriate movement techniques for movmg

around windows and near buildings, and employ correct tactics for entering and clearing

buildings. Once the team was in place on the systems, they executed all three scenarios

developed for a given task. When they finished their cluster ofscenarios, they rotated out ofthe

SVS systems and the next team replaced them. The team which had just finished went to the

conference room and completed the appropriate Simulator Capability Questionnaire for the task14
based scenarios they had just executed. Teams completed five sets ofscenarios, three scenarios

for each offive tasks.

The original experimental design allocated extra time to repeat scenarios since only five

soldiers were originally expected to participate in the study. The extra scenarios were added to

anow the squad/team leader who was scheduled to operate the SVS desktop for aü fifteen

scenarios to have an opportunity to use the other (more immersive) SVS system. The extra

(sixth) soldier allowed for some flexibility in the experimental design The relative ease with

which soldiers were able to perform the tasks, coupled with the fact that there was no longer a

need to repeat some ofthe same scenarios to allow full participation, permitted the development

and execution of additional challenging scenarios. To increase the complexity ofthe scenanos

t^o additional SVS systems were activated. In addition, a four-man DI-SAF team was attached

as a BLUFOR fire team in support ofthe five SVS systems. Several squad-size scenarios

involving movement to, entering and clearing a building were then executed.

McKenna phase. After all virtual environment scenarios had been completed, the

soldiers were taken to the actual live McKenna training site^ Soldiers conducted^°^C

clear

scenarios, both ofwhich involved clearing a building. The first scenario required them to clear a

building that they had seen in the virtual world but one which they had never trained on before

and they had not seen from the inside. The second building was one in which the soldiers had

practiced extensively at the Land Warrior Test Bed and so they were quite familiar with the

inside layout (stairs, room arrangement) ofthe building. Soldiers were split into two elements.

A two-man team (BLUFOR) was assigned to occupy the building and defend it from the tourman team (OPFOR) which was attempting to clear it. Each scenario was run twice from each

building.

On the final day ofthe study, the soldiers reported to the Land Warrior Test Bed where

they filled out the second part ofthe Simulator Capability Questionnaire. In addition, small

group structured interviews were conducted.

Results

Subjective Assessment nfTask Performance

Soldiers' assessments oftheir ability to perform the five major high payofftasks were

determined by summing their individual ratings for each component behavior listed for the

particular task on the Simulator Capability Questionnaire and calculating an overall mean rating.

Figure 1 shows soldiers rated their overall ability to perform the five main tasks somewhere

between Good and Very Good.

15
Mean

Figure 1. Soldiers' overall mean ratings oftheir abilities to perform five high payofftasks in the

SVS.

Mean ratings ofsoldiers' abilities to perform each ofthe component behaviors for each

task are shown in Tables 5-9. Careful inspection ofthe tables revealed that while the large

Äof Tan ratings were 3.0 (good) and above, several key behaviors fell below this mark.

While the disparity was minimal from an absolute standpoint, observations (and subsequent

reports) from the soldiers suggested that these were areas that need to be addressed by the next

XrationTvS . For the task "Move through Built-Up Area" the three lowest rated behaviors

were Move around obstacles, Maneuver around corners, and Look around corners. The task

«React to Contact," had two behaviors rated as poor, Visually locate the source ojfenemyfire and

Determine the source ofenemyfire by sound, and one task was borderline (2J- 2.9),

Communicate enemy location to team member. "Clear a building" had two behaviors which

fromX soldiers' ratings and subsequent feedback, were viewed as problematical, Move quickly

through doorways, and Take a tacticalposition within a room.

16
Table 5

Soldiers' Ratings oftheir Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for the Task

"Move Through Built-Up Area"

Behaviors

1) Move through open areas as a widely separated group

2) Move according to directions

3) Move around obstacles - 4) Move single file

5) Maneuver below windows

6) Maneuver close to others

7) Determine other team member's position

8) Maintain position relative to other team members

9) Maneuver around corners

10) Locate assigned areas of observation

11) Look around corners

Note: 4=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Poor; l=Very Poor

N Min.

2.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

Max.

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Mean

3.2

3.2

2.8

3.0

3.8

3.2

3.4

3.0

2.8

3.4

2.8

SD

.84

.45

.45

.00

.45

.84

.89

1.0

.84

.55

.84

Table 6

Soldiers' Ratings oftheir Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for the Task

"Reconnoiter Area"

Behavior

1) Execute planned route

2) Identify assigned sectors of observation

3) Maintain position relative to other team members

4) Look around corners ^

5) Move close to walls

6) Scan from side to side

7) Scan vertically

8) Identify civilians

9) Identify enemy soldiers

10) Identify potential danger points

11) Estimate distances from self to a distant point

12) Communicate spot reports to squad leader

Note: 4=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Poor; l=Very Poor

Min.

4.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

Max.

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Mean

4.0

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.0

3.7

SD

.00

.55

.52

.75

.63

.52

.75

.82

.52

.52

.63

.52

17
Table 7

Soldiers' Ratings oftheir Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for the Task

"React to Contact"

Behavior

1) Visually locate the source of enemy fire

2) Determine the source of enemy fire by sound

3) Distinguish between friendly and enemy fire

4) Identify civilians

5) Communicate enemy location to team member

6) Take hasty defensive positions

7) Aim weapon

8) Fire weapon in short bursts

9) Fire weapon accurately

Note: 4=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Poor; l=Very Poor

N Min.

2.0

1.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Max.

3.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Mean

2.3

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.7

3.3

3.5

3.2

3.5

SD

.52

.63

.89

.00

.81

.52

.55

.55

.55

Table 8

Soldiers' Ratings oftheir Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for the Task

"Assault"

Behavior

1) Identify covered and concealed routes

2) Identify areas that mask supporting fires

3) Coordinate with other squad members

4) Execute the assault as planned

5) Move quickly to the point of attack

6) Assume defensive positions

7) Identify safe and danger areas

8) Locate support team positions

9) Locate buddy team member firing positions

Note: " *

- 4=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Poor; l=Very "

Poor

N Min.

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Max.

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Mean

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.6

SD

.55

.55

.45

.55

.55

.55

.55

.55

.55

18
Table 9

Soldiers' Ratings oftheir Abilities to Perform Component Behaviors for the Task

"Clear a Building"

Behavior

1) Take a position to one side of a doorway

2) Move quickly through doorways"

3) Take a tactical position within a room

4) Scan the room quickly for hostile combatants

5) Engage targets within a room

6) Identify non-combatants within a room

7) Maneuver past other personnel within a room

8) Understand verbal commands

9) Identify sector of responsibility

10) Communicate spot reports to squad leader

N Min.

3.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Max.

4.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Mean

3.2

2.8

2.8

3.3

3.3

3.7

3.0

3.8

3.3

3.8

SD

.41

.75

.41

.52

.52

.52

.52

.41

.52

.41

Note: 4=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Poor; l=Very Poor

Observer Assessment of Task Performance

In addition to the soldiers' assessments oftheir own abilities to perform specific tasks and

related behaviors, ARI observers also provided an independent assessment oftask performance.

Using behavioral checklists developed for each ofthe five major tasks, observers checked

whether the soldier performed the specific behavior in question. Since soldiers were run in

teams (A and B), a combined frequency count was calculated for each team. Instances where the

soldier had problems performing the behavior or where system malfunctions precluded its

performance were noted by the observers. Tables 10-14 summarize the results from the

observations. Key findings are presented by task in the following sections.

Move through built-up area. In general, the soldiers had little difficulty moving through

the McKenna data base. Soldiers were able to maintain position with each other and move

tactically. They were able to move below windows and they showed proper techniques in

looking around the corners of buildings. Soldiers had few problems in identifying all civilians

and vehicles. When civilians were not identified, it was because they were out ofthe soldiers

line ofsight. Table 10 shows that in the majority ofinstances the soldiers did not move single

file near buildings. This can probably be attributed to the fact that there were only two soldiers.

The third soldier, the team leader, operated the desktop SVS and stayed in the rear but within

sight ofthe other soldiers. The remaining soldiers who performed the actual movement through

McKenna said they thought that it would be better, tactically, to split up, with one soldier

walking on one side ofthe street, staying close to (hugging) the buildings, and the other doing

the same on the opposite side ofthe street. When caught silhouetting himselfin a window one

soldier indicated that he was covered by his buddy from across the street and did not feel that he

was compromising the mission.

19
Table 10

Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team) for the Task

"Move Through Built-Up Area"

Behavior

1) Move single file? (when applicable)

2) Maintain position with one another?

3) Move tactically?

4) Move below windows?

5) Look around corners correctly?

6) All civilians and vehicles identified?

7) Cross street as dispersed group?

8) Adequate spot report made?

Total "~ ~~~

Team A

Yes

6

37

No

TeamB

Yes

29

No

3_

0

_2_

0

13

Reconnoiter area. Typically, soldiers had little difficulty in identifying civilians or

enemy soldiers. At times, they only incompletely identified vehicles or ignored them (observed

once). Soldiers had difficulty in determining distances. Although prodded initially at the

beginning ofthe scenarios to provide distance estimates in their spot reports to the squad leader,

this behavior did not continue for long. Apparently, the focus ofthe soldiers was avoiding

detection by the OPFOR and planning their next set ofmovements, and this seemed to

overwhelm other activities. This also seemed to be the case for two other key behaviors,

Identifying areas masking supportingfires and to a lesser degree, Identifying supporting

positions which were infrequently, if ever performed. (See Table 11.)

Table 11

Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team) for the Task

"Reconnoiter Area"

Behavior Team A TeamB

Yes No Yes No

1) Move tactically? 6 Ü 6 0

2) All civilians/vehicles identified en route? 6 Ü 5 1

3) Safe and danger areas identified? 2 3 4 2

4) Could distances be determined? 2 2 0 6

5) All enemy/vehicles identified at objective? 2 3 i 3

6) All enemy identified at adjacent areas? 6 0 6 0

7) Supporting positions identified? 1 4 3 2

8) Areas masking supporting fires identified? 0 5 0 5

9) Adequate spot report made? 6 0 5 0

Total 31 17 32 19

20
React to contact. This task could more correctly be termed an assault, since the

BLUFOR (SVSs) had to initiate contact with the OPFOR. Preliminary testing ofthese scenarios

showed that once the DI-SAF OPFOR made line-of-sight contact with the BLUFOR, they would

engage and kill the BLUFOR almost instantly. To salvage the scenarios, the lead DI-SAF

OPFOR soldier, who would be detected first by the BLUFOR, had his weapon system placed on

"hold fire " This allowed the BLUFOR time to detect the OPFOR soldier, get in position, and

then initiate contact. Once contact was made, the OPFOR soldier could return fire, if not already

killed by the BLUFOR. While the behaviors from the checklist were probably still valid for this

task the pattern ofresults shown on Table 12 does not completely reflect the soldiers'

performance for the task "React to Contact." One behavior that was particularly difficult for

soldiers was Identifying enemypositions by sound. The SVS systems used in this pilot study did

not allow for clear localization ofsounds.

Table 12

Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team) for the Task

"React to Contact"

Behavior

1) Move tactically?

2) Maintain position relative to each other?

*3) Take immediate cover when fired upon?

*4) Return fire immediately?

5) Appropriate fire commands by team leader?

6) Were enemy positions accurately located?

7) Enemy positions located by sound?

8) Accurate situational assessment by team leader?

9) Adequate spot reports made?

Total

Team A

Yes

33

No

11

TeamB

Yes

33

No

_0_

0

_0_

3

*BLUFOR fired first.

Assault. System characteristics played a major role in moderating the pattern ofresults

obtained for this task. System artifacts clearly depressed the frequency of occurrence of a

number of behaviors. In these scenarios soldiers were linked with a DI-SAF BLUFOR fire team

element. Typically, the squad leader would have the DI-SAF fire team move out ahead ofthe

soldiers to locate the DI-SAF OPFOR and initiate contact. The quickness with which the DISAF elements move (compared to soldiers in the SVS) coupled with the marksmanship accuracy

ofthe DI-SAF, frequently led to very short engagements fought primarily between the two SAF

elements. (See Table 13.)

21
Table 13

Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team) for the Task

"Assault"

Behavior Team A

1) Was a plan developed?

2) Were support positions identified?

3) Were areas masking supporting fires identified?

4) Was a spot report made prior to assault?

5) Did squad leader check position of all elements?

6) Did squad leader effectively control suppressive fires?

T\ Was heavy volume of fire delivered on objective?

' ?-. ; , **„ »kiAn*;„»? 8) Did squad leader order movement to objective?

9) Was objective secured?

10) Adequate spot reports made?

11) Was assault executed as planned?

Total ___^_

Yes

T~

3

_2_

_2_

j$_

_2_

3

32

No

TeamB

Yes

3_

3

No

_3_

6

34

Hear a building. Soldiers had few problems performing the majority oftask related

behaviors. Soldiers were able to correctly discriminate civilians from enemy, they «W«?

targets with short bursts offire and showed an awareness ofthen assigned sectors offire. While

the soldiers knew how to "stack" (maintain close formation) in front of a door the systemi made

it difficult to enter smoothly through a door as their computer images (avatars) got tangled wrth

other avatars ifthey got too close to each other. Another system problem that was noted was that

the avatar almost always depicted the soldier as holding his rifle and pointing it at the small of

the back ofthe soldier in front of him, while waiting in front of a door even ifhe was not

actually holding his rifle in this manner. Checking for booby traps and marking^die doors> of

cleared rooms, while critical behaviors, could not be performed using the current SVS system.

(See Table 14.)

22
Table 14

Frequencies with which Component Behaviors were Performed (by Team) for the Task

"Clear a Building"

Behavior

1) Appropriate positions taken outside doors?

2) Doors checked for booby traps?

3) Weapons held appropriately?

4) Rooms entered tactically?

5) Were targets engaged with short bursts?

6) Verbal commands given to direct next soldier into room?

7) Soldiers aware of assigned sectors offire?

8) Were all targets engaged?

Team A

Yes

9) Civilians and enemy correctly discriminated?

10) Verbal indication given that room was clear?

11) Indication given that room was marked as cleared?

12) Adequate spot report given?

Total

No

0

0

TeamB

Yes No

0

49 17 55

_0_

1

0

11

Performance on Revised Scenarios (Clear a Building)

The revised "Clear a Building" scenarios with two additional immersive SVS systems

and a four-man DI-SAF fire team attached to the BLUFOR were expected to be more

"aUenging for the soldiers. In reality this was not the case. The squad leader tended to use Ae

DI-SAF fife team primarily as a support element and position them in a location removed from

the soldiers in the SVS systems. The mission would then be conducted by the soldiers with little

interaction from the DI-SAF element. Although only two ofthe revised scenarios were

observed, it was clear that the DI-SAF provided little training value to the small unit leader and

his soldiers.

Most Difficult Tasks to Perform in the Simulator,

Clearing a building was the most difficult task for soldiers to perform in the SVS

systems. Soldiers felt that the system, as currently configured, could lead to the development of

Dad hitsin the execution ofthis task. For example, "stacking" in front of doors was difficult to

practice correctly in the virtual environment because soldiers were unable to use appropriate

muzzle discipline. Soldiers indicated that they need to feel not only the muzzle oftheir team

member's rifle (on their shoulder) but be able to feel the soldier near them, which cues their

movement. Without this sense present, soldiers adapted to the limitations ofthe SVS and did not

perform certain behaviors as called for in similar real world situations. When they beared

buildings at the actual McKenna test site, soldiers performed as they had practiced at the LWTB.

For some, this resulted in inappropriate behavior, e.g., failure to do rear security, which required

moving in contact with a team member back-to-back.

Another system problem which could lead to the development of bad habits was the

soldiers' virtual representations (avatars) in the data base. The avatars most often depicted the

23
soldier as having his rifle pointed in the small ofthe back ofthe soldier in front of him, even if

the soldier was correctly pointing his weapon. The lengthy exposure ofsuch poor weapon

handling techniques (without feedback or comment) could unwittingly lead the soldier to

consider such techniques as acceptable.

Additional behaviors soldiers had difficulty performing while clearing a building were

going through doors (smoothly) with others and scanning. Part ofthe problem, as mentioned

earlier, was that the avatars became tangled up as they got close together which made «difficult

to go smoothly through doors. Moving and scanning were also affected by system constraints

which limited the soldiers' situational awareness. Their field of view was less than what they

were used to and it was hard to look up and down easily. Once inside the building, and

casualties taken, soldiers had difficulty moving around or over dead people. They appeared to

get stuck as they tried to step over the bodies.

For some soldiers, the microphone was problematical. They claimed that the positioning

ofthe microphone on the headset prevented them from holding their weapon correctly. A soldier

could correctly hold his rifle close to the right side of his face. But when he shifted the rifle to

the left side, the microphone, which was located on the left side ofthe headset, would make it

difficult for the soldier to position the rifle comfortably on this side.

Learning Transfer

Soldiers were asked if participation in the simulations at the LWTB had any effect on

their performance at the McKenna training site. Although poor transfer ofsome behaviors were

observed they felt that the simulation improved their real-world performance. Prior practice in

the simulations allowed soldiers who had never worked with each other to practice as a team and

develop SOPs. A key advantage to practicing in the McKenna data base prior to going to the

actual site was that soldiers had the opportunity to go through one ofthe buildings they would be

clearing ahead oftime and familiarize themselves with the layout ofthe rooms, stairs, etc.

Soldiers felt that practice at the virtual McKenna site helped minimize their planning time at the

actual site since they had already rehearsed clearing one ofthe buildings at the LWTB and were

mentally prepared for the upcoming mission.

Use of Simulators for Small Unit Training

From the soldiers' perspective, simulators can be used effectively to practice coordination

between teams and develop communication skills. They also felt that they could be used for

mission rehearsal. Practice in these virtual environments would allow the soldiers to develop

various courses of action (COA) and to play them out against an OPFOR. The soldiers felt this

would be very useful. These rehearsal exercises could also be used to sharpen small unit leader

decision-making skills.

Scenario selection. To maximize the effectiveness ofthe simulators for soldier and small

unit leader training, the appropriate scenarios must be used. Overall, soldiers had few

complaints with the task-based scenarios that were developed. "React to Contact" had the most

training value for soldiers. However, they would have preferred (React to Contact) scenarios

24
with the OPFOR initiating fire. Soldiers also indicated that they would have liked to have

executed some non-MOUT scenarios as well, e.g., assault in a wooded area.

Simulator distracters. Anything which reduces the immersive quality ofthe simulation

can lessen the training value ofthe scenarios by breaking the soldiers' concentration or causing

them to behave differently than in the real world. Soldiers mentioned a number of distracters

which must be addressed in the near future. The audio wires which were attached to the headset

worn by the soldier were a major distracter. Every time the soldier tried to move from one side

of his enclosure to the other, he had to step through and lift a nest ofwires. This proved very

annoying for the soldiers. As noted earlier, another problem with the headset was the

microphone, which would get in the way as the soldier switched firing positions from his right

side to his left.

The stacking problem with the avatars as the soldiers stood outside doors (mentioned

earlier) disrupted soldier concentration. When the soldiers clustered together, their avatars got

tied up'with each other, making it difficult to enter rooms quickly and in an organized way. Both

inside and outside the buildings the system gave the soldier no capability to use arm-and-hand

signals. This tended to reduce the realism ofthe scenarios as the soldiers were forced to rely on

(perfect) radio communication among themselves in which everyone was able to both hear and

communicate with everyone else.

All soldiers viewed DI-SAF as too "hokey." This was particularly apparent when the

"Assault" and revised "Clear a Building" scenarios were run with a DI-SAF fire team. The

combination ofthe DI-SAF moving too fast for the soldiers, accurate marksmanship, and limited

responsiveness to real time commands and contingencies, limited the training value ofthis

feature for the soldiers. As a result, the DI-SAF element was moved to out-of-the way locations

in a support role and was ignored or infrequently utilized by the team/squad leader. After their

experience at the real McKenna site, soldiers indicated a strong preference to go against a live

OPFOR in the LWTB as opposed to one composed entirely ofDI-SAF elements.

Another distracter for soldiers was getting stuck in walls. While they had a general

understanding why this occurred, it nevertheless was bothersome and may have interfered with

their concentration in the scenarios.

There was some sentiment that the rifle used was not as realistic as it could be. Factors

mentioned which reduced the realistic feel ofthe rifle included weight (too light), trigger squeeze

(too smooth), front sight post (too wide), and inadequate recoil.

Finally, while soldiers indicated that the cloth enclosures did not increase feelings of

immersion, they did say that the enclosures were helpful for sound dampening and reducing

visual distractions, e.g., people moving around, lights.

25
Simulator Improvements

Soldiers provided recommendations on simulator features which need improvement or

which should be added to the next SVS prototype system. Several ofthese features (ability to

move around dead people and hand-and-arm signals) were mentioned earlier. These

recommendations are listed in Table 15.

Table 15

Simulator Features which Need to be Improved or Added to the Next Generation SVS

Feature Areas

Movement

Ability to move around dead soldiers

Ability to run and scan at the same time

Ability to go through windows and low crawl over walls

Weapon Use and Capability

Ability to see muzzle flash

Increase cues for when magazine runs out ofrounds

Restrict rounds (Limit number oftimes ammo clip can be reset)

Improve capability to localize (weapon) sound

P(Kill/Hit) should not equal 1.0

Additional weapon capability (SAW, M-60, M-240, grenades)

Communication

Ability to use hand and arm signals

More realistic commo: from SL to TL then TL to team

Other

Add furniture/obstacles inside and outside of buildings

More varied and responsive civilians, e.g., men, women,

children, civilians carrying (firing) weapons

Ability to determine elevation (high or low ground)

Increase visual scene - vertically and horizontally

More immediate performance feedback

Realistic attempt to incorporate CASEVAC procedures in

scenarios .

Non-Simulator Related Training Enhancements

Soldiers also provided some additional comments (non-simulator based) related to

enhancing the training effectiveness ofthe simulations. They felt that soldiers should have to

wear their basic combat load, e.g., canteen, and ammo pouches. In addition they should be

required to use new magazines from their ammo pouches when they run out of ammunition and

keep track of(count) their rounds to replicate what they would do in the real world. Overall, the

soldiers recommended the following order of events for enhancing training effectiveness of

simulations: simulation (rehearsal), conduct training exercises in the field, simulation (refine,

practice and rehearse from lessons learned in the field). They felt that this approach would save

26
bullets reduce OPTEMPO, fuel costs, and range use. The key is to use simulation to fix

mistakes, so the unit will be more efficient in their training when they are in the field.

Discussion

Soldier Performance on Task-Based Scenarios

The significant improvements in shooting accuracy and the relative ease ofmoving using

the weapon mounted thumbstick compared to earlier ICS prototypes (Pleban et al. 1998; Salter et

al 1999) enabled soldiers to perform most task component behaviors relatively easily. Overall,

soldiers had few problems performing the task-based scenarios. From the soldiers' perspective,

however, several behaviors remained problematical. The behaviors which they found most

difficult to perform were Move around obstacles, Maneuver around corners, Look around

comers Move quickly through doorways and Take a tacticalposition within a room. The core

problem behind all these behaviors is a lack of computer power which limits the extent to which

these tasks can be simulated with complete fidelity in the current SVS prototype (used in Phase

IA) The inability to smoothly perform these behaviors made the "Clear a Building" scenarios,

in particular, difficult to execute and limits the utility ofthese scenarios for the accurate rehearsal

ofspecific techniques, e.g. stacking and entering buildings, movement inside buildings. While

these behaviors were somewhat difficult for some soldiers to perform (and consequently

annoying) they were, nevertheless, able to execute the scenarios and received some training

benefit based on their subjective reports. The computing power issue remains a problem and will

not likely be solved in the immediate future.

The behaviors listed above may also be limited by the fact that the soldier can not look in

a direction other than the one he is moving, by having to move (almost) solely by the thumbstick,

and inadequate look down (and up) capability, along with limited field of view. These are

implementation issues that are independent of computing power.

Integration of DI-SAF into Task-Based Scenarios

Overall, the scenarios were well received by the soldiers. The biggest problem in this

area as noted by ARI observers, was the meaningful integration of DI-SAF soldiers into the

actual scenarios. The "React to Contact" scenarios, while favored by the soldiers, could not be

run as a true "React to Contact" drill (in the real world) using an all DI-SAF OPFOR. As noted

earlier, the superior marksmanship ofthe DI-SAF forced the scenarios to be modified by putting

the lead DI-SAF soldier (i.e., the one who would make initial line-of-sight contact with the

soldiers) on "hold fire." This allowed the soldiers to locate and identify the DI-SAF OPFOR

soldier take cover, and initiate fire. Only then would the DI-SAF fire his rifle, assuming he was

not already shot. Ifthis modification was not made, then once the DI-SAF soldier made hne-ofsight contact with the soldiers, he would commence firing and would have eliminated the

soldiers too quickly for the drill to be executed. While this adjustment allowed the scenarios to

be played out and became quite involving for the soldiers, it also changed the entire complexion

ofthe scenario. Clearly, the marksmanship levels ofthe DI-SAF should be modified to approach

the real world capabilities ofsoldiers. In addition, there should be some allowance for soldiers to

27
be shot and wounded. As noted in Table 15, P(Kill/Hit), the probability of a kill given a hit,

should not be 1.00.

Integrating the DI-SAF with real soldiers (as was the case) for the "Assault" and the

revised "Clear a Building" scenarios was also problematical. The inability for DI-SAF to

respond in real time to changing battlefield conditions forced the squad leaders to restrict their

roles in the scenarios. DI-SAF performance was further affected by the fact that their movement

must be pre-programmed before the scenario is run. As a result, the DI-SAF fire team element

was used almost exclusively in a support/security mode and played only a minimal role m the

execution ofthe revised "Clear a Building" scenarios. For the "Assault" scenarios, the DI-SAF

BLUFOR fire team and OPFOR frequently dominated the action. The team leader typically sent

the DI-SAF fire team ahead ofthe SVS element to locate the enemy. Inevitably, they did and a

fire fight ensued. The fire fight often took place so quickly that the soldiers did not have much

of a chance to participate extensively in the scenario. As noted earlier, the quickness with which

the DI-SAF soldiers moved in relation to the real soldiers in their SVSs, their superior

marksmanship, and lack ofreal time responsiveness to situational contingencies, caused them to

be viewed by the soldiers as "hokey" and seemed to detract from rather than enhance the training

value ofthe scenarios. Reinforced, in part, by their participation at the actual McKenna site,

soldiers felt that the training value ofthe simulations would be significantly upgraded by

introducing a live force element to the DI-SAF OPFOR.

Scenario Revisions for Phase IB

Following the completion ofPhase IA, ARI was informed that they would have the same

set ofsoldiers for Phase IB. This required extensive revisions in the existing scenarios since the

soldiers were already familiar with them, they could execute the scenarios with little difficulty,

and DI- SAF OPFOR presented little challenge to the soldiers as they were employed in the

Phase IA scenarios.

In addition to using the same soldiers, Phase IB would have five ofthe immersive SVS

systems available for use in addition to the SVS desktop. This would allow all soldiers to

participate at one time for any given scenario. One way ofmaking the scenarios more

challenging may be to increase the number oflive BLUFOR members. Another possibility

would be to vary the roles ofthe DI-SAF. Instead of positioning them in one location or

locations close together, they could be placed in geographically more diverse areas. The DI-SAF

OPFOR could also be more aggressive in their actions and initiate contact (sniper, crossfire,

ambush) as soldiers moved en route to their objectives. Finally, some soldiers could be moved to

the OPFOR side and integrated with DI-SAF OPFOR soldiers to provide live force-on-force

capability.

Phase IB addresses these scenario revisions. Key modifications are detailed along with

results from the soldier evaluations and possible implications for future STO work.

28
PHASE IB

EVALUATION OF REVISED SOLDIER AND SMALL UNIT LEADER

TRAINING SCENARIOS

Method

Materials

Pn.tF.xneriment Questionnaire. The Post Experiment Questionnaire (Appendix I) was a

multiple choice/short answer paper-and-pencil instrument filled out by soldiers after the

completion of all revised scenarios for Phase IB. The questionnaire consisted ofitems designed

to tap the training value of each scenario, determine additional tasks that could be costeffectively trained using simulations, soldier preference for DI-SAF versus live force-on-force

scenarios, needed DI-SAF capabilities, critical scenario content areas, what soldiers liked

most/least about the scenarios, use ofscenarios to practice decision-making skills, and desired

feedback features.

Development ofRevised Soldier and Small Unit T ,eader Training Scenarios

Based on observations and soldier feedback, two sets oftask-based scenarios were

selected for revision. These were "Clear a Building" and "React to Contact. The scenarios

were modified across a number of areas. The most obvious area was in the number ofsoldiers

participating in each scenario. As mentioned earlier, all six soldiers were able to participate in

each scenario with the addition ofthree immersive SVS systems (five total immersive systems

plus the SVS desktop).

For the "Clear the Building" scenarios, the DI-SAF OPFOR were more aggressively

employed. In one scenario, as the soldiers were approaching the building to be cleared they were

exposed to fire from a single sniper. For the second scenario, as Je soldiers were approaching

the building they were caught in a crossfire from two DI-SAF OPFOR snipers. In the third

2ÄSLwere allowed to enter the building and then two DI-SF OPFOR followed them

into the building to ambush them. Soldiers surviving these initial engagements were then

required to clear the building. The last scenario for this task involved a force-on-force

encounter. Two soldiers were selected to play the OPFOR role. They ^»^£p^tion

themselves anywhere within or outside the target building along with one DI-SAF OPFOR. lne

tactical approach employed was left for the soldiers to decide. They were only told what

direction the BLUFOR was coming from and that they would be clearing the target building

occupied by the OPFOR.

In each scenario soldiers approached the building from different directions. Due to

system constraints, DI-SAF could only move, see, and shoot from the inside of one building.

Thus, scenarios were based around this particular building. Scenarios were altered slightly by

having soldiers enter different areas ofthe building complex and positioning the DI-SAF in

different rooms or locations inside the building.

29
Four scenarios were also constructed for the "React to Contact task The scenario ?

structure was similar to the "Clear a Building" scenarios but without the Clear a Building

nhase formally crafted into the scenario. Soldiers moved from three different points in the city to

ffSLEnroute, they encountered fire from the DI-SAF OPFOR^ Thefourth

scenario involved a live force-on-force encounter with two soldiers playing the OPFOR role

along with 2-3 DI-SAF.

Another set ofscenarios was also crafted. These scenarios were called mixed squad

scenarios since they involved a full squad of BLUFOR composed ofthe six SVS systems^anda

four-man DI-SAF fire team. Three scenarios were developed. All involved clearing.the same

building as they had done earlier. Scenarios were modified to have soldiers approaching the

building from different locations, entering different areas ofthe building, and positioning the DISAF in different rooms/areas ofthe building. For the first two scenarios soldiers encountered

sniper fire from one or two DI-SAF OPFOR en route to the targeted building. For the third

scenario, soldiers were allowed to get close to the target building where two to three DI-SAF

soldiers would begin firing at them from different locations outside the building.

Due to the way DI-SAF is currently configured, the BLUFOR squad leader had to

develop his movement plans for his four-man DI-SAF fire team the day before the actual

scenarios were executed. This was necessary so the SAF operator had enough time to preprogram the movement patterns ofthe DI-SAF fire team for each scenario.

Maps ofthe McKenna training site were provided to the team/squad leader. For the

"Clear a Building" scenarios the maps showed the direction the team/squad would take and the

specific part ofthe target building to clear, e.g., which door to enter and floors to clear. For the

"React to Contact" scenarios, the maps showed the team's/squad's location and the direction

they would be moving.

Design and Procedure

Since the same soldiers were used as in Phase IA, three weeks earlier, no additional

training time was provided. Soldiers were already quite familiar with the SVS system and its

operation. The experimental phase lasted approximately two days. Soldiers were scheduled to

run all "Clear a Building" and the "React to Contact" scenarios on day one. The Clear a

Building" scenarios were run first. For the first three scenarios soldiers operated as a six-man

team against an all DI-SAF OPFOR. The force-on-force scenario required.M^^^»*>

two elements, a four-man BLUFOR and a two-man OPFOR with an additional DI-SAF OPFOR

soldier Both the BLUFOR and OPFOR were informed (separately) what they would be doing

and given time to plan. (This was done for all force-on-force scenarios.)

Only two ofthe four "React to Contact" scenarios were run. After one ofthe three live

(six-man SVS configuration) BLUFOR versus DI-SAF OPFOR scenarios were run, the

remaining two were canceled. This was done for several reasons. First, it was obvious that the

soldiers remembered from the "Clear a Building" scenarios where the snipers were positioned

and the best way to approach their location. This minimized the surprise element. Due to the set

up and the size ofthe city, there were few choices on where to position the snipers for maximum

30
effectiveness. Consequently, the snipers were not moved. In addition, the SAF operator could

not move the snipers from their original position in a timely fashion that would allow the

scenario to play out without interruption. The lack ofresponsiveness ofthe DI-SAF snipers to

real time changes in the scenario (presence ofsoldiers approaching the snipers) took away much

ofthe challenge these DI-SAF afforded to the BLUFOR.

The following day the mixed squad scenarios were run. Only the first two scenarios were

run. Although these scenarios were expected to be the most challenging, in actuality_tius was not

the case The lack ofresponsiveness (to immediate changes in events) ofthe DI-SAF BLUKJK

fire team resulted in the squad leader using the team primarily for fire support. They would be

moved to a location away from the other soldiers and were utilized at times as an afterthought.

The squad leader had to be reminded by the SAF operator to involve these elements in the

operation. Soldiers were also familiar with the likely locations of incoming sniper fire and were

able to effectively neutralize this threat.

Once inside the building, the DI-SAF OPFOR proved to be no match for the soldiers.

This was due either to their slowness in moving into (firing) position or their reduced

marksmanship capability. In any event, the DI-SAF did not present much of a challenge to the

BLUFOR.

As a result, immediate modifications were made on site at the LWTB One ofthe

soldiers was recruited to play the role of a roaming OPFOR sniper using the SVS desktop

svstem All other aspects ofthe scenario remained the same. The sniper was free to use any

building to fire from and to move as he saw fit. This resulted in an immediate increase in soldier

motivation, and concentration. The first time the scenario was run, the sniperfaUedall the

BLUFOR After a short break, the scenario was run again. This time, while BLUFOR casualties

were taken, the surviving BLUFOR members were able to locate and neutralize the sniper.

After the second run ofthe roaming sniper scenario, the experimental phase was

terminated. Soldiers then completed the Post Experiment Questionnaire.

Results

Subjective Assessments of Small Unit Scenarios

Soldiers responses to the Post Experiment Questionnaire are summarized below. The

major focus ofthe questionnaire was to determine the potential training value ofthe scenarios

and needed modifications.

Which scenarios provided the most training value? Soldiers were unanimous in their

feelings that the "React to Contact" force-on-force scenario provided the most training value.

This was followed by "Clear a Building" force-on-force scenario. The "Clear a Bui ding

^naTs with the single or multiple (DI-SAF) snipers and with DI-SAF OPFOR ftlMglte

BLUFOR into the building were the next most frequently selected scenarios (selected by titty

percent ofthe soldiers). The combination DI-SAF/live squad scenarios fell into this last

31
category. The fact that these scenarios were selected at all could probably be attributed to the

introduction ofthe roaming live sniper.

The scenario possessing the least training value for the soldiers was the "React to

Contact" scenario with DI-SAF OPFOR snipers. Lack of responsiveness ofthe DI-SAF and the

fecuhat the sniper element was introduced in the earlier "Clear a Building" scenarios minimized

Z surorise factor. Also, as noted earlier, the soldiers were familiar with the likely location of

Jhe sneers from the earlier scenarios. This made it relatively easy to locate the snipers and

neutralize them.

When asked to explain why they selected these particular scenarios they indicated that

these were the scenarios that they trained on the most. The live force-on-force scenarios (with

fome D -SAP) were the most preferred scenarios because ofthe unpredictable nature ofthe live

OPFOR. Soldiers liked testing their skills against a human OPFOR with similar mental

capabilities. Similarly, they preferred a live OPFOR because they are able to ^je^d react

immediately to what soldiers in the SVSs do. This makes the scenarios more challenging.

Ze oftesoldiers preferred scenarios involving DI-SAF only over the combined live force-onforce DI-SAF scenarios.

Soldiers were also asked what other tasks could be cost-effectively trained using

simulations. Several mentioned "Assault" and "Assault in a Woodland Area. As one so dier

noted any task that involved contact with the enemy would provide some raining value (and

pSuniTly could be cost-effectively trained using simulations) to the small unit (team/squad)

member or leader.

T^nrnving DI-SAF capabilities. For DI-SAF to be more effective from a training

standpoint according to the soldiers, the DI-SAF must be more dynamic in their actions. To

have any kind ofimpact, DI-SAF must be able to react to what is going around them at the

moment. This is the major reason they were so under utilized in the scenarios.

s^narin content frr «m.11 »nit (fire team/snnad) level training According to most

soldiers to be effective for small unit level training the scenarios should stress team coordination

and^communication. One soldier indicated that the scenarios should stress shooting, moving, and

communication. Another soldier felt that effective small unit training scenarios should stress

unit SOPs (ways to clear rooms, moving from room to room, security and assault).

What soldiers like^ t shnnt the scenarios. One aspect ofthe scenarios that the

soldiers liked was the emphasis placed on thinking and planning. For example, the placement of

team/squad members, movement through the city and from building to b-

ldin^^were

sectors offire/covering fire and overwatch positions, and location ofsnipers. The scenarios were

constantly changing depending on the route soldiers took through the city, numbeivof£am

members available, the presence or absence ofthe team/squad leader, etc. This required the

soldiers to be able to quickly plan and modify plans according to the situation Sobers also

liked the fact that the scenarios offered potential solutions for similar real world situations by

allowing different courses action to be developed and played out (safely) in the simulations.

32
What soldiers liked least about the scenarios. Everything the soldiers disliked about the

scenarios was system related. For example, the soldiers did not like being killed while they

(their avatars) were frozen, or stuck in walls. Aspects of clearing buildings were made more

difficult/unrealistic because ofthe limited field-of-view provided by the head-set and problems

maneuvering inside of buildings, particularly when moving over and around dead people. In

some instances the system was too good. For example, the team/squad leader had perfect

communication with all team/squad members. This would almost never be true in the real world

where communications would be degraded and or lost at different times for different team/squad

members. Nevertheless, the increased communication capability was critical ifthe scenarios

were to be run using the current simulation system, since soldiers could not use hand-and-arm

signals.

Utility ofscenarios for practicing decision-making skills. Feedback from Phase IA

indicated that the simulations could be used to develop decision-making skills. One question

from Phase IB asked specifically whether the scenarios developed for this phase could be

effectively used to practice decision-making skills. All soldiers answered yes. For the more

dynamic scenarios the fluid situations required the soldiers, particularly the team/squad leader, to

constantly assess the situation and plan the team or squad's actions. Ifthe leader was killed then

another soldier had to assume the leadership position. Thus, all soldiers had to be alert to

changing aspects ofthe scenarios. For these reasons, some soldiers felt these scenarios would be

helpful in preparing for similar, real world situations.

Desired feedback features. For maximum training effectiveness, the scenarios must be

followed by some type offeedback. Soldiers were unanimous in this regard. Once a scenario

was completed the soldiers would often come together and conduct their own after action review.

When asked what type offeedback they would find most useful, soldiers mentioned movement

patterns (ofthe soldiers), round counts and hit percentage for fire control/distribution purposes,

number of OPFOR/BLUFOR killed, and decision points where fatal mistakes were made.

General Observations

Soldier performance was observed by three ARI researchers. Critical incidents from the

scenarios were recorded. These observations are summarized in the following sections.

System malfunctions. The frequency ofsystem malfunctions increased noticeably for

Phase IA to IB. The biggest problem appeared as soldiers (avatars) were in the assembly area

preparing for the scenario. A number ofsoldiers appeared to be in quicksand as they quickly

sunk up to their armpits and could not get out. In other instances soldiers would levitate in the

air. This was observed in the north part ofthe McKenna data base and the south end as well.

This appeared to be a result of "holes" in the data base. This phenomenon was not observed in

Phase IA.

Another system problem that was touched on earlier was the difficulty soldiers had

moving around dead bodies in buildings. Soldiers appeared to get stuck every time they

attempted to step around or over the bodies. Also when inside buildings, DI-SAF OPFOR who

33
were killed would occasionally vaporize, only to reappear unexpectedly sometime later and

shoot the BLUFOR soldier.

Another movement related problem noted by all soldiers was the difficulty in looking left

or right, for example, while moving across the street. The system did not permit the soldier to

turn his head as he would in the real world. This became a critical problem with snipers firing at

the soldiers.

SVSs were observed to "freeze" a number oftimes. This seemed to be related to the

increased use of DI-SAF in the scenarios for Phase IB. Ifthe SAF operator attempted to move or

reposition the DI-SAF to put them in better tactical positions, this would cause the soldiers'

avatars to "freeze" in the virtual world while the computer updated the position ofthe SAF

elements. In a few instances this resulted in the live soldiers being shot ifthey happened to

freeze in a vulnerable position. This was a source ofsignificant frustration for those affected.

Other system problems that were observed included soldiers' inability to localize sounds

(shots from weapons) and inaccuracy ofsniper fire. In one instance, the DI-SAF sniper fired

over thirty times without hitting anything. Apparently, the sniper could see the BLUFOR

soldiers but could not adjust his angle offire.

DI-SAF and the "hokev" factor. As noted earlier, the lack of DI-SAF responsiveness to

immediate changes in battlefield conditions was a major problem from the soldiers' standpoint

and was a major reason for their under utilization. In general, the presence ofDI-SAF lead to an

apparent increase in the "hokey" factor, which resulted in two tendencies. First, general tactical

techniques employed by the BLUFOR deteriorated (due in part to BLUFOR knowing the likely

location ofthe DI-SAF OPFOR from prior scenarios). Second, the DI-SAF BLUFOR were

typically positioned in out ofthe way locations by the squad leader, then were immediately

forgotten, while the live BLUFOR completed the mission. When employed in a more active role

in the mission (assigned to the point position) the SAF completed the mission before the live

BLUFOR could get involved. In this last instance, their unrealistic responsiveness (i.e., they

moved too quickly) diluted the realistic aspects ofsome ofthe scenarios. Overall, it appeared

that the DI-SAF are an unnecessary distraction, or source offrustration, that contributes very

little to overall realism ofthe virtual world.

BLUFOR familiarity with the database. The soldiers were completely familiar with the

data base, to the point that they knew where the OPFOR was likely to be, and where they would

not be. Therefore, they were able to enter most buildings with little concern for personal safety

and ignored tactical protocol (for clearing rooms) including tactical communication. Tactics

improved somewhat when the BLUFOR were in an area that was high risk for enemy contact,

and improved markedly when faced with a live fire sniper.

Makeup ofBLUFOR team. The BLUFOR team was composed entirely ofE-5s. This

was done deliberately for this pilot investigation to get experienced soldier feedback on varying

aspects ofthe scenarios and the SVS system itself. Nevertheless, the composition ofthe team

impacted on how the scenarios were executed. With only leaders in the scenarios, more

independent decision-making was observed on the part of all the participants, without them

34
needing to be told where to go and what to do. The behavior, and general interaction patterns of

the team would most likely change with a more conventionally organized (rank-wise) team.

Implications for Future STO Research (FY 99)

The major objective ofthe STO Phase IA and IB research was to use the high payoff

tasks identified earlier as the framework for developing small unit training scenarios for use in

virtual environments with the SVS. Once the scenarios were developed, each would be

evaluated by soldiers and researchers for their strengths, weaknesses, and potential training

value. The best scenarios would then be used during the Phase V evaluation. The following

sections summarize the major lessons learned from this research as it applies to Phase V.

General structure ofscenarios. As mentioned earlier, the most effective scenarios, from a

training standpoint, appear to be those which include a combination oftasks such as tactical

movement, reconnaissance and enemy contact. The enemy contact can be through "React to

Contact," "Assault" or "Clear a Building."

Observations suggested that for the more complex tasks such as "Clear a Building", it

may be better to let soldiers perform the additional tasks ofmovement and reconnaissance

(which the soldiers did) as part ofthe total scenario. It was initially assumed that for the "Clear a

Building" scenarios, soldiers would simply move to the target building and clear it without

concern for movement techniques or the need to conduct any reconnaissance since these tasks

were not the focus ofthe scenario.

However soldiers took the entire scenario seriously, to include moving to the building

and conducting the appropriate reconnaissance activities which were performed in a tactically

sound manner. These "preparatory tasks" allowed the soldiers the time to immerse themselves

more completely into the scenario. The idea of pre-positioning soldiers to the exact spot where

contact was expected was initially considered (and rejected) as a way to shorten the run-times of

the scenarios which were lasting much longer than anticipated. Soldiers should be allowed to

play out the scenario as it would most likely occur in the real world, i.e., movement up to the

objective^ reconnaissance, mission execution (clear a building, assault), report.

Incorporating DT-SAF into scenarios. Based on current technological limitations, DISAF is clearly less effective than live soldiers in simulators for mission training and rehearsal.

An all DI-SAF OPFOR (with the possible exception ofthe first run "sniper-Clear a Building"

scenarios) provided little challenge to the soldiers. Observations from Phase IB showed that

adding one soldier to the OPFOR to act as a roaming sniper significantly increased the soldier

motivation in the scenarios, due to the challenge of going against a real person with similar

tactical skills and capable of quick, and sometime unpredictable actions.

Increasing technical support. The increased number ofsystem malfunctions observed

from Phase IA to IB which were observed as more SVS systems were put "on-line" (going from

two to five SVSs) significantly increased the workload ofthe technicians in charge of calibrating

and troubleshooting system problems. It also increased the amount of down time experienced by

soldiers and tended to dilute soldier involvement and motivation. With all nine SVSs scheduled

35
for use during parts ofPhase V, additional technical support should be considered to minimize

long periods ofidleness and frustration for both the researchers and soldiers.

It was also clear from observations in Phase IB that multiple DI-SAF operators are

needed one for the BLUFOR and one for the OPFOR. There is clearly no way one operator can

simultaneously focus on the actions oftwo opposing elements. Typically, what was observed,

was ifthe SAF operator was manipulating the DI-SAF OPFOR, then the DI-SAF BLUFOR

would be ignored, and vice versa. To reduce delays and improve mission integrity, two

operators are required: one to focus entirely on DI-SAF BLUFOR actions and another

responsible for only DI-SAF OPFOR behavior.

Conclusion

Overall soldiers had few complaints concerning the selection or make-up ofthe taskbased scenarios. The majority ofscenario-related problems that were observed were system or

design-based, e. g., getting stuck in walls, being shot while "frozen," appropriate movement and

posturing of avatars, moving around dead bodies inside ofbuildings, lack oi Dl-bAfr

responsiveness to immediate changes in the scenario, limited field-of-view ofthe projection

display, positioning ofthe microphone on the head set. A key to enhancing the training value of

the scenarios is to ensure that the OPFOR is composed of at least one real soldier.. The live

force-on-force scenarios were seen as very challenging by the soldiers.

Although the issue was not specifically assessed, soldiers said that prior participation in

the simulations helped their performance in the real world by reducing their planning time in the

field and mentally preparing them for what to expect when faced with similar situations in the

field. The task-based scenarios were seen as useful since they addressed the actual real-world

tasks and missions that the soldiers most frequently train on in their units.

Soldiers felt that simulators, specifically, the SVS systems, could be used to enhance

small unit training. The systems can be used to practice coordination between team members,

develop communication skills and refine SOPs. They also felt this technology can be used for

mission rehearsal activities. Finally, soldiers thought that the more dynamic scenarios portrayed

on the SVSs could be effectively used to practice and sharpen decision-making skills.

Implications for Future Research

The next year ofthe current STO work program will continue to focus on the training

potential ofimproved Infantry simulation technologies as they impact on the SVS and the squad

synthetic environment as a whole. Based on the findings from Phase IA and IB, ARI-Fort

Benning will conduct a more focused investigation on the use ofthis simulation technology to

enhance the decision-making skills ofsoldiers and small unit leaders. The work effort will be

divided into two parts. One part will involve leveraging available SVS technologies to

effectively train soldiers on specific cognitive aspects ofthe decision-making process e.g.,

environmental cues, tactical factors. The other part will focus on improvmg the capabilities to

measure leader and squad performance. A methodology is envisioned that will allow the trainer

to identify critical training/decision points in the virtual scenario. Points will include

36
environmental cues the soldier needs to notice and interpret and tactical factors that must be

tTen «To account when the soldier makes decisions and employs strategies. The soldier s

betolkro decisions and judgments will be tracked at these critical pre-determined points. In

ÄTÄL» will traL mission related factors such as rounds fired, casualties time to

completeThe mission, soldier movement patterns, etc. and provide relevant summary sta is ic

arfeedback following the completion of each scenario. This procedure will also be able to link

^S^^^^sdecisions or behaviors at pre-determined points An evaluation of

heÄS-BP«** -

11 be conduCted The W°rk jUSt scribed w,ll address the major

oblc^ve ofthe Lrent STO program, namely to provide effective methods for the use of virtual

environment technology to prepare soldiers and small unit leaders for the conduct of urban and

contingency operations through improved training and/or mission rehearsal.

37
References

Department ofthe Army. (1988). Mission training plan for the infantry rifle platoon and squad

(ARTEP 7-8-MTP). Washington, DC: Author.

Department ofthe Army. (1989). Mission training plan for the ^n^for^ company: Special,

reconnaissance (ARTEP 31-807-31-MTP). Washington, DC: Author.

Department ofthe Army. (1989). Mission training plan for the special forces company: Direct

action (ARTEP 31 -807-32-MTP). Washington, DC: Author.

Department ofthe Army. (1990). Battle drills for the infantry rifle platoon and squad (ARTEP

7-8-Drill). Washington, DC: Author.

Tacobs R S Crooks W. H., Crooks, J. R, Colburn, E., Fräser, R. E., Gorman, P. F Madden,

IaCObJLF«TA,ft Tice, S. E. (1994). TnininHaunted soldiers,n,^virtual

rnrirnTirr^,c. Tagy anH research requirements (Techmcal Report No 1011).

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

T ockheed-Martin Information Systems. (1997, April). Training exercises and military

t^" -^^i^it^nrenort for individual-to-squad, platoon and company

^IZLal levels (CDRL-AB09. DWN-9700044A). Orlando, FL: Author.

Pleban,R.J.(1999). High payofftasks f°~^ <l^^^^^

environments (Research Note No. 99-36). Alexandna, VA. U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Pleban R J Dyer J. L., Salter, M. S., ft Brown, J. B. (1998). Fnnrtional capabilities offour Pleban, R^J DyeM ^,_^^^^^^ An dependent assessment

(Seal Report No. 1078)1 Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Salter M S Eakin, D. E., & Knerr, B. W. (1999). Dismounted warrior network «* ***

Salter, M.^aa^ ^^ ^ indeppnHent assessment (Research Report No. 1742).

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

U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (1998). JgfifflL

^Lnniwsfor dif <** «Mier simulation training, and mission rehearsal (STO

Nomination Fact Sheet. STO No. ARJ.IV.O.New 2). Alexandria, VA: Author.

38
Appendix A

Jacobs et al. (1994) Original Task List Annotated for Selection

Assault

Move Tactically

Reconnoiter Area

React to Contact

Clear Building

Hasty Ambush

DefendBuilt Up Area

Overwatch

Disengage

Cross Danger Area

Knock Out Bunker

Occupy OP / Surveil

Breach Obstacle

Clear Trench Line

Antiarmor Ambush

Point Ambush

Defend

Occupy Assembly Area

Passage ofLines

Clear Wood Line

Occupy Objective / Rally Point

Occupy Patrol Base

Linkup

Infiltrate / Exfiltrate

Helicopter Movement

Boat Movement

Prepare for Chemical Attack

Prepare for Nuclear Attack

Cross Chem. Contaminated Area

Cross Nucl. Contaminated Area

Cross Water Obstacle

Maintain Op. Security

Defend - Air Attack

Aerial Resupply

Sustain

Prepare for Combat

Consolidate and Reorganize

Infiltrate by Air

Infiltrate by Water

Conduct Assembly

Control Info Dissemination

Employ Countermeasures

Prepare for NBC Operations

React to Chem. or Bio Attack

React to Nuclear Strike

Operate in NBC Environment

Chem./Bio Decontamination

Radiological Decontamination

Infiltrate Area by Land

Establish Contact With Asset

Move In Denied Area

Establish Mission Support Site

Establish Surveillance Site

Send Information by Radio

Prepare for Exfiltration

Exfiltrate by Land

Exfiltrate by Water

Exfiltrate by Air

Confirm Operation Plan

Interdict a Target

Conduct Recovery Operations

Break contact

React to Ambush

React to Indirect Fire

React to Chemical Attack

React to Nuclear Attack

Stay Behind __, — _ . . , .

Note- Tasks are grouped by feasibility for use with current or near term SVS simulator technology, iiems in bold

S'JretlecTefas 1st probably useful. Items in italics were considered initially, but later judged as

S^S^u. thermal, unit leader training scenarios. The remainder of the .terns were judged as not

cost effective and/or feasible.

A-l
Appendix B

Lockheed Martin (1997) Modified Task List Annotated for Selection

Execute Assault

Battle Drill 6A Enter Bldg, Clear Room (Squad)

Move as Member of Fire Team

Control Movement of a Fire Team

Move Dismounted

Reconnoiter Objective

Report Info ofPotential Intelligence Value

Reconnoiter Area

Move Tactically

Battle Drill 2 React to Contact (Platoon/Squad;

Perform Movement Techniques During MOUT

Engage Targets w/ M16A1 or M16A2 Rifle

Perform Overwatch/Support by Fire

Perform Hasty Ambush

Defend MOUT/Building

Adjust Indirect Fire

Prepare/Submit NBC 4 Reports

Transmit Voice USMTF Message

Conduct Unmasking Procedure

Prepare/Submit NBC 1 Reports

Install Hot Loop

Operate Telephone Set TA-312/PT

Recover Mechanical Ambush

Install Mechanical Ambush

Operate M9 Pistol

Engage Targets with M249 Machine Gun

Lay M249 Machine Gun Using Field Expedients

Operate M249 Machine gun

Construct Firing Aids for M16A1 or M16A2

Zero Night Vision Sight for M16A1 or M16A2

Engage Target with Ml6A1 orM16A2 w/NVS

Const. Firing Aid for M203 Grenade Launcher

Engage Targets w/ M203 Using NVS

Restore M49 Antitank Weapon to Carrying Config.

Operate NVS AN/TAS-5

Engage Targets w/ M47 Medium Antitank Weapon

Prepare an M47 Medium Antitank Weapon for Firing

Perform Misfire Procedures on M47

Lay M60 Machine Gun Using Field Expedients

Prepare Range Card for M60 Machine Gun

Engage Targets using M60 w/ NVS AN/PVS-4

Zero NVS AN/PVS-4 to M60 Machine Gun

Perform Misfire Procedures on Ml36 Launcher

Operate Night Vision Sight AN/PVS-4

Operate Night Vision Goggles AN/PVS-5

Operate Thermal Viewer AN/PAS-7

Battle Drill 1A Squad Attack

Battle Drill 3 Break Contact (Platoon/Squad)

Guide Helicopter to a Landing Point

Encode and Decode Messages Using KTC 600

Clear a Misfire

Prepare Platoon Early Warning System AN/TRS-2

Issue an Oral Operation Order

Move as Member of M2 BFV Rifle Team

Execute Attack

Perform Voice Communications

Protect Selffrom Bio/Chem Injury w/ Prot. Mask

Perform Antiarmor Ambush

Orient a Map Using Lensatic Compass

Perform Actions in Danger Areas

Defend Against Air Attack

Perform Function Check on M16A1 or M16A2

Load M16A1 or M16A2 Rifle

Battle Drill 4 React to Ambush (Platoon/Squad)

Restore Ml36 Launcher to Carrying Configuration

Zero NVS to M203 Grenade Launcher ^ ( _^_ —

Note- Tasks are grouped by feasibility for use with current or near term SVS simulator technology. Items in bold frpe

wfe'selecSd as most Pn.bab.y useful. Items in italics were considered initially, but later judged as inappropnate for use

Tthe Sun t leaded training scenarios. The remainder of the items were judged as not cost effect.ve and/or feas.ble.

B-l
Lockheed Martin (1997) Modified Task List Annotated for Selection (Continued)

Battle Drill 5A Knock Out Bunker (Squad)

Battle Drill 7A Enter/Clear Trench (Squad)

Unload M16A1 or M16A2 Rifle

Obtain Magnetic Azimuth w/ Lensatic Compass

Engage Targets with M60 Machine Gun

React to Flares

Protect From NBC Injury w/ MOPP Gear

Locate Target by Grid Coordinates

Prepare M136 Launcher for Firing

Use KTC-600 Numerical Cipher/Auth. System

Locate Target by Shift from Known Point

Control Organic Fires

Issue a Warning Order

Conduct Troop Leading Procedures for Operation

Install. Planning/Install, of Platoon EWS

Conduct Maneuver ofM2 BFV Rifle Team

Execute Disengagement

Perform Point Ambush

Execute Defense

Occupy Assembly Area

Load M60 Machine Gun

Unload M60 Machine Gun

Locate Unknown Point on Map/Grnd by Intersect.

Perform Linkup

Perform Infiltration/Exfiltration

Perform Relief Operations

Perform Passage ofLines

Perform Surveillance from Observation Post

Consolidate and Reorganize

Estimate Range (Sniper)

Provide Guides (Scout)

Recover M18A1 Claymore Mine

Determine Location on Ground by Terrain Assoc.

Measure Distance on Map

Perform Surveillance w/o Electronic Devices

Lay M60 Machine Gun w/ Field Expedients

Prepare Range Card for M60 Machine Gun

Perform Function Check on M60 Machine Gun

Employ Hand Grenades

Employ Ml 8A1 Claymore Mine

Move Under Direct Fire

React to Indirect Fire While Dismounted

React to Nuclear Hazard

React to Biological or Chemical Attack/Hazard

Evaluate a Casualty

Report Casualties

Request Medical Evacuation

Report Explosive Hazard

Use M256 or M256A Chemical Agent Detector

Receive Voice USMTF Message

Conduct Breach ofMinefield

Conduct Defense by a Squad

Consolidate Squad Following Enemy Contact

Reorganize Squad Following Enemy Contact

Direct Unit Air Defense

Implement Mission-Oriented Protective Posture

Install/Recover Communications Wire Lines

Mark NBC Contaminated Area

Challenge Persons Entering Your Area

Prepare Positions for Crew-Served Weapons in MOUT

Monitor Platoon Early Warning System AN/TRS-2

Issue Fragmentary Order

Select Hasty Firing Positions During MOUT

Conduct Maneuver of Squad

Conduct Leader's Reconnaissance

Prepare an M2 BFV Rifle Team Sector Sketch

Note- Tasks are grouped by feasibility for use with current or near term SVS simulator technology. Items in bold type

^'selected as most Jrobabiy useful! Items in italics were considered initially, but later judged as .nappropnate for use

£*e Sm t leader training scenarios. The remainder of the items were judged as not cost effective and/or feasible.

B-2
Appendix C

Biographical Information Questionnaire

Name

Unit (include P't)

Please fill in the blank or mark or circle the appropriate response.

1. What is your age? Years

2. MOS

3. Rank

4. Time in service: Years Months

5. What is your current duty position? How long in this position ?

6. What Army training courses have you completed? Check all that apply.

__OSUT/AIT PLDC BNCOC BFV Leader

Course

Airborne Ranger : Air Assault Combat Life

Saver Course

Other (please specify)

7. How susceptible to motion or car sickness do you feel you are?

0 12 3 4 5 6 7

not very average very

susceptible mildly hl9

n|

y

8. Do you have normal or corrected to normal 20/20 vision? yes no

9. Are you color blind? Yes No

10. Are you right handed? left handed?

C-l
11. My level of confidence in using computers is

12 3 4 5

low average high

12. How many hours per week do you use computers? hours per week

13. How many times in the last year have you experienced a virtual reality game or

entertainment?

01 23456 789 10 11 12+

14. How often have you trained at the McKenna MOUT site since basic training (not

including

demos)?

not since basic training 1-3 times more than 3 times

15. Have you ever participated in close quarter combat (room clearing) training

EXCEPT for a demo?

Yes No

16. Have you ever participated in a demo at the McKenna MOUT site?

Yes No

17. Have you ever been in a Virtual Individual Combatant (VIC) simulator at the Land

Warrior Test Bed before?

Yes No

C-2
If YES, which one(s)? (Describe if you cannot remember the name)

18. Have you had any other experience with military computer simulations?

Yes No

If yes, please describe briefly or give the names of the simulators.

C-3
Appendix D

SIMULATOR CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE g

-PLIASE*ÄTE YCÄJR ABILITYTO PERFORM EACH TASK IN THE SIMULATOR.-

VERY

GOOD. GOOD .•POOR*

. -•

*VERY»

"EOORi

1" . Move through open areas as a widely separated group.

2. Move according to directions. ^^^^^^^^P

; •' '<». !

3. Maneuver around obstacles.

4. Move in single file f^^^^^%^£%^ ■■> *..,..,

5. Maneuver below windows.

6. Maneuver close toothers. ■■;. X .•'•;.••' HHHI

4Si£3£fl3fi$£

lllll» A

1

' ?'-

7. Determine other team members' positions.

.8. Mäintäinjppsition relative to other team member.

9. Maneuver around corners.

f10 Locate assiqned areas of observation; e.g. across the street;

-r^^^^^H .7 * * V11. Look around corners.

D-l
Appendix D

SIMULATOR CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

•REÄ^JEiiÄF^K-'''r/^.:v:-:iW'-^V^ ■■ PLEASE RATE YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM EACH TASK IN THE SIMULATOR. Jj

VERY

GOOD

.' •' '' •.

. GÖOD>V

■■'■■:'SCVi flillllH

IllllIB , *-.:

' •

PÖPR iiVERY-

=ROOR-

. '■■* < "'" '*

1. Execute planned route.

2. Identify assigned sectors of observation.

* ?

3. Maintain position relative to other team members.

4. Look around corners: " * Wß '* ..

V* - * "•* ^^B -• * •»■■

5. Move close to walls.

6. Scan fronrside to side. " vSm^^r

'' $^%/$-d'j$!$'y/:\. *': ..;'-;tV: -

,r •• " - &

J

.".'.'. " :'-i\ ! v \ i

7. Scan vertically.

8:" Identify civilians: -

:

jl ' ' f.... ?■■-." s

1

9. Identify enemy soldiers.

10. Identify potential danger points:, .-. §§|i|

'S: V-':--y^-i'i i'V.^- ;*•*:. •: '-v &'W- -r- " • . -.-.•

I

11. Estimate distances from self to a distant object

1 ^Communicate sppftreports to squad leader.

. •• '-•

D-2
Appendix D

SIMULATOR CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

.V>, :*,*•-. I. -J. ;-. . rt'-.-~ , •'••>.,;>» -• -?<.„. ••,,•;.-. V--'. •'•» • ••••

^iVtri^PRATFYOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM EACH TASK IN THE SIMULATOR.

VERY >

GOOD.;

GOOD-

* *u' ' i ;*

VERY v

-POOR-?

1. Visually locate the source of enemy fire.

2 Determine the source.of.enemy fire by sound. "IK ^*%SIF*~ t ^

llfil^ilP IIIIäIIIäM*!

siiiiifiiiiiiiiiii

3. Distinguish between friendly and enemy fire.

^Jdentify^civiKans:; ~v-$?:: : ^^r;> ; »." "•• ^Ü^^^^^^^M

siSi^iSKs :M '" '

.jl. -* - = : '

5. Communicate enemy location to team member.

6. Take hasty defensive positions. |; .'' -.V •;. .**.'•" *.

7.Aimweapon.

—

8. Fire weapon in short bursts:

9. Fire weapon accurately;

D-3
Appendix D

SIMULATOR CAPABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

"p^Aop RATF v^iiR ARILITYTO PERFORM EACH TASK IN THE SIMULATOR.

VERY »

GOOD

GOOD POOR.; VERYV :' Jr.-/,- *: POOR;

1 Identify covered and concealed routes*

{''.• ". 's'-.Y- . • -:'» .?*'"y-:\"•".• '. ;-

!

>-.'-*''~' .' •' . •-'

* '

3. Coordinate with other squad members.

.4. Execute the assault as planned. -

!

j

HB1 ..• '"'•

,"• - / " •

5. Move quickly to the point of attack.

6 Assume defensive positions. .■■' , m

^^^^^^^^S

$&;iV ' ?"

7. Identify safe and danger areas;

8: Locate support team positions.

i

1

9. Locate buddy team firing positions.

._—:

D-4
Appendix D

^SiMÜLÄTORfCAPABiLITYQUESTIONNAIRE - ;•

%mk£mvmn ÄBiufyrropfe«»ORM EACH TASK IN THE SIMULATOR:

1. Take position to one side of a doorway.

|2^we:quickiy;to^

3. Take a tactical position within a room.

VERY

ÖÖOD*

lä^Scari theirbom quickly;1for«hostile'cörnbatants^ A

5 Engage targets within a room.

Ädenti^nön^mbatant^withiri;ä-roontfj

7. Move past furniture in a room.

Gqpc&

! *

:^i3- •• :

&VERY

>:!R0OP'*:

$*A

t :»: :• -.

9. Understand verbal commands.

^^vi^a.^fcv;^,.^^:^^^ i::l>;

* ! Ä?ldenÄei«p|;responsibij^^.y,-;

11. Communicate spot reports to squad leader.

'N ••. .*. \r

D-5
Appendix E

Simulator Capability Questionnaire ("Part 2) Name_

1. How did your participation in the simulation affect your performance in the MOUT site

exercises?

a) Improved my performance.

b) Had no affect on my performance.

c) Hurt my performance.

d) Don't know.

Please briefly explain your answer:

2. What part ofthe simulation did you consider most realistic?

3. What part ofthe simulation did you consider least realistic?

4. List any aspects ofthe Virtual Individual Combatant simulator that you found distracting.

5. Do you feel the simulator is or could be a useful tool for mission rehearsal? Why, or why not?

6. Do you feel the simulator is or could be a useful tool for MOUT training? Why, or why not?

7. Did any prior simulation or computer experience affect your performance? Ifso, indicate

which and explain why, or why not?

E-l
Appendix F

Move Through Built-Up Area

Vignette # 1

1. Did soldiers move in single file?

2. Were they able to maintain position relative to each other?

3. Were tactical movement techniques employed, e.g. hug buildings

4. Did soldiers move below windows?

5. Did they look around corners correctly (or verbalize correct way)^

6. Were all civilians and vehicles identified? (Check each one)

. ^— ' T»l Bldg. J _ A-1" A 1 SI ft _

floor office

I^floor office

Bldg. L - l

sl floor doorway

Outside rear

West End of town - Tanks

Bldg. G - Outside

7. Did they cross the street as a dispersed group at the intersection?

8. Was a spot report provided to the squad leader?

Circle all that apply:

Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment

Yes No

F-l
Appendix F

Reconnoiter Area

Vignette # 4

Were tactical movement techniques employed, e.g. hug buildings

2. Were all civilians/vehicles located en route to objective?

nd Bldg.I-2"°floor

Bldg.H-1st floor

Bldg. J2-Patio (2)

Bldg. G - BMPs (2) inside

3. Were safe and danger areas identified?

4.Could soldiers determine distance of buildings from their positions

5. Did soldiers locate all enemy/vehicles at target building?

Bldg. Ji-Roof

Stationary tanks (2) in rear

Moving tank on road (1)

6. Did they locate all enemy around adjacent building?

Bldg. Pi - Outside (2)

7. Were support/firing positions identified?

8. Were areas that might mask supporting fires identified?

9. Was a spot report provided to the squad leader?

Circle all that apply:

Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment

Yes No

F-2
-5.-. • "

Appendix F

React to Contact

Vignette # 7

Yes fNO

1 Wore tactical movement techniques employed, e.g. hug buildings

i were soldiers »hi» to maintain position relative to one another?

3 Did fire team take immediate cover upon receiving enemy fire?

4. Did fire team immediately return fire?

5 Did fire team leader use appropriate fire commands?

,», L J: *:„„ jocrinfinn ranee method and rate of fire, commence firing)

6 Were team members able to accurately locate enemy positions?

Bldg.J2-Roof

Bldg. G - Outside (west)

Bldg.H-Roof

7 Could enemy positions be located by sounds of their weapons?

8 Did fire team leader accurately assess the situation?

Enemy size, location, casualties, course of action

9. Was a spot report provided to the squad leader?

Circle all that apply:

Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment

F-3
Appendix F

Assault

Vignette # 10

1. Was a plan developed?

2. Were support positions identified?

3. Were areas that might mask supporting fires identified?

4. Were firing positions identified?

5. Were safe and danger areas identified?

6. Was a covered and concealed route identified?

7. Did team leader provide a spot report prior to the assault?

8. Did sauad leader check to see all elements were in position?

9. Did squad leader effectively control suppressive fires?

10. Was a heavy volume of fire directed at area of the objective?

11. Did the squad leader give the order to move to the objective?

12. Did the assault element secure the objective?

13. Did team leader provide a spot report?

Yes No

Circle all that apply: Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment

14. Was the assault executed as it was planned?

F-4
Appendix F

Clear Building

Vignette # 13

1. Did team members take appropriate positions outside the doors?

2. Were doors checked for booby traps?

3. Were weapons held appropriately?

4. Was verbal indication given prior to throwing grenade?

5. Were rooms entered in a tactical manner?

6. Did soldier scan his area and engage targets with short bursts?

7. Did soldier use verbal command to direct next soldier into room?

8. Were soldiers aware of their assigned sectors of fire?

9. Were all targets in a sector engaged?

1

st floor storage room -1 enemy

1

st floor break room -1 enemy

10. Were civilians and enemy correctly discriminated?

Civilians: storage room (1); 2

nd floor office (4): # killed

11. Did soldier verbally indicate room had been cleared?

12. Did soldier indicate room had been marked?

13. Did team leader provide a spot report?

Circle all that apply: Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment

Yes No

F-5
Appendix G

Structured Interview

Name: Interviewer: . Date: l-'-

1) What do you think the best use for the simulator technology could be?

2) What was the most difficult task to perform in the simulator?

3) Did you feel completely immersed in the virtual environment? How important is it to feel

completely immersed?

4) What aspects ofthe simulator most need to be improved?

5) Were you distracted by any particular feature ofthe simulator?

6) Did participation in the simulation have any affect on your performance at the MOUT site?

In what way?

7) If you could add any feature to the simulator's capabilities, what would it be?

8) Is there anything I forgot to ask you?

G-l
Appendix H

Move Through Built-Up Area

Team receives FRAGO and general instructions

- Route identified. Move down streets toward specified location. Soldiers move as a two-man

buddy team. Soldiers assigned areas to observe across the street. Scan for enemy civilians,

and obstacles. Team members must use tactically sound movement techniques. Must

provide appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

- 2-3 soldiers, 2 in VICs, 1 using Bayonet/Desk top SVS system and serving as squad leader.

- Squad leader develops plan, goes over individual responsibilities with each team member.

Team begins movement down street

- Soldiers keep distance between themselves, if possible, to 3-5 meters. Soldiers move single

file along the side ofthe ofthe street, staying close to the buildings.

- When passing windows, the soldier stays below the window level and does not silhouette

himself. Soldier "hugs" the side ofthe building. (May not be able to hug building, and

icon may not be capable ofmoving below window. Soldier may have to verbalize presence

ofwindow and that he moved below it).

- Soldiers scan, stay alert for enemy/civilians in windows across the street or in doorways

down the street and note obstacles. Makes spot report if appropriate.

- Soldier comes to end of block. Soldier verbally indicates awareness that weapon is not

extending beyond the corner ofthe building. Verbalizes correct technique for looking around

corner. [Lying flat on ground only exposing his head (at ground level) enough to permit

observation].

- Soldiers cross street as dispersed group at the same time and proceed to destination.

Continue scanning.

Operational Measures

1. Were soldiers able to maintain their relative positions with each other?

2. Were soldiers able to move in accordance with directions?

3. Did soldiers move single file?

4. Did soldiers acknowledge presence ofwindows and verbally indicate that they moved below

the windows?

H-l
5. Did soldiers correctly identify all enemy, civilians, and obstacles?

6. Could they accurately discern the location ofthese individuals and obstacles?

7. Did soldier stop when he came to the end of a block and verbalize the correct way to look

around corner?

8. Did soldier correctly verbalize awareness that his weapon did not extend beyond the corner

ofthe building?

9. Did soldiers move across the street as a dispersed group at the same time?

Soldiers rear.h destination

- Team leader reports back to team leader that they are at destination and what they have

observed.

Operational Measures

1. See questions 5 and 6.

Sample Movement Scenario Map

Vignette #1

Move Through Built-Up Area

FRAGO/Instructions:

. Squad leader develops plan, coordinates individual

responsibilities ofteam members.

. Two-man team begins at south end oftown, and proceeds north

in a tactically sound manner.

• Scan for enemy, civilians, and obstacles.

• Provide appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

lPWfMRm *****-J- ■■•nr •" "W

0-l«T.Jn ll»nn

^z^s^mmmm,

STAGING AREA

H-2
Appendix H

Reconnoiter Area

Team receives FRAGO and general instructions

Team moves forward along street to reconnoiter designated crossroads and building(s).

Route involves one change in direction. Primary objective is second crossroad (intersection)

and designated building near crossroads. Soldiers move as a two-man buddy team. Scan for

enemy, civilians, and obstacles. Identify safe and danger areas. Identify areas that mask

supporting fires. Estimate distance from selfto a distant point. Discern location within area.

Team members must use sound movement techniques. Must provide appropriate spot reports

to squad leader.

2-3 soldiers, 2 in VICs, 1 using Bayonet/Desk top SVS system and serving as squad leader.

Squad leader develops plan, goes over individual responsibilities with each team member

Team begins movement down the street

Note. Movement (positioning to other team member, movement around windows, at

crossroads/intersection) noted but main focus is on visual identification, reporting of accurate

information).

In route to first crossroads/intersection, civilians, will appear in selected windows, door

ways, top of buildings (number and location to be determined). Team leader reports back

observations to squad leader.

At first crossroads, team leader scans street and buildings for enemy and civilians. Enemy

and civilians will be present. Team leader reports back number of enemy and civilians and

locations, identifies safe and danger areas.

Operational Measures

1. Did soldiers correctly identify all civilians and their locations in route to the first crossroads?

2. Were soldiers able to accurately distinguish all civilians and enemy soldiers and their

locations at the first crossroads?

3. Did soldiers accurately identify safe and danger areas?

Team moves to designated crossroad/building

Team moves down street to crossroad/building without encountering enemy/civilians. At

objective, enemy and civilians will be present. Team leader reports back number of enemy

and civilians and locations from their position. Enemy may be in targeted building, another

H-3
adjacent building, or surrounding area. Team leader identifies safe and danger areas, support

positions) that will enable fire to be placed on enemy, and areas that mask supporting

element fires.

Operational Measures

1. Were soldiers able to accurately distinguish all civilians and enemy soldiers and their

locations?

2. Could soldiers accurately determine location/distance of buildings from their position?

3. Could soldiers accurately identify safe and danger areas?

4. Could soldiers accurately identify support positions that would enable fire to be placed on the

enemy?

5. Were soldiers able to identify areas that would mask supporting element fires?

Sample Reconnoiter Scenario Map Vignette #4

Reconnoiter Area

FRAGO/Instructions: Target Building "J-l"

• Squad leader develops plan, coordinates individual movements ofteam

members.

• Two-man team begins at west end oftown, proceeds east.

• Reconnoiter buildings for enemy, civilians and obstacles.

• Identify safe and danger areas, and areas that mask supporting fires.

• Provide spot reports to squad leader.

'^^'Bsae^sum

H-4
Appendix H

React to Contact

Team receives FRAGO and general instructions

Route identified. Move to far opposite end ofroad crossing several intersections. Soldiers

move as a two-man buddy team. Soldiers assigned areas to observe across the street. Scan

for enemy, civilians, and obstacles. Team members must use tactically sound movement

techniques. Must provide appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

- 2-3 soldiers, 2 in VICs, 1 using Bayonet/Desk top SVS system and serving as squad leader.

Squad leader develops plan goes over individual responsibilities with each team member.

Team begins movement down street

Note As a refresher for moving tactically, the first part of 'Move through Built-Up Area'

scenario with accompanying performance measures can be used. Or, can have soldiers move

without assessing tactical movement and focus on react to contact part ofscenario.

Soldiers keep distance between themselves, if possible, to 3-5 meters. Soldiers move single

file along the side ofthe ofthe street, staying close to the buildings.

When passing windows, the soldier stays below the window level and does nor silhouette

himself. Soldier "hugs" the side ofthe building. (May not be able to "hug" building, and

icon may not be capable ofmoving below window. Soldier may have to verbalize presence

ofwindow and that he moved below it).

Soldiers scan, stay alert for enemy/civilians in windows across the street or in doorways

down the street and note obstacles. (Civilians/obstacles will be present). Spot report made.

Soldier comes to end of block. Soldier verbally indicates awareness that weapon is not

extending beyond the corner ofthe building. Verbalizes correct technique for looking around

corner. [Lying flat on ground only exposing his head (at ground level) enough to permit

observation].

Soldiers prepare to cross street

Operational Measures

1. Were soldiers able to maintain their relative positions with each other?

2. Were soldiers able to move in accordance with directions?

3. Did soldiers move single file?

H-5
4. Did soldiers acknowledge presence ofwindows and verbally indicate that they moved below

the windows?

5. Did soldiers correctly identify all civilians, and obstacles?

6. Could they accurately discern the location ofthese individuals and obstacles?

7. Did soldier stop when he came to the end of a block and verbalize the correct way to look

around corner?

8. Did soldier correctly verbalize awareness that his weapon did not extend beyond the corner of

the building?

Team receives enemy fire at crossroads

As team prepares to"cross street, enemy begins firing. Soldiers move to nearest covered

positions Begin returning fire immediately. Enemy fire coming from multiple locations

(windows, top ofbuildings, different buildings). Note. SAF OPFOR must not kill

everything they see on first sight.

- Fire team leader controls fire using standard fire commands - alert, direction, description,

range, method offire (manipulation and rate offire) and command to commence firing.

- Fire team member (and fire team leader?) locate sounds, identify flashes of enemy weapons.

Indicate location of enemy positions.

- Fire team leader makes a quick assessment ofthe situation (e.g., identifies size ofthe enemy,

location, obstacles, vulnerable flanks, and covered and concealed flanking routes to the

enemy position) and decides on a course of action (e.g., fire and movement, assault, breach,

break contact). Fire team leader reports the situation to the squad leader.

Operational Measures

1. Did the fire team leader use the appropriate fire commands?

2. Were team members able to accurately identify enemy positions?

3. Could team members accurately locate the enemy from weapon flashes?

4. Could team members accurately locate the enemy from the sounds oftheir weapons?

5 Could the fire team leader accurately assess the situation in terms of enemy size, location,

identification of vulnerable flanks and covered and concealed routes to the enemy position?

6. Was an appropriate course of action determined?

H-6
Sample React to Contact Scenario Map Vignette #7

React To Contact:

FRAGO/Instructions:

• Squad leader develops plan, coordinates individual responsibilities

of team members.

. Two-man team begins at north end of town, proceeds south, moving

tactically.

• Scan and stay alert for possible enemy, civilians, and obstacles.

• Identify safe and danger areas, and areas that mask supporting

fires.

• Provide appropriate reports to squad leader.

tttmr,**

H-7
Appendix H

Assault

Team receives FRAGO and general instructions

- Small element (fire team) occupies key building (partial building) or area with trees and

obstacles (e.g., burned out vehicles) at end of block (or at the edge oftown). Squad is

directed to attack the enemy. Squad leader, with input from fire team leader and fire team

member identifies covered and concealed route. Squad leader identifies support position

which will enable fire to be placed on the enemy. Identifies areas that mask supporting fires.

Identifies firing positions in area. Identifies safe and danger areas. Soldiers must use

tactically sound movement techniques. Must provide appropriate spot reports to squad

leader.

2-3 soldiers, 2 in VICs, acting as fire team leader and fire team member, 1 using Bayonet/

Desk top SVS system serving as squad leader.

5 DI-SAF soldiers to provide fire support.

Squad leader develops plan with fire team leader and fire team member.

Operational Measures

1. Was a plan developed?

2. Were support positions identified?

3. Were areas that might mask supporting fires identified?

4. Were firing positions identified?

5. Were safe and danger areas identified?

6. Was a covered and concealed route identified?

Team begins movement

Team moves using covered and concealed route, applying tactically sound movement

techniques. (See 'Move through Built-Up Area'). Can focus on specific movement

behaviors orjust note general movement pattern and concentrate on assault part ofthe

scenario. Fire team leader provides spot reports as necessary and responds to squad leader's

commands in route to objective.

DI SAF fire support is pre-positioned based on squad leader's judgment (and feedback from

fire team leader and fire team member).

H-8
- When fire team leader and fire team member arrive at objective (last covered and concealed

position before the assault), fire team leader reports to squad leader.

Operational Measures

1. Did fire team leader provide all information requested by the squad leader?

2. Did the fire team leader provide a spot report once his team arrived at their position prior to

the assault?

Squad performs the Assault

The squad leader insures all elements are in position. He controls suppressive fires.

- The assault element (team) delivers a heavy volume offire while assaulting the objective.

- Assault element moves (as best as simulation will allow), using cover and concealment

where available as they move across objective.

Assault focus is a narrow sector ofthe enemy's defense ifflank is not available.

SAFOPFOR returns fire decisively and attempts to fix unit. (Note. SAFOPFORand

BLUFFOR must not kill everything they see on the first shot).

- Assault element secures (attempts to secure) the objective. Fire team leader provides spot

report.

- Squad leader gives order for the support element to move to the objective.

Squad consolidates and reorganizes.

Operational Measures

1. Did squad leader check to see that all elements were in position?

2. Did the squad leader effectively control suppressive fires?

3. Did the assault element deliver a heavy volume offire at directed areas of objective?

4. Was the assault element able to secure the objective?

5. Did the fire team leader provide a spot report?

6. Did the squad leader give the order for the support element to move to the objective?

H-9
Sample Assault Scenario Map Vignette #10

Assault: Squad to attack small element occupying tree line northeast oftown.

• Squad leader develops plan with team leaders.

. Squad leader, with input from team leaders, identifies covered and concealed route.

. Squad leader identifies support positions, safe and danger areas, and areas that mask

supporting fires.

. Squad executes assault as planned. Provides appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

TANK

BMP

ENEMY

SOLDIER

H-10
Appendix H

Clear Building

Team receives FRAGO and general instructions

Building specified; one or more enemy in building; one or more civilians/hostages

may be in building. Clear building (number ofrooms to be determined) without

taking civilian casualties. Must come through door. Team members verbally

acknowledge use of grenades (none will be available to actually use), must use

tactically sound movement pattern(s) within room(s), identify and demonstrate

appropriate sectors offire and use appropriate verbal commands. Must provide

appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

- 2-4 soldiers, 2 in VICs, 1 using Bayonet/Desk top SVS system and serving as squad

leader. Fourth man may serve as security element outside of building.

- Squad leader develops plan, goes over individual responsibilities with each team

member.

Team positioned outside of door

Team members must be positioned close to one side ofthe doorway (not standing in

the open door frame). If unable to physically do this they should be able to verbalize

their location by the door. Verbally acknowledge check for booby traps around door.

[Weapons held in either the high-carry (outside the door) or low-carry position (while

inside the room). Soldiers ensure the muzzle is not pointed at another team member.

Close Quarters Combat, Appendix K, FM 90-10-1].

Door assumed to be opened (by automatic fire). The first soldier indicates that

grenade is thrown in the room (grenade cooked down two seconds prior to throwing)

by yelling "Frag out".

Operational Measures

1. Positioning ofteam members (Were they positioned to the side ofthe door or did they

state what position they would be in at the door ifthe VIC did not allow them to

physically to position themselves correctly?)

2. Was a check made or was verbal acknowledgement given about checking for booby

traps around the door?

3. Were weapons held appropriately prior to entering the room? Were they held

appropriately while inside the room? Was position ofthe muzzle pointed away from

other team members?

H-ll
4. Did team members signal (non-verbal) one another that they were ready prior to

entering the room?

5. Was appropriate verbal command given prior to throwing grenade (or verbally

indicating that grenade was thrown) in the room?

Team enters room

Second man immediately enters room and positions himselfto the left (right) ofthe

entrance against the wall; engages targets with short bursts of automatic fire; scans

room left to right. Moves in as straight line as possible toward the left (right) corner.

He may then turn and move deep into the far corner ofthe room. [For close

quarters combat, the emphasis appears to be for the entire team to enter as

quickly as possible and clear the doorway. Is this a different approach from the

one described below in FM 90-10-1 where soldiers appear to come in the room

one at a time? This approach is more deliberate and slower, it seems, than the one

described in Close Quarters Combat, Appendix K, FM 90-10-1].

- First man in room (soldier 2) decides where the next man should position himself and

gives the command "Next man in, right (left)".

- The next man shouts "Coming in, right (left)", enters the room, and positions

himselfup against the wall right (left) ofthe entrance and scans (right to left) the

room. [Enters and moves toward the corner in the opposite direction, following the

wall, but not directly against it. Engages targets as he moves to his designated point.

Close Quarters Combat, Appendix K, FM 90-10-1 ].

Note With the standard four-man team mix for clearing rooms, the Number 3 man (team

leader) would then enter the room next, and buttonhooks inside the room at least one meter from

the door but between the number 1 man (first man in) and the door. The squad leader can either

use the number 4 man (normally the SAW gunner) as rear security at the breach site or door, or

can have him enter with the remainder ofthe team. Ifhe enters, the number 4 man moves in die

direction ofthe second man in the room and buttonhooks in the same way between the second

man and the door [Close Quarters Combat, Appendix K, FM 90-10-1].

- Each clearing team member must know his sector offire and how his sector offire overlaps

and links with the sectors ofthe other team members. While team members move toward

their points of domination, they engage all targets in their sector. Team members must be

able to discriminate between hostile and non-combatant occupants in the room. [Close

Quarters Combat, Appendix K, FM 90-10-1].

Operational Measures

1. 'Did the soldier enter and move inside the room in a tactically sound manner?

2. Did the soldier scan his area and engage targets with short bursts of automatic fire?

H-12
3. Did the soldier use appropriate verbal commands to direct the next soldier into the

room? . , 9

4. Did the soldier use the appropriate verbal response poor to entering the room'

5. Were soldiers aware oftheir assigned sectors offire?

6. Did soldiers engage all targets in their sector?

7. Did they correctly discriminate between hostile and non-combatant occupants in the

room?

Room has been cleared

- Once a room has been cleared, team yells "Clear" to inform the support party.

Before leaving the room and rejoining the support party, team yells Coming out

and proceeds to clear the next room(s). The cleared rooms are marked IAW unit

SOP.

Spot report made back to the squad leader (key points for inclusion in the report

should be...enemy casualties (wounded or dead), friendly casualties (wounded or

dead), civilians/hostages (wounded or dead), results from room search.

Operational Measures

1. Did the soldier use appropriate verbal responses following the clearing of a room and

prior to leaving the room?

2. Did the soldier indicate that room had been marked?

3. Was a spot report made? Were all relevant pieces ofinformation included in the

report?

H-13
Sample Clear Building Scenario Map

Vignette #15

Clear Building: Enemy and/or civilians may be present in any room on first and/or

second floor.

FRAGO/Instructions: Approach from north. Enter second door of Building A .

. Squad develops plan with team leader, coordinates individual responsibilities of

team members.

• Enter building, search and clear room to room without causing civilian

casualties.

. Employ tactically sound techniques, verbally indicate use of grenades, use

appropriate verbal commands.

• Provide appropriate spot reports to squad leader.

H-14
Appendix I

Post Experiment Questionnaire

Name: Date:

1. Which scenarios do you think provided the most training value?

(Check as many as appropriate)

Clear building (with snipers)

Clear building (with crossfire)

Clear building (with OPFOR following BLUFOR in building)

Clear building (with force on force)

React to contact

React to contact (with force on force)

Combination DI-SAF/live squad missions

Briefly explain why you selected these particular scenarios.

2. What other tasks (e.g., assault, ambush) could be cost effectively trained using simulations?

3. Which scenarios did you prefer the most (check the category below)

_Scenarios involving DI-SAF only

Scenarios involving some combination oflive force on force with some DI-SAF

Briefly explain your answer.

4. To be effective from a training standpoint, what capabilities should DI-SAF have?

1-1
5. For small unit (squad, fire team) level training, what points (e.g., communication, team

coordination) should be stressed in these scenarios?

6. As a small unit leader, what did you like most about the scenarios?

7. As a small unit leader, what did you like least about the scenarios?

8. Could these scenarios be used effectively to practice decision making skills? Why or Why

not?

9 Would you like to see some type offeedback feature following the completion of each

" scenario such as number of OPFOR-BLUFOR killed/wounded, rounds fired by soldier,

movement patterns ofsoldiers, etc. ?

_Yes

No

10. What type offeedback would you find most useful?

1-2