The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Observation and
Feedback

Observation and feedback for the 3 Bde staff was provided by 14
members of the SOCT. Observation and feedback for other elements
of the primary training audience (TF 1-101, its companies, the support
platoon and the scout platoon) was provided by 25 members of the
Warthog O/C team.

Exercise Control

One of the COBRAS staff served as the Exercise Trial Director for the
planning and preparation period leading up to the exercise. The 42
ID (M) Assistant Division Commander-Support was the Exercise
Director during the exercise itself. Throughout the exercise, he was
supported and mentored by the COBRAS Exercise Trial Director.

Members of the FXXITP, the COBRAS Team, and the CLS staff were
responsible for operation of the simulation linkage controls.

Members of the COBRAS Team had oversight of the BBS division,
brigade, and battalion workstations, and controlled the OPFOR in
BBS.

Exercise controllers from the Warthog team operated the ModSAF
workstations. ,

10



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

SUMMARY

The STOW-ET implementation demonstrated that it is possible to
create a STOW training model and system. But a single trial of a high-
technology training exercise, where the technology and corresponding
support components are in place just in time for the exercise, is not
sufficient for drawing valid conclusions about training value, support
requirements, or technology needs. Further research is required to
determine what the training model should look like and whether
STOW-type training will provide sufficient training value to justify the
cost.

To continue the research on the value of the training, additional trials
must be conducted with upgraded technology and TSPs. A series of
such trials, each building on the previous, is suggested to provide
insights into the potential value and cost of such exercises.

To enter into such a series of trials requires an assessment that the
potential for training value in linked simulation-based exercises exists,
and that the potential is likely to be worth the costs associated with both
the trials and the eventual implementation. It is the considered opinion
of the evaluation team, based on the STOW-ET, that such potential
exists.

31



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

The main difference between the VTP, BSE, and BBSE programs as
compared to the STOW-ET, is that the STOW-ET allows platoon
through brigade staff audiences to train simultaneously. However, the
question remains: Is there an advantage to multiechelon (platoon
through brigade), simulation-based training? Addressing that question
would require a more systematic front end analysis of multiechelon
missions and functions, to determine which training objectives cross
echelon boundaries in ways that require multiechelon collective
training. It would then also require fairly rigorous experimental design,
reliable and valid performance criteria and means for measuring them,
and control of extraneous variables.

27



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

CONTEXT The STOW-ET was conducted 28 February-6 March 1998 at Fort
Knox, Kentucky, after a preparation and development period that
began in July 1997. The physical layout was distributed among three
buildings, as shown in Figure 1. The two buildings housing the
Simulation Networking (SIMNET) systems (2020 and 2021) are
collocated, while the third (Skidgel Hall, Building 1724) is about a
half-mile away.

Scouts, FISTs or 1SGs

=] SZ
aa [eal 2) &
SIMNET-T SIMNET-D [co _4 Xx
BLDG 2020 BLDG 2021 is [Ba
BBs J EXCON
s01[] x Forces
imi 3| © faz
alain we
| —
[oO] O16
14101 |
MAIN
| SKIDGEL HALL
| BLDG 1724
1-101 |CO pe]
55
crop
EXCON
Roleplayers

Figure 1. Physical layout for STOW-ET.



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Desktop reconfigurable
simulations supporting
scout participation

Reconnaissance and utilization of scouts was confounded by many
problems which affected training the brigade combat team’s
reconnaissance and surveillance plan:

¢ Scouts in BBS can dismount but scouts on the DRS cannot.

« Dismounted scouts in BBS lose all their small arms when they
are disaggregated and modeled in the SIMNET environment.

¢ Scout vehicles must give up all .50 cal ammunition when
disaggregated and modeled in SIMNET or else they cannot
move, leaving them without any protection.

Although involving the scout platoon may have provided valuable
troop leading authenticity and teamwork, the DRSs did not fully
portray or support the scout reconnaissance mission itself.

Portrayal of
environmental conditions
in SIMNET

Environmental condition portrayal that is still needed includes both
ambient conditions (light and weather) and ground conditions (ability
to dig or mark). First, variable weather and light conditions can be
entered in BBS but cannot be portrayed in ModSAF/SIMNET. As a
result, all operations took place in daylight and in neutral or non-
existent weather. This was unrealistic for planners and commanders
as well as for crews. It obviated a vital part of the $2 function and
did not force planners to integrate this important facet into their plans.
Similarly, smoke cannot be employed in SIMNET. This frustrated
initiatives by planners to realistically employ this combat multiplier.

Second, no terrain modification is possible in SIMNET, eliminating
portrayal! of vital engineer functions. The exercise scenario called for
a DATK, which should have involved maximum utilization of
mobility, counter-mobility, and survivability assets and principles of
engineer employment. Unfortunately, minefield signatures are non-
existent; all minefields are perfectly hidden, denying the use of visible
minefields for deception and canalizing. When minefields were
reconnoitered and marked in BBS, this fact did not transfer to
SIMNET, creating confusion in execution and battle tracking. Lane
marking in minefields was limited to a single SIMNET-specific
portrayal, which did not support the full array of doctrinal marking
requirements.

14



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

REFERENCES

Campbell, C. H., Pratt, D. M., Deter, D. E., Graves, C. R., Ford, L. A.,
Campbell, R. C., & Quinkert, K. A. (in preparation). The COBRAS
synthetic theater of war exercise trial: Report on development.
results, and lessons learned (Research Report). Alexandria, VA:

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

Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development (1998). Fort Knox

STOW-A 1.6 Handbook (Coordinating Draft). Fort Knox, KY:
Author.

32



FOREWORD

The Armored Forces Research Unit of the United States Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences has been actively involved in research and development
associated with structured, simulation supported training for armored and mechanized infantry
brigades. The developmental efforts of the Armored Forces Research Unit at Fort Knox have
focused on both constructive and virtual simulations and ways to use them in supporting
collective training.

This project explored linking the constructive simulations of the Brigade/Battalion Battle
Simulation (BBS) and Modular Semi-automated Forces (ModSAF) with the virtual simulations
of Simulation Networking (SIMNET) and Desktop Reconfigurable Simulators (DRSs) to create a
multiechelon training environment for a brigade combat team headquarters and selected
supporting and subordinate units. This particular linkage of multiple simulations is referred to as
Synthetic Theater of War-Exercise Trial (STOW-ET).

This report summarizes the outcomes of the development process, the resulting
configuration of the exercise, the trial, and the formative evaluation of the effort. The evaluation
focused on the performance of the technologies which generated the linked simulated
environment, the training support package which guided the exercise, and the training value of
creating such an exercise. The report addresses the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of
such a training exercise. Not surprisingly, a major conclusion is the need to continue to conduct
a series of such exercises in order to gain more experience with the technologies and the exercise
design. The complete report on this research and development effort will be released at a later
date.

Army leaders and training managers can use this report to help decision makers guide the
future development and use of STOW exercises as a part of combined arms training strategies.

ZITA M. SIMUTIS
Technical Director



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Findings on Training
Value

One purpose of the STOW-ET was to evaluate the quality of training
that could be conducted in this type of exercise. The trial was not
designed to objectively evaluate the effects on specific training
outcomes. Observations of the trial implementation and discussions
with training audience members and observers were used to identify
ways in which the STOW exercise may add training opportunities.
Also identified were ways in which it does no more than duplicate the
training found in existing programs.

The findings are organized into two topics:
¢ Participant reactions

¢ Duplication of existing training programs

STOW-ET participant
reactions to the training

Support for use of STOW-type exercises for multiechelon training was
common throughout the training audience. In interviews and on
surveys, the platoon, company, and scout participants candidly reported
their difficulties with the communications and simulation, yet
expressed positive reactions to the idea of multiechelon simulation-
based training. The brigade and battalion leaders and staff members
reflected that satisfaction, indicating that their subordinates found the
training exciting, interesting, and valuable.

There were numerous comments on the value of including staff sections
and other direct subordinates in the exercise, and some company and
battalion leaders valued being able to participate with the higher
echelon units. However, brigade and battalion leaders did not point out
instances where they found that including subordinate units was of any
significant value in their own training.

During several discussions and interviews, however, the brigade
commander and staff reflected on how to use a STOW-type exercise (or
any multiechelon exercise) for the brigade. They maintained their
enthusiasm and support for the training throughout the week at Fort
Knox and during the months that followed. During his address to the
Armor Trainer Update at Fort Knox in June 1998, the brigade
commander reinforced his initial reactions to the exercise. He
commented that everybody from the brigade commander down to the
tank commanders thought they were the primary training audience.
Such reaction is rare in multiechelon exercises.

25



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

FINDINGS AND

This section summarizes the principal findings in each of the three

RECOMMENDATIONS ‘Search areas:

* technologies,
* training support requirements, and
¢ training value.

Details are contained in a research report entitled The COBRAS
Synthetic Theater of War Exercise Trial: Report on Development,
Results, and Lessons Learned (Campbell et al., in preparation).

The findings reported here have both near-term and long-term
implications. They speak especially to prospects for future STOW
exercise trials and to the developmental and implementation
requirements for such trials. The major implications are summarized
below.

Findings on
Technologies

The Fort Knox STOW architecture was intended to support training
that links all of the elements of the brigade combat team. But before
training can be accomplished, the technical weaknesses that obstruct
training must be fixed. The goal is not a perfect system, but, insofar
as possible, training detractors must be eliminated. The efficacy of
the Fort Knox STOW architecture as part of a training system will be
more accurately gauged when certain technical concerns, described in
this section, are resolved.

Because the systems are still developmental, these findings are
predominantly critical, pointing out areas for improvement. This is
not a blanket condemnation of the technologies, but rather a factual
reporting of the STOW-ET findings. The comments are organized in
seven areas:

¢ Translation between simulations

¢ Desktop reconfigurable simulations

¢ Portrayal of environmental conditions
¢ Communications

e Physical setup and locations

« AAR functionality in STOW

7



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Recommendations
Concerning
Technologies

Based on the findings summarized above, two recommendations are
offered concerning the technologies and the physical layout of the
STOW training environment.

I. STOW developers need
continued trials of the
STOW exercise in order
to test upgrades to the
systems.

Developers of the STOW linkages and software rely on system tests
to determine whether entities translate properly from one environment
to another. But only by using the “soldier in the loop” can developers
know whether the translations and representations are adequate.

Some translations can be imperfect without affecting training value,
while others are critical. Developers and subject matter experts make
their best estimates of the critical elements, but will always require
trials with representative training audiences to verify their estimates.

The degree to which the STOW technology can ever be perfected
using the legacy systems of BBS and SIMNET is questionable.
However, the lessons learned and indicators of likely areas of training
benefit should be useful to developers of future systems, including
Warfighters’ Simulation (WARSIM) 2000 and Joint Simulation
System (JSIMS).

2. Many improvements to
the STOW technologies,
communications systems,
and physical layout can
and should be made
before units participate in
additional trials.

Before units participate in continuing STOW development, the full
system of technologies, communications, and physical layout must be
improved.

e First, STOW technology improvements are needed in order to
conduct additional STOW training. While it is understood that
this is an ongoing process, it should be possible to effect and test
significant software improvements prior to involving units in
trials. Although testing the realism and utilization of features
requires soldiers in the loop, enough data are available on
improvement needs that the decision-making and work can be
done without soldiers.

« Second, upgrades to the separate simulations (BBS, SIMNET,
ModSAfF, and the DRSs) would also greatly enhance the value of
the exercises. The requirement for participants to make cognitive
leaps in processing information is a distraction to training.

17



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

While BBS portrays CSS functions very well, very little of that
translates to ModSAF and SIMNET. Specifically:

e Attempts to recover and repair ModSAF or SIMNET vehicles
using BBS CSS capabilities were unsuccessful.

e Resupply in ModSAF and SIMNET can be done in the tailgate
mode, but problems with controlling the vehicles made this
function impractical to apply. Further problems arose because
some units in BBS lose all their fuel and ammunition when they
are disaggregated (translated from constructive to virtual
environments).

« No personnel losses occur in SIMNET, therefore the casualty
tracking based on SIMNET data cannot correspond with BBS
results. Personnel roll-up reports in BBS summed results
incorrectly throughout the exercise. The data were so unreliable
that the training audience lost confidence in their status reports
and staff estimates.

CSS play is essential to the training design of the exercise conducted.
Realistic CSS play is dependent on accurate and timely reports.

When CSS could not be played because of system problems, the
training audience expressed frustration and disillusion with their role
in the exercise and much of the perception of training value from their
participation evaporated. The inability to portray the full capabilities
of transportation, CSS vehicles, and classes of supply resulted in the
workaround requirement for “magic” resupply. When this happened,
the logistics training audience ceased to have a significant role in the
exercise.

Not all of these problems were caused by the STOW linkage. Some
of them have existed for some time in BBS, ModSAF, or SIMNET.
However, the training audience requires a single seamless
environment in order to conduct planning preparation and execution
realistically. Making conceptual translations to compensate for
technology weaknesses compromises the realism of the environment
and the potential value of the exercise.

13



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

The commander further observed that having soldiers in the loop (that
is, actually maneuvering and operating simulated tanks and other
systems on the battlefield) caused him to approach command and
control much more realistically than is done in most constructive
simulation exercises. He had to issue orders and make decisions
knowing that crews, rather than simulation icons, would have to
interpret, react to and carry out those instructions. Orders had to be
clearer and allow for the uncertainties found on even a virtual
battlefield, but which don’ exist on constructive simulation screens.

The increase in realism caused by having soldiers maneuvering and
operating on the battlefield gave him a better appreciation for time and
space considerations of controlling the battle. His decision cycle had to
include troop leading time and reaction time for subordinates to
implement changes, and account for more realistic time and space
issues. He found that moving forces in virtual simulation, while still
not the same as maneuvering on the actual terrain, was much more
demanding and realistic than what is found in constructive simulation
exercises or purely command post exercises.

It is not possible to separate general satisfaction, a result of being
included in a high intensity experience, from anticipation of specific
training value. The commander’s wish to incorporate the training in his
annual training activities speaks strongly to the training value of the
exercise. While this does not lead to definitive conclusions regarding
use of STOW-type exercises in a full unit training strategy, it does
suggest that such conclusions may be drawn in future studies.

Duplication of existing
simulation-based
training programs

The STOW-ET was constructed as a hybrid of the VTP, the COBRAS
BSE, and the COBRAS BBSE, and thus duplicates many features of
those existing training programs:

¢ Like the VTP, it integrates activities of the support platoon and
scout platoon in addition to the maneuver battalions, and places
training audience members in a virtual environment. It also takes
from the TSP for the VTP most of the SIMNET and ModSAF
control guidance.

¢  Itshares with the BSE a deliberate focus on the military decision-
making process, as well as the tactical scenario for the DATK.

¢ As with the BBSE, the primary focus is on the brigade and
battalion activities and interactions during planning, preparation,
execution, and consolidation and reorganization.

26



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Exercise Time Line The exercise time line featured phased entry of participating units into
the exercise, beginning with the 3 Bde receiving the division
operations order (OPORD) on the first day. On the second day, the TF
1-101 leaders and other assets joined in, and the scouts, the TF 1-101
companies, and the TF support platoon participated during the final
three days. This allowed TF 1-101 subordinate elements to continue
training in VTP exercises while the higher echelons planned.

The training schedule is shown in Figure 4.

Brigade Receive Div Continue Issue order, Begin re Execute
Staff order, begin planning complete recon conduct rehearsal
planning through order planning
production
TF Staff VIP Begin planning, Receive Bde Begin recon, Bde Execute
parallel plan order, continue rehearsal, issue
with Bde planning through —order, conduct TF
order production rehearsal
Company VTP VIP. Troop leading, Receive order, Execute
Teams begin planning plan, TF rehearsal
Support VTP VTP Begin planning Receive order, Execute
Platoon CSS support plan, TF rehearsal
Scouts VTP VIP Recon planning Conduct recon Complete
recon

Figure 4. Training schedule for the STOW-ET.



CONTENTS (continued)

Figures
Figure 1. Physical layout for STOW-ET .........cccsssecsssssssssseesseessssecssceessecsneesseesssees 4
2. Task organization of 3" Bde, 42" ID and TF 1-101 for the 6
STOW-ET
3. Communications infrastructure for the STOW-ET... a 7
4. Training schedule for the STOW-ET .........csssssesssesssesesseesseeneesneseesseesee 8

xi



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

2. Near term
development should
focus on single site
(nonexportable) STOW
training.

The preliminary findings concerning the STOW exercise model, TSP,
and technology status described above are applicable to the situation at
Fort Knox. It would be premature to try to generalize the findings to
any discussion of an exportable STOW exercise for use at other sites,
because of the still experimental and developmental nature of the entire
implementation and infrastructure model.

The most cost-effective near-term implementation model would specify
a single STOW training site, located at Fort Knox. The model would
include all of the specifications for site preparation and unit
preparation, and units would rotate to Fort Knox-STOW just as they do
to the VTP and to the combat training centers (CTCs). The
infrastructure established for the STOW-ET would require certain
upgrades, but the foundation is in place.

Within this model, however, the requirement for exercise controllers
and unit observers is placed on Fort Knox. Unless units are able to fill
control positions (e.g., Exercise Director, Blue Forces Controller) with
fairly senior personnel from within their own resources, Fort Knox
would staff the control roles. Because of the size of the training
audience, the requirement for about 40 observers is unlikely to be
reduced over time; these positions, too, must be staffed by Fort Knox.

3. Decision-makers
must consider the
personnel costs involved
in STOW-type training.

It is apparent that the conduct of an exercise such as the STOW-ET
comes at a cost. But it should be emphasized that little of the support
and preparation time was borne by the unit.

All training involves some expenditure of resources to support the
training. While simulation-based training is generally cited as a way to
save OPTEMPO, it also has its own costs. Estimates of the cost of
experimental exercises such as the STOW-ET must be balanced against
the understanding that support for developmental trials is generally
more demanding than support for later applications should be. It
should also be balanced against the benefit to the unit, whose members
were able to prepare for the exercise during regular weekend drills.

23



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Despite the novelty of the STOW architecture, the basic TSP
structure and development method were easily adapted for the
STOW-ET. Even though, as described earlier, some components of
the TSP were not prepared for the trial, placeholders for those
components were in place. This was not because the TSP model was
inadequate, but rather because the trial served as the opportunity to
determine what the actual content of those components should be.

Training audience and
personnel support

The 3" Bde, 42" ID (M) and TF 1-101 provided 255 people as part
of the training audience. Of these, 48 were staff located in the 3" Bde
CPs, in the TF main CP, or in the TF CTCP. The remaining 207
participants were positioned in SIMNET or DRS simulators as
crewmembers within TF 1-101. Thus all of these persons were
members of the training audience.

In addition to the training audience, however, the STOW-ET required
about 48 FXXITP, COBRAS, and CLS personnel, over 40 SOCT and
Warthog team observers, and an additional 43 persons from 4am

ID (M) in technical and control roles. While much of this support is
duplicated in any BBS exercise or SIMNET, there was a significant
portion of support generated just from the STOW linkage
requirements. Extra controllers and operators worked to keep the
scenario running when the inevitable system failures occurred, so that
the use of simulation would continue to be transparent to the unit.

Another contributor to the personnel support burden was the fact that
the participating unit was a National Guard unit, away from its home
station. Roles that would normally be filled by division, a sister
brigade, or the brigade’s other battalions were instead assumed by
COBRAS staff. These included the positions of Exercise Director
during the planning and preparation for the exercise, COBRAS
Coordinator, Blue Forces Controller, and OPFOR Controller.
Additionally, nearly 40 SOCT and Warthog observers and controllers
supported the exercise.

Clearly, STOW-type exercises open the way to integrating training
for many more participants than can typically be included in
simulation-based exercises.

However, a STOW-type exercise also has more control stations than
either a SIMNET-only or a BBS-only exercise. Therefore, the
controller need should still be expected to be higher than would be
required for single-simulation exercises. The benefits of training for
an expanded audience must be balanced against resource costs.

20



components that the unit members and observers needed were provided, along with all of the
appropriate job aids.

The participating unit was the 3" Brigade, 42" Infantry Division of the New York
National Guard, along with one TF (TF 1-101). The TF deployed to Fort Knox for a week of
training in the VTP as part of its annual training, and the 3 Bde Commander and staff arrived
for the STOW exercise the following week.

Findings:

Findings from the trial implementation address training support, technology and
infrastructure requirements, and training value. The TSP design and development approach was
considered a success. Both personnel and time requirements are heavy but manageable.

The technology and infrastructure were, at the time of the trial, still developmental. As a
result, there were many suggestions for improvements and corrections. Still, the overall
impression was that the STOW exercise showed the potential for training opportunities not yet
offered in simulation.

The trial implementation of the STOW exercise resulted in strong expressions of support
from the participating unit for continued STOW and reconfigurable development and use. They
also provided a great many points of consideration for improvement.

Products include this report and a companion ARI research report entitled COBRAS
Synthetic Theater of War Exercise Trial: Report on Development, Results, and Lessons Learned
(Campbell, Pratt, Deter, Graves, Ford, Campbell, & Quinkert, in preparation) in addition to the
TSP materials themselves. The companion report gives a detailed description of the design,
development, and implementation decisions and activities.

The summary and recommendations in this report are presented to assist training
developers, including Force XXI policy-makers, as they continue to advance and promote the
Force XXI Training Program and STOW-type exercises in particular.

Utilization of Findings:

This report presents a summary of the development of the COBRAS STOW Exercise and
the lessons learned during the exercise development and implementation. As continued
emphasis is placed on providing low-resource, cost-effective training for increasingly complex
segments of the brigade combat team, this report can lead other training developers into the
selection of effective design and implementation strategies.

viii



THE COBRAS SYNTHETIC THEATER OF WAR EXERCISE TRIAL: SUMMARY AND
REPORT OF FINDINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

In 1994, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), in
coordination with the Force XXI Training Program and the U.S. Army Armor Center
(USAARMC), launched a research and development effort designed to help brigade staffs
become proficient in the combat fundamentals that will be required on the digital battlefield.
This effort, titled Combined Arms Operations at Brigade Level Realistically Achieved through
Simulation (COBRAS), is developing and evaluating structured, simulation-based training
programs and strategies to address the training need.

The objective of the COBRAS work that is the subject of this report was to develop and
evaluate a Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) exercise for a multiechelon training audience. The
evaluation addressed three specific research areas: training support packages (TSPs) and
resource requirements, technology and infrastructure requirements, and training value.

Procedure:

COBRAS developers first identified the multiechelon training audience positions for the
STOW exercise. These included the brigade commander and staff and the commander and staff
of one battalion task force (TF), and the line company commanders, first sergeants, fire support
team leaders, and scout platoon of that TF.

The STOW environment included both constructive simulation (the Brigade/Battalion
Battle Simulation [BBS] and Modular Semi-Automated Forces [ModSAF)) and virtual
simulation (Simulation Networking [SIMNET] and reconfigurable simulators). COBRAS
developers worked closely with STOW developers to identify weak links in the technology,
recommend additional features and capabilities, and devise stop-gap workaround solutions to
technical difficulties for the trial.

The exercise scenario was designed both to provide performance opportunities for the full
brigade and battalion audience, and to conform to the capabilities of the STOW technology. The
exercise architecture was also designed specifically for the STOW environment. This foundation
was then used to construct the TSP materials for the planning, preparation, and execution of one
mission, a deliberate attack.

Many of the support positions were staffed by developers from the Fort Knox
USAARMC community. Members of the Force XXI Training Program, the COBRAS team, and
contracted logistics support staff members for BBS and SIMNET participated as evaluation
observers and simulation controllers. The Warthog Observer/Controller (O/C) Team and the
Senior O/C Team ( 16" Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox) served as observers during the exercise.
Because all of these supporting participants were already familiar with their roles and
responsibilities, a full TSP was neither needed nor constructed for the trial. All of the

vii



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

TRAINING SUPPORT The TSP for the STOW-ET included:

PACKAGE ¢ preparation materials for 3" Bde and TF 1-101 concerning the
unit’s starting conditions and the Road to War;

e performance objectives materials addressing the five main
elements of the training audience: brigade staff, TF staff,
company leaders, scout platoon, and support platoon leader;

¢ division OPORD with overlays for the DATK;

¢ exercise guides for each BBS workstation team;

¢ simulation files, documentation, and exercise-specific operating
instructions; ae - we

e guidance for the Exercise Director, OPFOR controller, and
division staff roleplayers; and

¢ observation and feedback guidance and after action review (AAR)
materials for the Warthogs and SOCT.

Performance The specific performance objectives for the exercise were focused on
Objectives each element of the training audience, and indicated the tasks and

activities that training audience members would practice and on which
they would receive feedback.

The performance objectives for the STOW-ET included:

¢ Brigade staff - Conduct Military Decision-Making Process
(MDMP), Parallel Planning with the TF, Plan and Manage
Reconnaissance, Execute the Brigade Fight

¢ Task Force level - MDMP and Parallel Planning with the Brigade,
Plan and Manage Reconnaissance, Execute the TF Fight

« Company level — Prepare for Combat (Troop Leading), Execute
¢ Support Platoon — Plan and Execute Concept of Support
¢ Scout Platoon — Plan and Execute Reconnaissance

The performance objectives materials included techniques and
procedures for the training audience, as well as observation and
feedback guidance for the observers.



CONTENTS (continued)

Abbreviations (—esessssssssesssesssscsessssesesesscsessssescsesssesecseencsnensseenensseeneees

Recommendations Concerning Technologies 17
1. STOW developers need continued trials of the
STOW exercise in order to test upgrades to the
systems. 17
2. Many improvements to the STOW technologies,
communications systems, and physical layout can
and should be made before units participate in
additional trials. 7
Findings on Training Support Requirements. 19
Scenario and TSP development for the STOW
ENVIFONIMENL .oesessessssssreeseeserseseesessenessesnsseeseesesesseacensenssnes 19
Training audience and personnel SUPPOFE .....1..0..0000000000 20
Training schedule considerationS ....c..sesssesserssessereeees 21
Recommendations Concerning Training Support 22
1. Implementation of STOW training will require
Additional TSP WOFK.....ssssssssseresseseesecssessesseeseensess 22
2. Near term development should focus on single site
(nonexportable) STOW training ...c..sssesseesssecseeeeeeese 23
3. Decision-makers must consider the personnel costs
involved in STOW-type training w 23
4. TSP developers need continued trials of the STOW. we 24
Findings on Training Value ........c.sccssssssescseesssessseesseseansees 25
STOW-ET participant reactions to the training... 25
Duplication of existing simulation-based training
PYOQTOMS wessssessessessessssesssesssssssssnsesasessesscenssecneeareneeecenenee 26
Recommendations Concerning Assessment of Training
ValUe oss ecsecesesssssssessesnesssessseesenesssssesesssseestsareecsscseeneesessseneane 28
1. Seven specific areas should be addressed in
research on STOW training ValUe......csecssersessseevecreeree 28
2. Assessment of training value will require continued
USE Of STOW exercises ...ssecssecsecvesssesessecseerseersessesneense 30
Summary i rsecscssessesenseseencesesscsecseesesscsscsesscseeneseesessecseesesnssesesseees 31
Referemces i ascssssssssessssesesseeseesesesseesessesscsceussucuesucscanssesseenesueneeneess 33
Acronyms and
34



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Communications

A major part of the STOW-ET preparation was establishing and
maintaining communications between the locations to replicate
tactical nets and provide administrative links for the control of the
exercise. These communication requirements exceeded anything
already established at Fort Knox for existing training programs.
Implementing and maintaining communications was a major effort of
the exercise requiring a full-time person for several weeks.

Nonetheless, the system was not always optimally reliable. Some of
this was undoubtedly due to user unfamiliarity with the
communications systems, which were unlike their normal mobile
subscriber equipment (MSE) radios. In other cases, the
communications systems could not bear the heavy load of the number
of users, resulting in frequent reports of channel bleed-over and
instances of particular nets not being represented.

For staff training and CP operations, information transfer and
communications links are vital. Yet the system, as currently installed,
lacks capability for replicating data transmission, tactical facsimile
(TACFAX), MSE links, computer links, phones, Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) downloads, and data retrieval.
A training environment that does not offer a greater semblance of
realism in this arena will only be considered adequate for a short
period of time. As the simulation system matures and offers more
realism, the same will be demanded of the communications systems.

Effects of physical
locations of the CPs on
unit and observer/
controller
communications

During the exercise, 3 Bde’s main CP and rear CP were separated
only by a 6-foot partition, and the tactical command post (TAC) was
located about 100 feet away. Similarly, the main CP and CTCP for
TF 1-101 were directly next to each other, and the entire TF CP
complex was about 50 feet from the 3TM Bde main and rear CP
locations. This allowed for unrealistically easy face-to-face contact
between persons at the different CPs.

When the siting was being done, this did not seem to present a
problem, because traffic between CPs could be readily controlled.
However, problems with the normal radio as the means of
communications forced training participants to find other ways to
pass messages and share information. It was very easy for
participants to simply talk over partitions or walk around the comer,
especially when they were unable to use their radios.

15



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

Research Report 1732

The COBRAS Synthetic Theater of War Exercise Trial:
Summary and Report of Findings

Charlotte H. Campbell, Roy C. Campbell, Laura A. Ford, David M. Pratt, and
Daniel E. Deter ,
Human Resources Research Organization

December 1998

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

19990216209



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Research along the second axis is exploring structured simulation-based
training and TSP structures. Related projects include the Virtual
Training Program (VTP), COBRAS Brigade Staff Exercise (BSE), and
COBRAS Brigade and Battalion Staff Exercise (BBSE). These
exercises target armor/heavy units from platoon through brigade staff
levels. The exercises range from short, mission execution situations
that are accomplished in a few hours, to complex, multi-mission,
multiechelon exercises requiring 24-hour operations over several days.

Utilization

The STOW-ET was designed to provide information useful for
additional development and testing, moving both technology and
training design closer to the goal of cost effective, accessible training
that provides significant training value to users. This report is
addressed to decision-makers who need a broad overview of the
exercise trial, the lessons learned, and a set of recommendations for
continuing development.

Proponency

The principal agencies and organizations involved in planning and
conducting the STOW-ET included:

¢ DTDD, Force XXI Training Program (FXXITP) — responsible
for STOW architecture and infrastructure issues; liaison with
National Simulation Center (NSC) and the Simulation, Training,
and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM).

¢ 16th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox — provided
observer/controllers (O/Cs) from the Warthog Team and the Senior
Observer Controller Team (SOCT) and simulation site staff from
the contractor logistics support (CLS) teams. These teams
routinely provide training support for virtual and constructive
simulation-based exercises at Fort Knox.

¢ ARI and its contractors, the COBRAS Team - provided the
exercise concept and plan, the TSP for the exercise, exercise
control, and exercise evaluation.



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

INTRODUCTION

Between 24 February and 6 March 1998, the Directorate of Training
and Doctrine Development (DTDD)' of the U.S. Army Armor Center
conducted a unique training exercise at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The
exercise was a multiechelon training opportunity for members of the 3
Brigade, 42nd Infantry Division (Mechanized [M]) of the New York
National Guard. It served as both a training opportunity for the
members of the 3" Brigade and as a research opportunity for exploring
the use of linked simulations

The exercise employed linked virtual and constructive simulations, and
was supported by two Fort Knox-based observer/controller teams.
Government and civilian contractor teams worked collegially
throughout the process of planning, development, and implementation.
The linked simulation environment is referred to as a Synthetic Theater
of War (STOW), and the February-March 1998 exercise is referred to
as the STOW Exercise Trial (STOW-ET).

Because of the dual purposes of training and research, the participating
unit was the “experimental unit” in this large-scale experiment. The
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
(ARI) and its contractors, the Combined Arms Operations at Brigade
Level Realistically Achieved Through Simulation (COBRAS) Team,
conducted the evaluation during the trial implementation. The
evaluation had a threefold focus: simulation and infrastructure
requirements, training support and resource requirements, and training
value.

This report summarizes the STOW-ET implementation and findings.
More details about development, implementation, and results are
contained in a separate ARI report, The COBRAS Synthetic Theater of
War Exercise Trial: Report on Development, Results, and Lessons
Learned (Campbell et al., in preparation).

Background

The STOW-ET was the latest in a series of developmental activities on
two axes: STOW-type training and structured simulation-based
training. Efforts within the STOW axis are examining linked
simulation technologies, and include STOW-Europe (1995),
STOWEX-96, STOWEX-97 and STOWEX-98 (summarized in
Campbell et al., in preparation).

' Acronyms and other abbreviations used in this report are defined at the end of the report.



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

JSIMS
JSTARS
M

MDMP
MICLIC
ModSAF
MSE

NSC

NTC

o/c
OPFOR
OPORD
OPTEMPO
PIR

RCVS
recon

S2

$3
SIMNET
SIMNET-D
SIMNET-T
SOCT
STOW
STOWEX
STOW-ET
STRICOM
TAC
TACFAX
TF

TSP

VIP
WARSIM

Joint Simulation System

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
mechanized

military decision-making process
mine clearing line charge
modular semi-automated forces
mobile subscriber equipment
National Simulation Center
National Training Center
observer/controller

opposing forces

operations order

operational tempo

priority intelligence requirements
Reconfigurable Combat Vehicle Simulator
reconnaissance

brigade intelligence officer
brigade operations officer
simulation networking

SIMNET ~ Developmental
SIMNET - Training

Senior Observer Controller Team
Synthetic Theater of War

STOW Exercise

STOW Exercise Trial
Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command
tactical command post

tactical facsimile

task force

training support package

Virtual Training Program
Warfighters’ Simulation

34



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the assumption that
Concerning Training STOW technologies will continue to be developed, improved, and tried
Support out with units. In order to conduct trials with units, TSPs and other

training support will be needed. These recommendations lay out the
fundamental and immediate requirements for continuing technology
development support.

They also address long term requirements, including additional
evaluation of TSP components and personnel support infrastructures.

The current version of the STOW TSP is only partially complete and

1, Implementation of wit) need additional materials before it can be used again. Specifically:

STOW training will - .
require additional TSP_—*_It contains comprehensive tactical materials and unit preparation
work, materials.

¢ Simulation files and documentation will require extensive
reconstruction for future implementations. Already (in October
1998) the simulation is different from what it was in February
1998, at the beginning of this STOW trial. In general, the
simulation archive files (the files that define starting conditions)
are not upwardly compatible. Additionally, some of the simulation
improvements will cause workarounds that were incorporated in
the STOW-ET versions to be unnecessary.

« As the STOW and individual simulations are changed, instructions
for roleplayers and interactors will require corresponding revisions.
Those instructions were written for the existing version of the
STOW technology.

« Materials for the exercise management require additional testing in
atrial. The Exercise Director and OPFOR Controller guides were
available for the trial, but were significantly expanded thereafter.
Specific instructions for the STOW Coordinator (the Exercise
Director’s principal assistant) and the Blue Forces Controller must
be incorporated in appropriate guides. These roles were carried out
by COBRAS staff and written instructions were unnecessary for
the trial. Thus the effectiveness of the printed instructions has not
yet been tested.

Preparation for the STOW-ET spanned a period of eight months for
preparation of the exercise and the TSP. A period of at least four
months should be allowed for making revisions and completing a TSP
for another iteration.

22



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Training schedule
considerations

Multiechelon training such as was provided in the STOW-ET brings
together personnel from the platoon through division levels. However,
the levels of activity for different echelons peak at different times
during the course of a mission. As a result, platoons and companies in
simulation would be essentially idle during the brigade’s intense
planning activities.

In order to keep the training activities at valuable levels throughout the
training period for all personnel, planners of the STOW-ET devised a
schedule that involved VTP training for platoon and company team
personnel while the battalion and brigade were engaged in planning and
preparation. This also allowed units in SIMNET. and DRSs to become
familiar with the operating requirements of the simulation environment.

The risk in this type of scheduling is in requiring soldiers to spend too
much time in their virtual vehicles. Simulation fatigue at the end of the
two weeks of virtual training was reported by many participants, whose
STOW-ET was preceded by a week of VTP exercises.

at



CONTENTS

Introduction caeessssesssssesessssessssessssessssnsscsssssesessssenseassesseesecnseseeneene 1
Background.. 1
Utilization... 1
PLOPONENCY ......ssessesssssersersersesssesnsesesssenneeneeanennecneeneenneearense 1
Research Questions 3
3
3
Context 4
Simulation Environment 5
Participating Unit 5
Simulation Control. 5
Communications .... 7
7
Exercise Time Line. 8
Training Support
Package = sasssssessssstssessesssssecsnesecnscsscsscsncenecesccnscenecsscaseceucesnenneess 9
Performance Objectives... 9
Observation and Feedback 10
Exercise Control ........cssessecssessesseeseenneesseeseensesenseneeeseesneesnense 10
Findings and
Recommendations . ie
Findings on Technologies .. 11
Translation between simulations for weapons systems,
battlefield effects, and CSS function .....scesssseesseseeses 12
Desktop reconfigurable simulations supporting scout
participation 14
Portrayal of environmental conditions in SIMNET . 14
Communications. 15
Effects of physical locations of the CPs on unit and
observer/controller COMMUNICATIONS ...ssessecseererreeseeseeees 15
STOW features to support AAR functionS .....crvene 16



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Translation between When the simulation environment does not accurately portray
simulations for weapons _ Weapons systems and their effects, participants cannot gauge their

systems, battlefield own situation.

effects, and CSS functions Incomplete translations in the STOW-ET included the following:

¢ Only about 40% of the vehicles and weapons systems modeled in
BBS can be translated correctly into ModSAF. Only about 50%
of vehicles and weapons that are modeled in ModSAF translate
correctly from ModSAF to SIMNET. Combat assets translate
best, followed by combat support, followed by CSS assets. In the
STOW-ET, extensive workarounds were required to compensate
for these technical weaknesses.

« Dismounted forces and their associated weapons do not translate
from BBS into SIMNET. This particularly affected scouts and
dismounted infantry, but also affected the ability to portray
realistic Level I and Level Il rear area threats.

e Aircraft modeling does not translate between simulations.
Aircraft were flown independently in both ModSAF and BBS in
order for all effects to be modeled. This was a complex and time
consuming requirement, and has the potential for introducing
inconsistencies and confusion.

« Except for M109A6 HE rounds, no indirect fire artillery correctly
translates from BBS all the way through to SIMNET. This
results in all artillery effects looking the same; there is no way to
distinguish among effects in terms of type, size or volume. This
seriously affected reporting, battle damage assessment (BDA),
and battle tracking. Additionally, none of the simulation systems
allows forward observers to execute their roles in Copperhead
missions, negating any training value of planning to employ these
munitions in simulation.

¢ Engineer equipment such as earthmovers, armored vehicle
launched bridge (AVLB), and Volcanoes do not translate into

SIMNET. The mine clearing line charge (MICLIC) translates to
SIMNET only as a trailer and provides no signature.

12



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Commander’s Reconnaissance: The commander, as the most
experienced and best qualified person in the brigade, needs to get a
“feel” for the battlefield during the planning process. The results
of the commander’s reconnaissance should be reflected in his
initial guidance and in his course of action selection. This
reconnaissance should take place early, very soon after the order is
received. Properly conducted and integrated, it becomes an
important factor in the MDMP process. In BBS-based exercises,
the commander cannot access the virtual ground that he must fight
on. Selected members of the staff such as the S3 and S2 should
reconnoiter as well, time and resources permitting. A commander
may follow up with a reconnaissance at specific points in the
planning process, often including subordinate commanders or
selected staff. The DRS and STOW links permit the commander
and others to conduct reconnaissance several times during the
planning phase.

Land Management: The coordination of space and time on actual
terrain is a problem in brigade operations. This is an $3
responsibility, but involves coordination with all combat support
and CSS assets assigned to, supporting, or operating in the brigade
area of operations. Restricted terrain highlights land management
problems. Land management also becomes a vital issue when
timing between movements of maneuver units is not carefully
specified in the OPORD, rehearsed, and coordinated by brigade in
execution. It is a problem often not faced in constructive
simulation because space (terrain) conflicts have no effect.
However, with a TF maneuvering on the virtual terrain, these
problems may surface, depending on how realistically combat
support and CSS resources are portrayed in the virtual realm.

Battle Monitoring: During crucial parts of the mission, such as
the counter-reconnaissance fight or the execution of the breach, it
is often very difficult for the brigade staff to get an accurate picture
of what is occurring from reports they receive through the TF CPs.
One technique is to place a brigade radio on the subordinate unit
command frequency (task force or company team) and directly
monitor the action. In the STOW environment, frequent “real”
message traffic will be generated by soldiers in the virtual
simulators. If existing communications deficiencies can be
overcome, this could provide an opportunity for more realistic
situational awareness.

29



¢ Indirect Fire Support: Fire support is dependent on ground
observers. The ground observer provides details and controls that
let the brigade fire support officer (FSO) prioritize fires and react
to a changing tactical situation. Observed fire allows adjustment of
that fire for greater effect, including repeat missions, to ensure
targets are neutralized. Observed fire also minimizes indirect fire
fratricides because the observer should know the friendly force
locations. The ability to coordinate control of fires down to the
lowest level should provide more realistic training.

¢ Reconnaissance Tracking: The brigade issues a reconnaissance
order to the TF to meet certain brigade priority intelligence
requirements (PIR). The TF usually must implement these PIR
through its scout platoon, sometimes augmented by other assets.
The brigade must monitor the reconnaissance effort to ensure that
the assets are in place, operational, replaced if lost, and that the
PIR is answered or otherwise resolved. The brigade and TF both
make continual modifications in the requirements or in the assets
as the situation changes. The virtual environment allows the
reconnaissance plan to be “played-out real time” and to be affected
by “real” events such as enemy interdiction of assets, assets getting
lost, or assets not observing the PIR. Real life adjustments must
then be made. PIR should be realistically addressed in virtual
environments. The linkage of SIMNET crews on the ground with
the TF staff, up to brigade, allows this information flow to occur.

2. Assessment of
training value will
| require continued use of
STOW exercises.

The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

A formal assessment of training value would enable researchers to
determine the ways in which linked simulation-based exercises benefit
users. Benefits must be examined for different types of tasks as well as
for different segments of the candidate training audience.

Use of a STOW-type exercise, even under experimental conditions, is
likely to be perceived by units as a good use of their training resources.
If they continue to sign up for using the exercise, it will be possible to
evaluate and improve the technology and the TSP. And if the
technology and TSP continue to improve, it should be possible within
the next year to conduct a more formal training value assessment. Full
experiments will likely never be realized, but each test and data
collection will carry researchers closer to definitive answers.

30



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

.

Third, communications systems must be improved. Despite the
major accomplishments in providing communications links, this
was still cited by participants as a shortcoming, both during and
after the exercise. Future replications of STOW-type exercises at
Fort Knox must include the requirement to improve the realism
and reliability of communications.

Future training exercises are likely to make this serious
shortcoming in technical maturity more apparent, particularly in
multiechelon training. The replication of digital systems and the
bottom-up, top-down model of the Army Tactical Command and
Control Systems (ATCCS) are immediate considerations for any
planned training setting.. Work will be required soon to upgrade
the existing communications architecture of the Fort Knox
SIMNET, BBS, and STOW environments to one that meets
information age training requirements.

Fourth, the issue of relocating CPs to provide greater distances
between them and to discourage inappropriate face-to-face
contacts appears to be minor and easily addressed. Relocation of
simulation systems to collocate the various control teams and
observers is a much greater undertaking. Solutions that enhance
control communications without requiring the movement of
simulation systems should be explored first.

18


Research Report 1732

The COBRAS Synthetic Theater of War Exercise Trial:
Summary and Report of Findings

Charlotte H. Campbell, Roy C. Campbell, Laura A. Ford,
David M. Pratt, and Daniel E. Deter
Human Resources Research Organization

Armored Forces Research Unit
Barbara A. Black, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

December 1998

SS

Army Project Number Education and Training Technology
20262785A791

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii


The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Simulation
Environment

The STOW-ET employed linkages among the virtual simulations of
SIMNET and the Desktop Reconfigurable Simulators (DRSs),” and the
constructive simulations of Modular Semi-Automated Forces
(ModSAF) and the Brigade/Battalion Battle Simulation (BBS). A
more technical description is given in the Fort Knox STOW-A 1.6
Handbook (DTDD, 1998).

Participating Unit

The 3 Brigade (Bde), 4am Infantry Division (ID) (M) participated as
the STOW-ET unit, with division staff support from the 42"4 TD (M).
For the STOW-ET 3” Bde was organized as two armor and one
mechanized infantry battalions, with supporting field artillery,
logistics, engineer, and air defense artillery. Only one battalion task
force (TF 1-101) deployed to Fort Knox with the 3" Bde. Other
members of 42"¢ ID (M) participated to represent the other two
battalions, as described below.

Simulation Control

Figure 2 portrays the 3 Bde and TF 1-101 organization and
simulation representation for the STOW-ET.

Division assets were controlled from a BBS workstation by members
of the 42"¢ ID (M) staff, serving as the division response cell. They
were supplemented and assisted by COBRAS and FXXITP staff.

The 3" Bde staff occupied main, rear, and tactical command posts
(CPs) located inside the SIMNET-D facility. The 3 Bde Commander
also had the reconfigurable combat vehicle simulator (RCVS) DRS for
use as his command vehicle, allowing him to move around on the
battlefield and observe the virtual (SIMNET and other DRS) and semi-
automated (BBS- and ModSAF-generated) forces.

TF 1-101 participated with three armor companies and one
mechanized infantry company. The battalion staff operated a main CP
and combat trains CP (CTCP) inside the SIMNET-D facility.

2 Two types of reconfigurable simulations were used. One is the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)
Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative (ARSI), which is a desktop representation of the basic controls with dynamic
visual displays of the simulated terrain and environment. The other is the Reconfigurable Combat Vehicle
Simulator (RCVS), a large simulator contained in a cabinet representing the commander’s vehicle. Both are
referred to as Desktop Reconfigurable Simulators (DRSs), although the RCVS is not, in fact, desktop.



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Communications Simulated frequency modulation (FM) radio communications and
telephone lines linked all the workstations, CPs, and simulators ina
configuration consistent with actual communications networks within
the brigade.

Four dedicated telephone lines were linked in a conference call (“hot
loop”) configuration to support administrative communications
requirements for exercise controllers and observers.
The communications infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.
ae oe - ~ | OPFORTM ~~
BBS Controller
orc Blue Forces
o Controller
@ _‘SIMNET-T EXCON
BLDG 2020 SIMNET-D Interactor
BLDG 2021
x < BBS
Controller
o 7
e
OOOO
SIMNET ole SKIDGEL HALL
Controller Bay5 BLDG 1724
Senior EXCON @ OIC Digital Radio
Technical Roleplayers ® O/C Hot Loop
Controller @ Exercise Control Hot Loop
% Technical Control Hot Loop

Figure 3. Communications infrastructure for the STOW-ET.

Scenario

3TM Bde, 42TM ID (M) performed a deliberate attack (DATK) mission
against a Krasnovian Heavy OPFOR in a simulation-based National
Training Center (NTC) locale. The exercise scenario included receipt
of the mission, planning, preparation, execution of the DATK, and
consolidation and reorganization. The mission was executed twice,
using the same scheme of maneuver and starting conditions each time.



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE
December 1998 Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
April 1997 - June 30 1998

4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report
of Findings

Sa. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
DASWO01-94-D-0011

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
0602785A.

6, AUTHOR(S)

Campbell, C. H., Campbell, R. C., Ford, L. A., Pratt, D. M. and
Deter, D. E. (HumRRO)

5c. PROJECT NUMBER
A791

$d. TASK NUMBER
2228

Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER
ROG

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO)

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400

Alexandria, VA 22314

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IK

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM
ARI

11, MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Research Report 1732

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Contracting Officer’s Representative: Kathleen Quinkert

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

This report gives an abbreviated summary of the development and implementation conditions and the findings for the Synthetic
Theater of War (STOW) Exercise Trial, conducted at Fort Knox, KY in March 1998. The trial results indicate that there is potential
for realizing training value from STOW-type training, and that training support materials can be developed using the same model and
procedures used for other Force XXI Training Program exercises. However, improvements to the simulation systems and linkages, the
communications systems, and the physical layout are needed prior to further research on training value. Details about the full
preparation process, reasons for decisions, and data that support the reported findings are contained in a research report entitled The
COBRAS Synthetic Theater of War Exercise Trial: Report on Development, Results, and Lessons Learned (Campbell, Pratt, Deter,

Graves, Ford, Campbell, & Quinkert, in preparation).

15. SUBJECT TERMS

a eee

19, LIMITATION OF

ne

20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THISPAGE | ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)
+ + + oe Dr. Kathleen Quinkert
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 44 DSN 464-3450

Standard Form 298



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Recommendations
Concerning
Assessment of
Training Value

Because it was a trial of both the technology and the TSP requirements,
the STOW-ET was not considered to be the appropriate laboratory for
training value assessment. However, measures of participant
perceptions of value and perceptions of exercise utility in a training
calendar give some indications of potential value. Further research is
needed to assess this potential, and, as stated earlier, further
development will be needed to support such research.

The recommendations below are intended to provide direction for
additional research on training value in STOW-type exercises.

I. Seven specific areas
Should be addressed in
research on STOW
training value.

Insights gained from the STOW-ET include the identification of
training opportunities that are not addressed in other simulation-based
exercises. The following seven areas, if explored and developed in a
STOW-based exercise, may provide capabilities that improve the
quality of brigade and battalion training.

« Battle Damage Assessment (BDA): Assessing the effects of
action on the enemy is essential to painting an accurate picture of
the enemy composition and capabilities. Observation,
confirmation, reporting, recording, and consolidation start at the
crew level and are applied through brigade. BDA must be reported
to and recorded by the staff after each direct fire encounter with the
enemy, and is also required as part of every indirect fire mission
and air strike. In SIMNET, soldiers can maneuver on the
battlefield and report battle damage as they see it, a capability that
makes BDA a realistic training opportunity. While battle damage
can be estimated in BBS, the requirement to obtain BDA from
forces on the ground versus reading it off a screen should enhance
the requirement for all levels.

¢ Command and Control: During crucial parts of the engagement
or mission, the brigade commander physically locates where he can
best assess and influence the conduct of the battle. This will often
be co-located with the main TF commander or on a piece of key
terrain overlooking the action. The DRS and virtual links allow
the brigade commander to position himself and to see what key
units, and the enemy, are doing on the ground. This ability, which
does not exist in BBS, allows for more realistic interaction of the
brigade commander with his subordinate commanders and places a
more realistic requirement on the staffs in integrating command
and control into their battle tracking.

28



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

At the same time, the physical separation among the simulation sites
made communications among observers difficult. The BBS site is
about a half-mile from the two SIMNET buildings, which are side-by-
side. Because meetings among exercise control personnel were often
impromptu, it was difficult to assemble all of the appropriate
observers and simulation controllers to provide input on decisions
affecting exercise pace and direction.

STOW features to support
AAR functions

In exercises that focus on staff performance at brigade or battalion
level, most of the observer information is collected from direct
observation of the staff members. In lower echelon exercises, where
most of the activity occurs on the battlefield, and mostly during
execution, a see-all workstation is essential for obtaining ground truth
about events.

The STOW-ET, as a multiechelon exercise, required that observers be
positioned to observe both the training audience performance and
battlefield activity and effects. However, the AAR workstation in the
SIMNET facility was not see-all: Only elements that had been
translated to SIMNET or generated in ModSAF were visible to the
observers. This meant that observers were unable to track the battle
with any more precision than the training audience members whom
they observed. Additionally, they were unable to show the aggregated
forces during playbacks at the AARs.

The BBS workstation set aside for observer use, located at the BBS
simulation site (about a half-mile from the building housing the 3"
Bde CPs), was see-all. But the playback capabilities in BBS are
Screen captures at isolated points in time, rather than dynamic
presentations of actions. Observers felt that AARs conducted using
BBS playback were not sufficiently informative to justify the time.

16



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

_————_—
Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Human Resources Research Organization
Technical review by

Richard E. Christ
Dorothy L. Finley

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI.
Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports 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.


The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

4. TSP developers need Assuming each trial using STOW technologies would test changes in

continued trials of the _ technology capabilities, developers of exercises and TSPs would be

STOW. able to collect data pertaining to training design and implementation
models. This information is necessary for completion of the STOW
TSP. Without these trials and a focused formative evaluation, TSP
developers are relying solely on experience with other programs to
modify the exercise design and support packages.

24



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

ACRONYMS AND
ABBREVIATIONS

1SG
AAR
ARI
ARPA
ARSI
ATCCS
AVLB
BBS
BBSE
BDA
Bde
BFV
BLDG
BSE
CLS
COBRAS

cP

CSS
CTC
CTCP
DATK
DRS
DTDD
EXCON
FIST-V

FSB

FSO
FXXITP
HMMWV

first sergeant

after action review

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

ARPA Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative

Army Tactical Command and Control Systems

_armored vehicle launched bridge

brigade/battalion battle simulation
brigade and battalion staff exercise
battle damage assessment

brigade

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

building

brigade staff exercise

contractor logistics support

Combined Arms Operations at Brigade Level Realistically Achieved
Through Simulation

command post

combat service support

Combat Training Center

combat trains CP

deliberate attack

desktop reconfigurable simulators
Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development
exercise control

fire support team-vehicle

frequency modulation

forward support battalion

fire support officer

Force XXI Training Program

high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle
infantry division

33



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

Findings on Training
Support Requirements

For structured simulation-based training, the training support
requirements include the scenario specifications and TSP as well as
the personnel required to implement the exercise. Because of the
experimental nature of the STOW-ET, not all of the TSP elements
were constructed, used, or evaluated. Instead, developers involved in
the trial performed the required duties and, in the process, identified
specific contents for TSP materials.

The STOW technology is still under development, and is still subject
to continual and frequent improvement. As a result, the training
implementation model and the corresponding TSP for using STOW
will continue to change. ‘The findings described below are in three _
categories:

¢ Scenario and TSP development
¢ Training audience and personnel support
e Scheduling considerations

The findings themselves should be regarded as relevant only to the
STOW-ET, although there are valuable implications and lessons for
continuing development and testing.

Scenario and TSP
development for the
STOW environment

The STOW-ET scenario and TSP materials were developed using
methods that had been used successfully during previous related
efforts. The methods are not unique to any particular simulation or
training need, but are customized for every application. These
methods worked quite satisfactorily for STOW scenario and TSP
development.

The greatest development challenge was related to the STOW
technology itself. Because the technology is still under development
(as discussed below), a variety of workaround solutions were
generated to cope with less fully developed aspects of the simulation.
Once tested and documented, these workarounds had to be included
in the TSP materials so that roleplayers and interactors could perform
them.

As the simulation technology matures, the workaround requirement
should shrink and eventually vanish. The TSP for future STOW-type
exercises will more closely resemble TSPs developed for related
structured training programs.

19


The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

RESEARCH The three areas of interest for the STOW-ET were developed jointly

QUESTIONS by the DITDD FXXITP and ARI. They address the technology and
operational requirements, the training support requirements, and the
training value. Results of the trial were also to be used to outline
recommendations for future STOW exercise development and use.

Focus The three areas of interest for the STOW-ET were restated as research

questions by ARI and FXXITP:

« What simulation and infrastructure capabilities are needed to
make STOW-type training possible?

_.«. zWhat are the unique challenges and considerations associated with
- training support for a structured STOW-type exercise?

« What is the value added by training in a STOW-type
environment?

Data Collection

The primary data collection efforts for addressing the research
questions included direct observation and documentation by the
COBRAS and FXXITP staff, structured individual and group
interviews conducted with selected members of the trial unit and
supporting participants, and questionnaires distributed to all
participating members of the trial unit and supporting participants.



The COBRAS STOW Exercise Trial: Summary and Report of Findings

The TF used the 40 M1A1 and 10 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV)
SIMNET simulators for its maneuver elements, and 7 DRSs for 3 fire
support team vehicles (FIST-Vs) and 4 1SG vehicles (configured as
HMMWYs); one 1SG operated from a ModSAF workstation. Combat
Service Support (CSS) functions for TF 1-101 were controlled and
accounted for in BBS.

The leader and section leaders of the TF 1-101 scout platoon occupied
five of the DRSs (configured as HMMWVs); the other section
vehicles were generated by ModSAF.

The remaining 3" Bde assets, including the other two TFs, were
represented by response cell teams who controlled the functions from
BBS workstations. The opposing forces (OPFOR) and the division
assets were also controlled from BBS workstations.

Roleplayed in xx
constructive
simulation 59) ©
y TACTICAL
MAIN i.
3 O]e-; REAR oN Performed in
: simulated CPs
u
r] FSB On ian i
Lt 1-69 1-127} CD ¥
‘al MAIN
1-101 CQ] -°-| etep
Roleplayed in
constructive simulation
mn
| 1
1
1
[| Bde Troops} ‘
1
1
‘
I H
L H
(as) a=
1
1
toe e eee Performed in virtual simulation

Figure 2. Task organization of 3% Bde, 42"! ID and TF 1-101 for the STOW-ET.

6