~

TIcaI

~ 

~~ EVALUATION 

BATTLE 

OF A 

SIMULATION:

COMPUTER-ASSISTED

~

CAMMS VERSUS A CPX

V Cs

Ira T. Kaplan and Herbert F. Barber 1

~

r ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT LEAVENWOR TH, KANSA S

H _

U. S. Army

Research lnqtitute ~

or the ‘haviora

~ 

and Sctcial Sciences

H April 1979

Approved for public releese; distribution unlimited.

— ~~ . -,.

~ 

. - . ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 
_____ .1— - -‘

~~

--‘

~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~

— —.,-.- -

~ ~

, .:

~

— ~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITU TE

FOR THE BE HAVIORAL AN D SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

a

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has bee n made by API , Please address corresponde n

~5

concerning distribution of reports to U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences , ATTN PERI-P , 5001 Eisenhowe r Avenue . Alexandr ia , Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed when is is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

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

.t

~

iQI~

. The findings in this report Ire not to be construed us an official Department of the Army position,

unless so designated by other authorized documents, 

I.

~ 

T.1

~

. ~~~~~~ 

I

~

TT

~ 

TTTTT

~~ 

;
—-~- ~—. . ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (IThen Det. Entered)

‘

~

Et~

,’

~~~ ~~~~~~ Ek ‘rAVIflLI ~~A 5’E READ INSTRUCTIONS rc ruic . uu...uM ri I R~i iuri 1

~

”

~” BEFORE COMPLET IN G FORM

mrn.in 

~~ 2 511~~ -

~~~ °~~~~~~~~~-~~~ ‘~~~~~ ~

1

~

_

~~UMBER

(

?Jrechnical ~ape~~~~~~ / 4L. AgZt ..—~

p. ___

L.,

~~

.ir i. c iena z,ubtlUeY

~~~~~” ~~~~ ~~ - .—“r!Pt’

~~F REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

~ ~~~~~~~~ ATION OF A ~~pMPUTER-~~~SISTED BA I’rLE --

/

SIMULATION : .c~~!Ø~~ VERSUS A CPX 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AIJTHOR(.) 8. CONTRACTOR GRANT NUMBER(.)

( ~T7ra T./KaPlan ~~~ Herbert F./Ba l --

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT III&MBERS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavior~~~ ~ and Social Sciences , PERI—OL ~ / J 2Q763743A773

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 \

~ - 1 . .- . II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,

~ ,

~~ __i~’ ~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. Army Combined Arms Training Development ( /f J Apr~~~~~ 79~~ Activity .

~~ IS. ~ UMBEROF PAG ES

Fort Leavenworth , KS 66027 82

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(If Un Office) 55. SECURITY CLASS. (of thi. report)

12 ~~~~ , 

Unclassified

—— .‘ ‘ 55.. OECLASSIFICATION/DOW PIGRADING SCHEDULE — —

16. DISTRIBUTION STA TEMEN T (of thu Report)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited.

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

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

5 9. KEY WORDS (Continue on revere, aid. if n.c..aary end Identify by block number)

battle simulation cost and training effectiveness

command and control traininq training effectiveness

command group training

computer—assisted battle simulation

20. A~~~~ RA CT Centfmu. en revere. at~~ If n.cenwy end Identify by block number)

— ~~~

‘

- The Computer-Assisted Map Maneuver System (CAMMS) creates a simulated

battle to train battalion and brigade command groups in the exercise of

command and control. In contrast to a conventional manual command post exercise (CPX) which is driven by prefabricated messages , CAMMS calculates

weapons effects , movement rates , and logistical support in real time to

provide the command group with realistic feedback about the consequences

)

~ ~~ 

(

~ 

(Continued) ~

~~~~~ ~

4734. EDIT5ON OF I NOV 63 IS OOS,OLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFI CATION OF ‘rHIS PAGE (When Des. Entered)

__ ~~_ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ! 

.

~~~~~ 

Z
~~~. .—~~~~~ - —~~~~~-,-

~~~~~~

- 

~~~~

-. 

—

~~~ —-— -—

Unciassirie~ SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whw Data Entered)

Item 20 (continued)

~~of its actions. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the cost

and training effectiveness of CAMMS in comparison to a CPX .

The players ’ attitudes toward the alternative training systems were

assessed by means of questionnaires administered to 50 battalion command

groups and 12 brigade command groups after they participated in CANMS exercises. Estimates of the preparation time and the number of controllers

required for each type of exercise were obtained from 14 CANMS exercise

directors and , for a CPX only , from 5 division and brigade commanders .

Analysis of the data showed that theylayers judged CAMMS to be significantly and consistently more realistic and more interesting than a CPX.

The functional areas in which CAMM S enjoyed the greatest advantage were

related to preparing and organizing the battlefield , controlling and coordinating combat operations , and concentrating combat power as rated by the S3;

and in the exercise of command and control rated by the commander , especially

exposure to the capabilities of enemy we apons systems, facing a thinking

enemy , and making decisions under real—time constraints.

‘ 4rhe principal weaknesses of CAMMS were that it did not produce much

stress , and it did not exercise the players in security procedures , such as

electromagnetic and communications security , nor did it require them to

react to special situations like enemy j amming , chemical , biological, or

nuclear warfare. The CPX also received low ratings in these areas.

A CAMMS exercise cost 25—30% less than a CPX , primarily because CANMS

required much less preparation time .

Overall , CAMMS produced a distinctly superior exercise at a moderate

saving in cost over a conventional CPX.

This report is written for the researcher in command-control investigations, although mili tary personnel will be interes ted in implica tions of the

results.

H

Unclassif ied

SECU~~lTv CLASSIF ICATION OF THIS PAGEI ’SThen Dee. Entered)

, _

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~:: ~~~~~~~

‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~ r
.—~

— --—- -.——

~~

-

~~~

-—,.-.. —

~~~

—

~~~~

.—.-—.- .,

~~

- —- , 

~~~~~~~-~~ -- -,—---~ ..~ . —,- .

~ 

—

.

__‘________ ‘

Technical Paper 355

EVALUATION OF A COMPUTER-ASSISTED

BATTLE SIMULATION:

CAMMS VERSUS A CPX

Ira T. Kaplan and Herbert F. Barber

I

Submitted by:

Robert S. Andrews , Chief

ARI FIEL D UN IT AT FORT LEAVEN WO RTH, KANSAS

Approved By:

A. H. Birnbaum, Acting Direct or

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LA BORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Off i ce, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

April 1979

Army Project Number Command/Control

20763743A773

Appraiied for public release; distribution unlimited.

.

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ .

. . ..

~~~ 

. - ~

2.

..
—- ~~~~- —--

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by brief ing or Disposition Form.

a

.

‘ I

‘, •‘—

~~~~~~

-— •

~~ 

- 

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~— -~~~~~~~_

~~~~~~~~ ~ __

~ T i T ~~. . .
- 

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- .

~~~~~fTW~~

F r

FOREWORD

The Fort Leavenworth Field Unit of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Soc ial Sciences (ARI) conducts a research

program in support of the Combined Arms Center (CAC). The CAC includes

the Combined Arms Training Developments Activity (CATRADA) , the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA), and the Command and

General Staff College (CGSC) .

The CATRADA—related efforts encompass the identification of

critical command group performance requirements at battalion , brigade ,

and division levels; the development of procedures for measuring command group performance ; the analysis of organizational and cognitive

processes involved in command and control ; the development of procedures for measuring the training effectiveness of battle simulations ;

and the development of specifications for more effective command and

control training systems through experimentation with current

simulations.

Part of that program addressed the specific requirement to provide a preliminary assessment of the cost and training effectiveness

of the Computer-Assisted Map Maneuver System (CAMMS) . CAMMS was developed to provide battalion and brigade command groups with a more

realistic and responsive training experience , than a conventional manual

command post exercise (CPX) provides.

This report describes a survey of player attitudes that identified areas in which CAMMS was judged superior to a CPX and areas in

need of improvement. A survey of trainees and exercise directors was

used to investigate the capabilities and limitatiore, of both training

systems (CAMM S and a CPX). The investigation , begun in the summer of

1977, was responsive to both the special requirements of CATRADA and

to those of Army Project 2Q763743A773 concerned with the improvement

of command and control training methods and systems .

~~~ 4_.

(JJOSEPH Z NER

Technical Director

-C

~ 

itl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
— —..~~ . — , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --,- -~

-,.- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-.— ---.

-.-,

~~

-

EVALUATION OF A COMPUTER-ASSISTED BM~

PLE SIMULATION :

CAMMS VERSUS A CPX

BRIEF

Requirement :

The Combined Arms Ce-’ter, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., is the pro—

ponent for all Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC ) command and staff

simulations . Determination of the effectiveness and efficiency of

simulations in relation to alternatives is a recurring requirement for

guiding the continued development and use of simulations to the most

favorable cost-benefit relationship. To satisfy part of this requirement, a preliminary comparative evaluation of the Computer-Assisted

Map Maneuver System ( CAMMS) and a conventional command post exercise

(CPX) in terms of cost and training effectiveness was made.

Procedure :

Questionnaires were administered to 50 battalion command groups

and 12 brigade command groups after they participated in CANNS exercises. The questionnaires asked players to rate CAMMS and a CPX on

several measures of training effectiveness , including realism, motivation , and the degree to which the player was required to perform sub—

tasks of the Battalion or Brigade Command Group Army Tra ining and

Evaluation Program (ARTEP).

Estimates of man—hours required to prepare CA!vIMS and a CPX and

of the number of controllers needed came from 14 CANMS exercise directors and , f or a CPX only, from 5 division and brigade commanders.

Findings :

1. CAMMS was judged significantly and consistently more realistic

and more interesting than a CPX . Two functional areas in which CAMMS

enjoyed the greatest advantage were related to (a) preparing and organizing the battlefield and (b) controlling and coordinating combat

operations and concentrating combat power as rated by the S3. CAMMS

showed up well in the exercise of command and control rated by the

commander , especially in exposure to the capabilities of enemy weapons

systems in facing a thinking enemy , and in making decisions under realtime constraints .

A 

- 

- A
-

- —y- •r

~ - :“

~ !—!•~~~ —

2. Principal weaknesses of CAMMS were that it did not produce

much stress and did not exercise the players in security procedures ,

such as electromagnetic and communications security . Nor did CAMMS r

require players to react to special situations , such as enemy j amming

or chemical , biological, or nuclear warfare . The CPX also received

low ratings in these areas.

3. A CANMS exercise cost 25% to 30% less than a CPX , primarily

because CAMMS required much less preparation time.

4. Overall , CAMMS produced a distinctly superior exercise at a

moderate savings in cost over a conventional CPX.

Utilization of Findings :

Findings from this research will contribute to developing strategies to increase capabilities of current battle simulations and to

forming specifications for future command and control training simulations. Results of this investigation will provide the Army Training

Support Center (ATSC) of TRADOC and potential users in the field an

initial perspective of the training effectiveness of CAMMS . Results

will help users decide when and for which training objectives to use

CAMMS in its current form. In addition , CATRADA will identify weak

areas to help guide the continued development of the CAMMS system.
- . -. ~

. . 

—- -

~~--~~~~ -~~~—--. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

~~~.-~-~

_______

EVALUATION OF A COMPUTER-ASSISTED BATTLE SIMULATION :

CAMMS VERSUS A CPX

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

Purpose 2

METHOD 3

Attitude Questionnaires 3

Data Analysis 4

Personnel Requirements Questionna ires 4

RESULTS 5

Attitude Questionnaires 5

Perceived Similarity 5

Perceived Improvement 6

Perceived Realism 6

Motivation 7

Sl Subtasks 8

S2 Subtasks 9

S3 Subtasks 10

S4 Subtasks 11

FSO Subtasks 13

Characteristics of Command and Control 14

Implications for Further Development of CAMMS 14

Relative Advantages of CAMMS and a CPX 16

Personnel Requirements 20

COSTS 24 ¶

Preparation 24

Controllers 26

Computer Time 26

Terminal Support 27

Total Costs 27

CONCLUSIONS 27

APPENDIX A. ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRES 29

B. PERSONNEL REQU IREMENTS QUESTIONNA IRES 45

— _— —.— _, .b .

- . - 

.
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRES 53

D. PERSONNEL COSTS 77

DISTRIBUTION 81

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean ratings of perceived similarity of tasks

to actual j ob requirements 6

2. Mean ratings of perceived realism 7

3. Mean ratings for motivation 8

4. Mean ratings for Sl subtasks 9

5. Mean ratings for S2 subtasks 10

6. Mean ratings for S3 subtasks 12

7. Mean ratings for S4 subtasks 13

8. Mean ratings for characteristics of command and

control 15

9. Man-hours of preparation 22

10. ANOVA summary for total person-hours of preparation . 23

11. Number of controllers 23

12. ANOVA summary for total number of controllers 24

13. Preparation costs for a 16-hour exercise 25

14. Controller costs for a 16—hour exercise 26

15. Total exercise costs 28

C-i. Perceived similarity of tasks to actual job

requirements 53

C-2. ANOVA summary for perceived similarity 54

C—3. Perceived improvement in performance 55

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-.± - - -

.

~~~~~~~

.- 

~ -- -i - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- -- -. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table C-4. ANOVA summary for perceived improvement 56

C—5 . Perceived realism 57

C-6. ANOVA summary for perceived realism 59

C-7. Motivation 60

C-B . ANOVA summary for motivation 61

C—9 . ARTEP subtasks rated by Sl 62

C—b . ANOVA summary for Si subtasks 63

C-il. ARTEP subtasks rated by S2 64

C— l2 . ANOVA summary for S2 subtasks 66

C-l3. ARTEP subtasks rated by S3 67

C-l4. ANOVA summary for S3 subtasks 70

C-lS. ARTEP subtasks rated by S4 71

C-l6. ANOVA summary for S4 subtasks 72

C-17. ARTEP subtasks rated by FSO 73

C-18. ANOVA summary for FSO subtasks 74

C-l9. Characteristics of command and control rated by

commander 75

C—20. ANOVA summary for characteristics of command

and control 76

D-l. Composite standard rates for costing military

personnel services 77

D-2. Preparation costs for a 16-hour CPX 78

D—3 . Cost per man—hour of exercise preparation 80

~~~
- ~~-. —~ -~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ -

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Low—rated measures of training effectiveness 17

2. Low-rated subtasks and characteristics of command

and control 18

3. Measures of training effectiveness rated better

for one system than for the other 19

4. Subtasks and characteristics of command and control

rated better for one system than for the other . . . . 21

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~

..
___________________________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---.

EVALUATION OF A COMPUTER-ASSISTED BATTLE SIMULATION :

CAMMS VERSUS A CPX

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Computer-Assisted Map Maneuver System (CAMMS) was designed to

provide a more realistic exercise than the conventional command post

exercise (CPX) for battalion and brigade coitimand groups . The CPX has

been criticized for insufficient sensitivity to the players ’ actions.

The CPX is driven by “canned ” message inputs written before the exercise begins; thus it follows a relatively predetermined course. In

addition , the assessments of weapons effects, movement rates , and logistics support are somewhat arbitrary. As a result , the CPX does not provide the command group with realistic feedback about the consequences

of its actions. CAMMS is intended to remedy these deficiencies by providing free—play exercises that are responsive to the command group’s

actions and that provide realistic battlefield outcomes as feedback

to the players.

CAMMS can accommodate an exercise consisting of armor, mechanized

infantr

~’, infantry, and cavalry maneuver brigades and battalions with

normal combat support and combat service support elements in a nonnuclear environment against an appropriate enemy force. The computer

data bank includes an opposing force segment capable of fielding two

motorized rifle divisions and a tank division w ith all their normal

support units. Any unit , from platoon to section level up to a full

maneuver brigade , can be played in any combination . Artillery , air ,

mortars , helicopters , admin/log , and intelligence fu nctions are handled

as in actual combat. The computer calculates weapons effects , movement

rates, and logistics support subject to the influence of weather and

terrain . CAMMS can be used anywhere through a civilian time-shared

computer system. Terminals are linked to the computer mainframe by

telephone so that units can par ticipate at remote field sites or at

central administrative locations. Compared to a CPX , CAMMS should require less preparation time , provide fa ster and more accurate results ,

and insure greater objectivity. The system also provides historical

data for analysis and critique .

To obtain insight as to how well CAMMS objectives are working

out, the Training Devices and Simulations Directorate of the U.S. Army

Combined Arms Tra~ ling Developments Activity (CATP.ADA) at Fort Leavenworth , Kans., requested that the colocated ARI field unit investigate

the cost and training effectiveness of CAMNS in comparison to a CPX .

This investigation was par t of the field unit’s research support to

CATR.ADA programs concerned with training systems for battalion and

brigade command groups.

1

— 

:- —s —~
-.-— ,.~~~~ -.— -- -,.-. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation was to assess the comparative

effectiveness and cost of two alternative systems , CANMS and a conventional CPX , for training battalion and brigade command groups in

combined arms operations . In the terminology of the Cost and Training

Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA) Handbook (TRADOC Pamphlet 71-10), this

is a training development study (TDS). The study compares alternative

training approaches designed to achieve the same trainee performance

objectives. CAMMS was developed to produce a more realistic exercise

than a CPX, to motivate the players more intensely , and to exercise

them more thoroughly in the subtasks of the Battalion and Brigade Cornstand Group ARTEPs, as described in chapter 10 of ARTEP 71-2.

Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of the two systems contributed to two general objectives of the field unit’s research

program :

1. To develop procedures for measuring the training effectiveness of battle simulations, and

2. To assist in developing specifications for more effective

command and control training systems through experimentation

with current simulations .

With respect to measuring training effect iveness , the specific

aims of this investigation were to gather data on

• Similarity of exercise tasks to actual job requirements ,

• Improvement in performance ,

• Realism,

• Stress, involvement , and interest produced by each exercise ,

• Amount of required ARTEP subtask performance related to

player positions (Sl , S2, S3 , S4 , and fire support officer) ,

and

• How well each system exercised certain characteristics of

command and control, as seen by the battalion and brigade

commanders. •

To help develop specifications for more effective training systems, these data were analyzed to identify areas in which each system

was weak and areas in which one system was distinctly superior to the

other. Finally , to evaluate the cost—effectiveness of each system ,

data were gathered on the resources required to prepare and conduct

each type of exercise .

2

_ _~_ ._

~

__~

1_ .

~~~~~~~~~
METHOD

Attitude Questionnaires

Ideally, the alternative systems would be evaluated by experimentally measuring the changes in command group performance produced

by training with each system. However , limited time and resources

precluded such experimentation. Therefore , as an interim phase , training effec tiveness was assessed by means of questionnaires designed to

measure attitudes of players toward alternative training systems .

Questionnaires were administered to 50 battalion command groups

and 21 brigade command groups after they participated in CANMS exercises. The questionnaires , reproduced in Appendix A , have two parts.

Part I was the same for everyone . Comprised of 11 items, it is concerned with four measures of training effectiveness :

1. Similarity of tasks performed in each exercise (CAMM S and a

CPX) to actual job requirements,

2. Perceived improvement in individual and group performance

produced by participation in each exercise,

3. Perceived realism of several a spects of each exercise, and

4. Motivation ; i.e., stress , involvement, and interest produced

by each exercise.

Part II differed for each player position . The forms for the Sl,

82 , S3 , S4 , and fire support officer (FSO) a~zked each player to rate

the degree to which CAMMS and a CPX exercised the performance of specific ARTEP subtasks appropriate to the player ’s position. The battalion and brigade commanders rated the alternative systems on 14 characteristics associated with the exercise of command and control.

Each item in both parts of the questionnaire asked the respondent

to rate on a 5—point scale how well a particular aspect of the exercise

was represented by CAMM S and, based on previous experience , by a CPX :

1. Not at all

2. slightly

3. Moderately

4. Considerably

5. Greatly.

3

_.I..
- ~-

~~--—--—----.- ~- ,— --- -~ .- ---- _______

Data Analysis

The data analysis includes only response s by respondents who

rated both CAMMS and a CPX . Means and standard deviation were computed for each item on the questionnaire , and an analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was performed for each of the measures in Part I (similarity ,

improvement, real ism , and motivation) and for each set of subtasks

associated with a given player position in Part II. The ANOVA5 were

performed by Biomedical Computer Program1- “BMDP2V ’ following Winer ’s2

method of multifactor experiments with repeated measures on the same

elements.

The effects tested for significance were system (CANMS versus

CPX), level (battalion versus brigade), position (Si , S2 , etc.), item ,

and the interactions among these variables. When ther~ was a significant interaction between system and another variable , planned orthogonal comparisons (t tests) were performed to determine the signif icance of the difference between CAMMS and a CPX at each level of the

other variable. As a rule , whenever there is a significant interaction it is necessary to examine the simple main effects involved .

Kirk’ s procedure was used to make comparisons between means for simple

main effec ts .

3 It is similar to Winer ’s treatment of individual comparisons (1971, pp. 384, 385).

After it was determined which effe cts were statistically significant, their size and pattern were examined for practical significance

in relation to these questions :

1. In which areas is the CAMMS exercise most in need of

improvement?

2. In which areas does the d ifference between CAMMS and a CPX

ind icate the choice of one system over the other?

Personnel Requirements Questionna~ re

Questionnaires designed to ascertain the preparation time and the

number of controllers required for CAMMS and for a CPX were administered

to the exercise directors who were responsible for planning and

1

Dixon , W. 3. (Ed.). Biomedical Computer Programs. Berkeley: University of California Press , 1977.

2

Winer , B. 3. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd ed.).

New York : McGraw—Hill , 1971.

3

Kirk , R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont , Calif.: Brooks/Cole , 1968, pp. 73 , 74.

4

~ 

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1.. ~r
-

~~~ 

- -- .fl - -- —. -,

~

- 

~

— --- .

- --.-— —

~~~~~~

-,--

supervising the CAMMS exercises. Because only 8 of the 14 exercise

directors who answered the questions for CAMMS provided data for a

CPX , similar questionnaires were sent to eight division and brigade

commanders to increase the sample size for a CPX. Both questionnaires

are reproduced in Appendix B.

RESULTS

Attitude Questionnaires

About 60% of the respondents rated both CAMMS and a CPX. The

means and standard deviations (SD) of their ratings for each item , as

well as the numbers (n) of players who rated each item, are tabulated

in Appendix C. The players were fairly consistent in their ratings ,

as shown by the SDs , which averaged 1.0 and did not exceed 1.8. Each

table of data is followed by a summary of the ANOVA performed on those

data. When the ANOVA indicated that the effect of a particular van -

able was not statistically significant , the data were averaged over

the levels of that variable to summarize the significant effects more

concisely . For example , when there was no significant difference between battalion and brigade ratings , those data were combined, and

the mean ratings for the combined data were included in the description of the results.

Perceived Similarity

Table C—l shows that the perceived similarity of the tasks performed in the exercise to the rater ’s actual job requirements varied

from 3.0 (moderately similar) to 4.6 (greatly similar) . The ANOVA ,

sum marized in Table C—2 , indicates that the only significant effects

were position and the interaction between system and position . Since

the main effect and interactions of level were not significant , the

battalion and brigade ratings were combined in Table 1 to show more

clearly the two significant effects. For CAMMS, the greatest similarity was reported by the S3 , S2, and commander , followed by the S4

and FSO. The least similarity was seen by the Sl. For a CPX , the S2

and S3 reported the greatest similarity ; the commander , FSO , SI, and

S4. in descending order , reported somewhat lower ratings .

CANM S was ra ted higher than a CPX for three positions (S3, S4,

and commander) and lower for the other three . Averaged over all six

positions , there was virtually no difference between CAMMS and a CPX

in perceived similarity to actual job requirements. The planned t

tests showed that only the superiority of CAMMS reported by the cornmanders was statistically significant (p < .05).

5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

:

~~~ ~~

:

~~~--~~
Table 1

Mean Ratings of Perceived Similarity of Tasks

to Actual Job Requirements

Position CAMM S CPX

Sl 3.3 3.5

S2 4.0 4.1

S3 4.3 4.1

S4 3.6 3.4

FSO 3.6 3.6

Commander 4.0 3.7

Perceived Improvement

Two items on the questionnaire concerned the perceived improvement

in performance produced by CANMS and a CPX . One item asked the player

how much each exercise improved his individual ability to perform his

position. The other asked how much the player felt the exercise improved the command group ’s ability to perform its tactical mission.

Table C—3 summarizes responses to both questions. According to the

ANOVA in Table C-4, the only variable that had a significant effect

was the type of training system. On the average , CAMMS was rated better than a CPX . For individual improvement, the mean CAr4MS rating was

3.7; for a CPX , 3.5. For group improvement , the means were 3.7 and

3.4 for CAMMS and a CPX , respectively.

Perceived Realism

Each player was asked to rate CANMS and a CPX on the apparent

realism of five aspects of the exercise :

1. Combat activities , 4

2. Combat support activities ,

3. Outcomes of battlefield engagements ,

4. Enemy tactics and weapons capabilities , and

5. Speed of events on the battlefield.

The ratings , presented in Table C—5 , were overwhelmingly in favor

of CAMMS. Analysis of variance (Table C-6) showed that the advantage

of CAMMS over a CPX was significant beyond the .001 level. The differences among the five measures of realism were also statistically

significant , as was the interaction between type of system and measure

of realism.

6

~ ~—

- -.. -

~~ .-. ~ --~~ —- ~~~~~------ —~~~~~
- -

-—~~~~~~~~~

Since the level of exercise and position of rater and other interactions were not significant, data were pooled over level and position to show the significant effects more clearly.

The mean ratings in Table 2 show the statistically significant

effects. The most realistic aspect of both CAMMS and a CPX was enemy

tactics and weapons capabilities. Combat activities also were judged

relatively realistic; speed of events and combat support activities

were rated least realistic for both systems. The greatest difference

was in the realism of battlefield outcome s , which was rated relatively

low for a CPX , but relatively high for CANMS .

Table 2

Mean Ratings of Perceived Realism

Measure CAMMS CPX

Combat activities 3.7 3.1

Combat support activities 3.3 2.9

Outcomes of battlefield engagements 3.7 2.9

Enemy tactics and weapons capabilities 3.9 3.3

Speed of events on the battlefield 3.4 2.9

Since the effect of system (CANM S versus CPX) interacted with the

measure of realism , the difference between CAMMS and a CPX was tested

for significance by performing a t test on each measure. The superiority of CANMS varied from .4 for support to .8 for outcomes, but was

statistically significant (p < .001) for all five measures of realism .

Motivation

Three items on the questionnaire were related to motivation :

1. How much did you experience stress during the exercise?

2. How involved did you become in this exercise?

3. How interesting was this exercise?

Analysis c-f the ratings summarized in Table C-7 shows significant

variation as a function of position, measure , and system. According

to the ANOVA in Table C—8 , the level of the exercise had no significant

effect on the ratings , and the only significant interac tion was between

measure and system.

7
Since position did not interact with the other variables , it can

be considered separately . Computing mean ratings for each position

indicated that the S3 generally reported the highest rating (3.7),

followed closely by the commander (3.5), S2 (3.5), FSO (3.5), and S4

(3.4). The Sl reported a somewhat lower rating (3.1).

Table 3 shows the effects of measure and system and of the interaction between them. Neither system produced much stress , but

CNIMS especially stimulated considerable involvement and interest.

CAMMS generated somewhat more stress and involvement than a CPX , and

CAMMS was rated much more interesting. When evaluated by t tests , •

the difference in stress did not quite reach significance at the .05

level , but the differences in involvement (p < .05) and interest

(p < .001) were statistically significant.

Table 3

Mean Ratings for Motivation

Measure CAMMS CPX

Stress 2.8 2.6

Involvement 4.1 3.8

Interest 4.1 3.4

Sl Subtasks

Part II of the questionsairt~ asked the Sl to indicate the extent

to which CAMMS and a CPX required him to perform certain ARTEP subtasks. Although CAMMS usually was rated better than a CPX , especially

at battalion level (Table C— 9) , the diff erence was not statistically

significant (Table C —b ). The only variables that did have a signif i—

cant effect were level , subtask , and the interaction between level and

subtask. These three effects are clearly evident in the mean Sl rat—

ings (averaged over system) in Table 4 , which shows the following

trends :

1. Consistently higher ratings for battalion level exercises

than for brigade ;

2. Higher ratings for subtasks 3J , 6D, 9C, and 9D than for 3K ,

9A, and 9B; 

8

~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

. 

~~~~~~~~~~~ -
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— ——-~~~~ -— -------—~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.-

~~~~

--

~~~~~~~~~

3. Extr emely low ratings, which probably contributed to the

significant interaction between subtask and level , for sub—

tasks 9A and 9B at the brigade level.

Table 4

Mean Ratings for Sl Subtasks

Subtask Battalion Brigade

Task 3. Prepare and organize the

battlefield

3J. Provide supplies 3.1 2.8

3K. Maintain equipment 2.9 2.3

Task 6. Control and coordinate combat

operations

6D. Maintain the battlefield 3.4 2.9

Task 9. Manage combat service support

assets

9A. Arm and fuel the systems 3.0 1.4

9B. Fix the system 2.8 1.2

9C. Support the troops 3.2 2.9

9D. Integrate CSS into scheme of maneuver 3.1 2.6

S2 Subtasks

The S2 rated CANM S and a CPX on how often they required performance of 19 ARTEP subtasks related to intelligence , ccmmunication , security , and certain special actions. Table C—il lists the subtasks 4

and ratings. In Table C-12 , analysis of variance indicates three

statistically significant effects: subtask , system x level interaction , and subtask x system interaction .

Examination of Table C-ll reveals a distinct pattern that divides

the subtasks into three categories and appears to account for the

three significant effects. Table 5 summarizes the subtasks and the

mean ratings for each category . Subtasks directly related to intelligence were rated higher than subtasks related to security and special

actions. This difference seems to be the primary source of the

9

~~~
-- — — — .. .—~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---- -,.---— — -. — ,..-

~

- - -. ______

-- - . ~~ - -

II

significant variation among subtasks . The ratings for Subtask 3F,

Develop a Communication Plan , were somewhat lower than the average

ratings for intelligence.

Table 5

Mean Ratings for S2 Subtasks

Battalion Brigade

Subtasks CAMM S CPX CAMMS CPX

Intelligence (1B , 2A , 2B , 2C , 2D ,

3A , 5A , SB , 5C , 5D) 3.5 3.5 4.3 3.4

Develop a communication plan (3F) 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.4

Security and special actions (31 ,

b A , lOB , lOC , 12A , l2B, l2C) 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.1

A secondary aspect of the pattern is that although the brigade

CAMMS exercise was rated better than a CPX on the intelligence subtasks ,

the battalion CANNS exercise was rated worse than a CPX on the security

and special actions subtasks. This disparity probably contributed to

the two significant interactions in the ANOVA :

1. System x level (CAMM S better at brigade level , worse at

battalion);

2. Subtask x system (CAMM S better for intelligence , worse for

security and special actions).

The t tests that compared CAIVIMS with a CPX for every subtask at both

levels failed to find an y significant differences.

S3 Subtasks

The S3 rated CAMMS and a CPX on 31 ARTEP subtasks. Table C-13

lists these subtasks and their ratings. CAMMS was rated better than

a CPX on almost every subtask at both battalion and brigade levels.

According to the P.NOVA summar ized in Table C-l4, the superiority of

CAMMS was significant at the .001 level , although none of the iridividual t tests was significant. It is not unusual that the advantage

of CAMMS was statistically significant over all subtasks combined ,

10

L.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
— — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — --

~~~~_ - ~~—-- - 

-

but not for individual subtasks, because the individual t tests were

based on fewer scores than the overall F test, and the size of the

error estimate is inversely related to the number of scores in the

sample. Differences among the subtasks and the interaction between

system and subtask were also significant at p < .001.

The significant effects are apparent in Table 6, where the subtask ratings have been grouped and averaged by task . Since the effect

of level was not statistically significant, battalion and brigade

ratings were combined . Inspection of the data in Table 6 shows the

following relationships :

1. System: CAMMS was consistently preferred to a CPX.

2. Subtask : The subtasks related to planning , organizing , and

combat (Tasks 1, 3 , 6, 7, and 8) were rated higher than those

related to troop leading, security, and special actions

(Tasks 4 , 10, 11, and 12).

3. System x subtask interaction : The advantage of CAMMS over

a CPX was greatest for Tasks 6-11. In the command group

ARTEP , Tasks 1-4 are performed before the battle , arid Tasks

5-12 are performed during the battle. Since CAMMS is essentially a battle simulation system , it is quite reasonable that

the advantage of CANMS should be greater for the S3 subtasks

directly related to the simulated battle (Tasks 6, 7, 8, 10,

and 11) than for those that precede the battle (Tasks 1, 3,

and 4) or are incidental to it (Subtask l2D).

S4 Subtasks

Table C-l5 shows that the S4 rated the same subtasks as the Sb

with somew}

~~t different results. Since the ANOVA in Table C-16 indicated significant variation among subtasks, but no significant interaction between subtask and the other variables , the ratings for each

subtask were averaged over system and level and summarized in Table 7.

There were two main similarities and several differences between

the Sl and 54 data . First , the subtask effect was statistically sig— 4.

nif icant in both cases (p < .001). The subtasks concerned with maintenance (3K and 9B) were rated relatively low by both raters . In fact,

most of the S4 ratings in Table 7 are similar to the Sb ratings in

Table 4. Two exceptions involve the subtasks concerned with supply

( 3J and 9A) , which were rated higher by the S4 than by the Sl. These

diff erences are plausible , however , because supply is primarily an S4

junction .

11

— - __J~ ~~~~~~~~
-- - —--- - - ——--- - - - -

.

~~~~~~ .

Table 6

Mean Ratings for S3 Subtasks

Task Subtasks CAMMS CPX

1. Develop plan based 1S, 1C , 1D, 4.3 3.9

on mission lE, 1G. 1H

3. Prepare and organize 3A , 38, 3C, 4.2 3.8

the battlefield 3D, 3E, 3F ,

3G , 3H

4. Troop lead (before 4A , 43, 4C 3.5 2.9

battle)

6. Control and coordinate 6A , 6B, 6C 4.2 3.3

combat operations

7. Employ fires and other 7C 4.3 3.3

combat support assets

8. Concentrate/shift 8A , 8B, SC , 4.3 3.4

combat power 8D

10. Secure and protect 1OE , 1OF , lOG 3.6 2.9

the task force

11. Troop lead during llA 3.9 2.7

battle

12. React to situations 12D 3.1 2.7

requiring special

actions

12

~~~~~ - - 

.

~j
~~

‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____

Table 7

Mean Ratings for S4 Subtask~

Subtasks Rating

Task 3. Prepare and organize the battlefield

3J. Provide supplies 3.4

3K. Maintain equipment 2.7

Task 6. Control and coordinate combat operations

60 . Maintain the battlefield 3 .0

Task 9. Manage combat service support assets

9A. Arm and fuel the systems 3.3

9B. Fx the system 2.7

9C. Support the troops 3.1

9D. Integrate CSS into scheme of maneuver 3.1

The second similarity is that at battalion level , CANMS was preferred to a CPX on every subtask by the Si (Table C-9) and by the S4

(Table C-l5). This relationship contributed to the significant effect

of level in Table C—b and to the significant interaction between sys—

tern and level in Table C—16.

A final difference is that Subtasks 9A and 9B were rated very low

by the brigade Si , but not by the brigade S4. These low ratings contributed to the significant interaction between subtask and system for

the Sb that was absent for the 54.

FSO Subtasks

The FSO rated CANMS and a CPX on how well they exercised five

ARTEP subtasks concerned with fire support . The brigade ratings were

hi gher than the battalion ratings for both training systems (Table C—i7),

but the difference was not statistically significant . There was no significant difference between CAMM S and a CPX , nor were any of the other

effects evaluated in Table C—lB significant .

13

--

-

- -, ~~~~~~~~— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____
___ - : 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i:.= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____

Characteristics of Command and Control

The battalion and brigade commanders rated 14 characteristics

associated with the exercise of command and control with respect to

(a) how important it is to provide the characteristic in an exercise ,

(b) the extent to which it was provided by CAMMS, and (c) the extent

to which it was provided in a CPX . All 14 characteristics were judged

highly important : The mean importance rating was 4.8 on a 5-point

scale . The characteristic judged least important was “working with

incomplete information ,” which was rated 4.5 at battalion and 4.3 at

brigade ; all other characteristics were rated between 4.6 and 5.0.

Table C-l9 shows that CAMMS was rated better than a CPX on every

characteristic except utilizing communications security procedures

(COMSEC). The superiority of CAMMS was significant af the .001 level

(Table C—20) . The variation among charac~~ ristics was also statistically significant , as was the interaction between characteristic

and system.

Since there was no significant effect or interaction due to

level , the battalion and brigade ratings were combined in Table 8 to

show the si gnificant effects more clearly. Thus , regarding variation

among characteristics, intrastaff coordination was exercised relatively

well by both training systems, while admin/bog requirements were among

the characteristics least exercised by both systems. The relative

superiority of CAMMS is also readily apparent.

Because of the significant interaction between characteristic

and system, t tests we re performed to compare CAMM S and a CPX for each

characteristic. The four largest such differences in Table 8 were

significant.

Exposure to the capabilities of enemy weapons systems was one of

the h ighest rated characteristics of CAMM S , but one of the lowest rated

fo r a CPX; the t ratio was significant at p < .01. The t tests for

facing a thinking enemy , for making decisions under real-time constraints , and for admin/log requirements were significant at p < .05.

The smallest differences between CAMMS and a CPX were for COMSEC and

message handling in the tactical operations center (TOC).

Implications for Further Developxr~~i-~ of CAMMS

Two criteria were employed to identify features of CAMM S that

might require further development:

1. The items whose mean scores were 3.0 or less were classified

as “l ow rated. ” This cut—off score , which was the midpoint

of the rating scale , idontified items that were defined by

the scale as no more than moderately exercised .

14

I

~~~~~ A . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.
____ - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

- ---- --- ----

~~~

-

~~~ ~~

-

~~

- -- -

~~~~~ ___

Table 8

Mean Ratings for Characteristics of Command and Control

Characteristic CAMMS CPX

Facing a thinking enemy 4.1 3.2

Working with incomplete information 3.9 3.3

Making decisions under real—time constraints 4.1 3.3

Maintaining flexibility to cope with unanticipated

events 4.1 3.4

Exposure to the capabilities (range , speed ,

lethality) of modern enemy weapons systems 4.3 3.0

Exposure to enemy tactics 4.1 3.5

Utilizing all available assets (Field Artillery ,

Air Defense Artiller y, D-igineers , Air Force ,

etc.) to counter the enemy ’s weapons and

tactics 4.1 3.6

Concentrating/shifting combat power at the

critical place and time 4.2 3.6

Gathering and analyzing information about the

enemy 4.0 3.6

Planning and disseminating orders under battlefield conditions 4.0 3.4

Utilizing communications securit~- procedures 3.4 3.6

Receiving , record ing , and disseminating radio and

telephone messages within the TOC 3.9 3.7

Coordination among staff members 4.3 3.8

Admin/log requirements 3.9 3.1

15

-

~~~~~~~~~~

- -. ~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ —-

. —

. 

____
- - —--- ------ - --

~~

-

~~

--- - - — - - -— - — ---

~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~

---- -

~

—

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. The distribution of these items was analyzed to identif y

consistent patterns of low—rated items , according to type

of item , position of rater , level of exercise , and type

of training system.

Figure 1 illustrates the pattern of low—rated items for Part I

of the questionnaire . The only low—rated measures of effectiveness

for the battalion CAMMS exercise were in the area of stress experienced by the players. For the briqade CAMNS exercise , in addition

to the low ratings for stress, there were also low ratings for the

perceived realism of combat activities , combat support activities ,

and speed uf events on the battlefield .

Howevej . CAMMS received far fewer low ratings than a CPX . Compared to the 4 low-rated items for the battalion CAMMS exercise and

the 14 low ratings for CAMMS brigade , there were 20 and 35 low—rated

items for battalion and brigade CPXs , respectively.

Figu:e 2 shows the percentage of subtasks and characteristics

of command and control that were low rated for a given player position. Two main groups of subtasks received low ratings in the CAMMS

exerc

~ ses. First, the subtasks concerned with security and special

actions (31 , lOA , lOB , lOC , 1OD , l2A , l2B , and 12C) were given low

ratings by the S2 for both levels of CAMMS , as well as f or both bevels

of a CPX . These subtasks involve camouflage ; electromagnetic and

communications security; electronic warfare ; and chemical , biological ,

and nuclear attack . The second large group of low—rated items for

CAMMS , the admin/log subtasks (3J, 3K , 6D, 9A , 93, 9C , and 9D) , was

rated by the brigade Sl and S4. The admin/log subtasks also received

low ratings at both levels of a CPX. In addition , the S3’s ratings

indicated that rehearsals (4C) and enemy air assets (lOG) were neglected at both levels of CAMMS and a CPX .

Relative Advantages of CAMMS and a CPX

CAM~

4S was rated better than a CPX on measures of perceived improvement , realism , motivation , S3 subtask ratings , and characteristics of command and control rated by the commander. In addition ,

there were significant interactions between system and position or

level that indicated a selective advantage of CAMNS over a CPX for

specific measures of similarity and subtasks rated by the S2 and S4.

Only the Si and FSO subtask ratings showed no statistically significant effects .

Statistical significance does not necessarily imply practical

significance. A difference may be statistically significant , but

small or isolateil . Therefore , the criteria of size and consistency

were used to identify patterns of large differences between CAMMS and

a CPX . Fi gure 3 shows the distribution of measures from Part I of

the questionnaire on which one system was rated at least .5 point

16
--- ---

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______ 

____

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

L-

~~~~ ~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __i1

~~~~~~

~~~~~ ~~, ~~~~~ 

‘ 

~

.

, ~~~

.

— — — I

_____ 

.

~

,

1#~ -o

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~--;

ii ii ii 

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~—— ~~~

II II

~ 

,

~~~ 

~~~~~ 

U

ii 

-

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii=~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ iii ~~~~~~~

~~

II I I

’

~~~~~~~~I I~~~~~~~ ii II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I

TI_LI _ _
- - ---,—--.

.

~

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________ 0 0) 0C4.

~

___________ 

(I) ~

(

~) .,- C G)

~~

______________________ C

L)

O E_ C

(fl 4-’

r La.. ~~ 

.

~

- U’ Q

~~~

. ..- (1~~0~ —

_____________________________________ U)

T € ~ ~~ +~ a,c~

-

~~ ~.‘

(a

~~ (aC

V) ‘a

_________________________ 

U)

~

o ‘a

ra 4.~ C U’) ‘a .

~~~a ,a)

‘am 4) 0

V)

___________________________ Li..

a, LflC.C

.

~~ a,,n C

r .

~~ I ~~~ ~~

0

~~

C O

U) L 

_J I— 0.

________________________ 

C..)

C..)

U)

La C u

__ I-

________ 

U) 4.)

- (a

U)

S S I S I I I I S I

8

~

UaD.A9d

18

~~~~ . :

. s.- .
- ~~~~~~~~~~ -: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C U’ )

‘a 0)

.C C 4-) 4-)

! 1

~ ____ _____ _ — 

N~~~ • ~~~ 

.

~~

-

____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

0 W_ C t !’ )

TI _ 

I_ — TI - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

!‘

~~~~~~~ N~~ N~ ‘

N C~

J ~~ 4) ‘a

— ~~~~ ~~

-NJ~~~~~~ — — 

U) C.) •0 0’) S..

ii —— -—~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0

0. 4.’ CI— 4)Z

— a. C .,...

a, ‘a U) UI ~~ 4.) L • ~~~~~~~~ 4.’ 0 a, U’ > C .‘- 4) 4-) E C U’ > a, wU’ C~~ . 4.) a, > ~~~. (a ‘a 0 ~~s 0 0 Ui , £. 4 - . C’a ’~~~~0 .

~~ .,. .

~~ .0 a, .,

~~ a, 0 W 0 4-’ U 4- W S.. a, ~~ 0 E E ~~ 4.’ QJ a, 4) S.. > .5.’ 0 —tI)

S.. ~~ > C S... U) 0 0 ~~ ~ ~ . (a 4.’ C C U’~ .

~~~ C

— 0 — (5 .

~~ ~~ C..) Q LU U) > U) , a, a, 4.) U’ ‘a

U’ .

~ 5,.. .,

~~ S.. _C ‘a ~~ (a E 0. (a 4) ~~~4)

•

~ E . . . . . . . . . . Cl) Wa , E 6/) ~ . (a .0 ~~ ‘a .0 u ~~ a, ~~ ‘a .0 0 ~ E4-~~~~~’aL)

c~)

a,

S.-

U- 
‘!~ —‘~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

---. —---‘--- ..-_--_—- - —_--_-

~

-----. 

~~~~~ ‘

~ 

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ _________

higher than the other . It is apparent that CAMMS was rated consistently better than a CPX on most measures of realism and interest for

both battalion and brigade level exercises. The brigade commander

particularly preferred CAM~4S to a CPX. There were only two isolated

measures on which a CPX was rated as much as .5 point higher than

CAMMS.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of subtasks and charac teristics

of command and control that were rated at least .5 point higher for

one system than for the other. Several dif ’ferences between CAMMS and

a CPX were limi ted to one bevel of the exer cise :

1. At battalion level , the S2 rated a CPX better than CANMS on

several subtasks concerned with secur ity and special actions

(31 , lOA , lOB , l2A , l2B , and 12C).

2. The battalion S4 preferred CANMS to a CPX for most of the

admin/log subtasks (3J, 6D, 9A , 9B , and 9D).

3. The brigade S2 rated CAMNS better than a CPX on all the subtasks directly related to intelligence (lB , 2A , 2B , 2C , 2D,

3A , 5A , SB , SC, and SD).

• 4. Also at brigade , the S4 rated a CPX better than CANNS on

three logis tics subtasks (3J, 9A , and 9B).

The trends common to both levels of the exercise were the strong

preferences of the S3 and the commander for CAMMS . Their most consistent preferences were on the items most directly related to the

battlefield events simulated by CAMMS . For the S3 , these were the

subtasks concerned with preparing and organizing the battlefield (3A,

3C, 3E, and 3G), controlling and coordinating combat operations (6A,

6B, and 6C), and concentrating combat power (8A , SB, SC , and 8D). For

the c ommander , the greatest consistent advantages of CAMMS included

facing a thinking enemy , working with incomplete information , making

decisions under real—time constraints , maintaining flexibility, exposure to enemy tactics and weapons systems, and concentrating combat

power.

Personnel Requirements

Exercise directors provided information on man-hours required

to prepare a CAMMS exercise and the number of controllers needed to

run it. Eight of the 14 directors also provided data on resources

required for a CPX , as did five brigade and division commanders .

The estima tes of preparation time were extremely variable, as

indicated by the fact that many of the standard deviations in Table 9

are as large or larger than the means. This variability probably reflects differences in the procedures and cr iteria used to es timate

20

-!~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~

A ~~~ 

-
• —,- . -

~~2~~~~~~~-!-~ -~~ -- --

S.. a) S..

0 S.. a) 4.- a, a, ~~ 4.’ 0 0’) S-i a a) C.) ~~~~~ U’ a, .C

4-~~0C 4) Q) C” - U’ C .0 4) 5...

C 5.-.0 a. a,

4) 0) C a) 6/)

S.. S.. a, i.—

0~~~ 4-’

o a,a, • ‘ a

U) o a ~~ 4) La.- o> ‘am O C

l’

~~~~0 ‘ O . 0 O S- U )

__________________________ 

(a

0) ‘a 4)4..a, CV) .

~~ (fl.~~ 4.)

__________________ 

11) 5- ~

OS.. t f l C’ -

~~ C ’ a O(a

6/) E

E W C ,— 0.C a) v ) W

U) •‘- ~~~ ‘a 4- 0’)< 4)

0 • L)C S_ ia a,

U ’ W S-U

L) U_ CS - OS.. _______________ 4.) 04- a) 4)04- a.•

Li.. C U’ S..

o .,- a,~~~~a ,a,~~~ ., - 5- .C E.C _C

U) ~~~ — 4-) a, ~~ (a 4.) 4) L)

(V) 4.) U S- ” - _CW

6/’) 4.’ ( a 0 4)5..

(a L 4-4- 4.’’aO

C” )

.C 0’) 0. C it

0 4) ’ a .- .C C 4) LC) 4)

S I I I I I I I I I S I S ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~><

o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,

~ ‘

~~~ ~ ‘

~

% .

~~3 o Cc ~~- C’sl C\I U) >-, 0.) S..

— ‘

aV) Q.W O ’ a

.00W 4’ — a,~~..

pe~~~~a

~d swwv

~ 

pa~~aj.e

~d x

~ ~ U

S..

.

0)

U21

• -s-- - - .

- L __ 1. -
~~~~

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

preparation time , as well as differences in the actual number of manhours required to prepare an exercise.

Table 9

Man—Hours of Preparation

a . b Battalion Brigade

Item Mean SD Mean SD

II

CAMMS

Learn procedures 30.0 22.0 , 34.0 39.6

Develop scenario 4.8 3.9 55.1 100.5

Train controllers 46.5 95.1 38.6 65.3

Set up equipment 13.7 6.5 21.0 22.2

Other 2.3 4.1 5.4 13.5

Total 97.3 103.4 154.1 141.8

CPX

Develop scenario 114.1 233.7 175.7 325.5

Write messages 75.6 154.4 52.6 129.0

Train controllers 56.4 101.6 316.1 482.6

Set up equipment 76.9 117.1 72•7C s5.lc

Other 3.8 8.3 14.6 37.5

Total 326 .8 344.2 65B.2~ 649 3C

a

n = 6 for CAMM S , 9 for a CPX .

= ~for CAt4MS, 10 for a CPx.

In spite of this large variability, the ANOVA summar ized in

Table 10 showed that CANMS took significantly less time to prepare

than a CPX . In fact , the total preparation time for a CPX was three

to four time s that for CAMMS . This was due primarily to the additional time required to plan a detailed scenario and to write pre—

fabricated messages.

22

---- ,

~~.‘-- - --.. -

•• .. -

-

-

- -~~~

--

~~~~

- -- 

- -~~~~~~~- 

. __ r•.
- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 10

ANOVA Summary for Total Person-Hours

of Preparation

Source df Mean square F

Level 1 318055.917 1.910

System 1 1003303.931 6.027*

L x S 1 186720.204 1.121

Error 27 166466.122

*p < .05.

There was less variability in the number of controllers required

to run a~ exercise (Table 11). The battalion CAMMS exercise needed

fewer controllers than the other exercises, but the difference was not

statistically significant (Table 12).

Table 11

Number of Controllers

Battalion Brigade

CANM Sa CPXb CANMSc CPX~ Rank Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

COL .8 1.3 .4 .7 .3 .5 .6 .5

LTC 2.0 1.7 1.8 3.1 1.6 1.8 1.3 .9 - :

MAJ 4.5 1.0 3.2 4.6 2.1 1.8 5.1 6.2

CPT 3.3 1.2 6.1 3.2 9.7 6.3 10.4 6.8

ILT 1.5 2.7 3.2 4.9 6.6 4. 2 3.1 2.7

2LT 1.0 1.3 .6 1.1 1.6 3.1 .2 .4

E8 or E9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.8 .9 1.4 1.6 1.7

E7 1.5 1.0 2.8 2.4 .9 1.0 2.6 1.5

E6 .5 .5 2.9 3.2 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0

ES .8 1.6 4.0 5.4 2.5 2.6 .9 1.2

E4 .7 1.0 3.4 3.9 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.3

E2 or E3 0 0 .8 1.6 2.3 2.5 1.1 2.0

Total 19.2 1.7 31.7 19.4 32.4 9.6 30.8 14.4

a b c d

: 

~~ 

n 9n8
‘ 

~~~~~=-~~

-—- -

Table 12

ANOVA Summary for Total Number

of Controller s

Source df ~ean square F

Level 1 191.136 .997

System 1 162.954 .850

L x S 1 410.570 2.142

Error 29 191.665

Four commanders derived their CPX data from previous similar exercises, the fifth gave a best estimate , but none of the commanders

could provide total dollar or man—hour costs for a CPX.

The CAMMS exercise directors were asked whether they would prefer

to run CAMMS or a CPX . All five directors at battalion exercises and

five of the six at brigade who answered this question preferred CAMMS .

COSTS

Preparation

The personnel cost of an exercise can be estimated by multiplying

the number of man—hours worked by the standard hourly rates for costing military personnel services, listed in Table D—l. Personnel cost

is a function of rank ; however , only four commanders reported preparation time by rank for a CPX . These data are summarized in Table D-2 ,

which shows the mean number of man—hours by rank for each category of

preparation , for a battalion CPX and a brigade CPX--each consisting of

two 8—hour sessions. The dollar cost of preparation was obtained by

mul tiplying the number of man-hours by the standard hourly rate for

each rank .

Since preparation time was not reported by rank for CAMM S, the

costs of preparing both CAMMS and a CPX were estimated from the data

for a CPX . Accordingly, the cost per man—hour for each category of

exercise preparation was calculated by dividing the total cost for

the category by the total number of man-hours . For example , dividing

the total cost of training controllers for a battalion CPX ($781.91

in Table D—2) by the total number of man—hours (87.5) yields a cost

per man—hour of $8.94. The man-hour estimates in Table D— 2 differ

from those in Table 9, because they are based on a different size of

sample , but do provide a cost estimate based on rank . Thus , it costs

- 

24 

- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______ - --- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ---

n~~re to develop a scenario than to set up equipment , because the

scenario is developed primarily by officers, whereas the equipment

is set up mainly by enlisted personnel. The estimated cost per manhour for each category of preparation , based on the data in Table D—2 ,

is given in Table D-3.

Estimated preparation costs for each type of exercise, shown in

Table 13, were calculated by multiplying the man-hours of preparation • iti Table 9 by the cost per man-hour in Table D-3. The cost factors

obtained for a CPX were also used for the cor~

responding categories of

CAMMS. Learning procedures in CAMMS are assumed to involve the same

personnel as training controllers. Thus , the latter costs per manhour ($8.94 at battalion , $9.02 at brigade) were. used for both categories. Since the cost per man—hour of “other” preparation was avail—

able only for a brigade CPX , that factor was used for all four types

of exercise . The cost of other preparation was a negligible part of

the total in any event. Table 13 shows that CAMMS ’ advantage in

preparation time is reflected in a corresponding saving in dollars.

Table 13

Preparation Costs for a 16—Hour Exercise

Item Battalion Brigade

CAMMS

Learn procedures $ 268.20 $ 306 .68

Develop scenario 53.18 685.99

Train controllers 415.71 348.17

Set up equipment 85.08 137.97

Other 25.00 58.70

Total $ 847.17 $1 , 537 .51

CPX

Develop scenario $1 ,264.23 $2 ,187.47

Write messages 750.71 500.75

Train controllers 504 .2 2 2 ,851.22

Set up equipment 477.55 477.64

Other 41.31 158.70

Total $3 ,038.02 $6,175 .78

25

~~~~~~~~~~~~ •- ~~~- — 

~~~~~,.
~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~T:~~~~~~-~~~~- -•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -— -• .~~~ - - • .

~~ •

~~~~~~~~ • - —

Controllers

The cost of controllers for a 16—hour exercise was calculated by

multiplying the mean numbers of controllers in Table 11 by 16 hours

and by the hourly rates in Table D-1. The hourly rates used for the

combined categories of E8 or E9 and E2 or E3 were the averages of the

rates for the two ranks in each category . The resultant costs, summarized in Table 14, indicate a marked saving (more than $1,000) in

controller cost for a battalion CAMMS exercise compared to the nearly

equal controller costs of the other exercises.

Table 14

Controller Costs for a 16—Hour Exercise

Battalion Brigade

Rank CAMM S CPX CANMS CPX

COL $ 267.87 $ 133.94 $ 100.45 $ 200.90

LTC 545.82 491.24 436.65 354.78

MAJ 1,012.52 720.02 472.51 1, 147.52

CPT 611.29 1, 129.95 1,796.81 1,926 .48

1LT 216.58 462.04 952.97 447.61

2LT 105.90 63.54 169.43 21.18

E8 or E9 418.16 401.43 150.54 267.62

E7 197 .30 368.29 118.38 341.99

E6 54.82 317 .95 120.60 197.35

E5 73.93 369.63 231.02 83.17

E4 54.29 263. 70 209.41 162.87

E2 or E3 0.00 54.54 156.81 74.99

Total $ 3,558.48 $4,776.27 $4,915.58 $5,226.46

Computer Time

Based on experience using the General Electric Mark III System ,

4

the average cost per clock hour of CANMS exercise time is $80 during

prime time (0800 to 2000 hours EST, Monday through Friday) and $60

during nonprime time . This cost, which includes installation of tele—

phones and computer time , is charged to the user .

4u.s. Army (CATRADA) CAMMS TSP Benchmark Evaluation Report. Prepared

by GSA , ADTS Region 6, 30 September 1977.

26

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thus, a 16-hour CAMMS exercise costs $1,280 during prime time

and $960 at other times. The actual charge for computer time varies

somewhat with the amount of central processing time required . A

brigade exercise costs slightly more than a battalion exercise , but

it is more cost effective because three battalions are trained in one

brigade exercise .

Terminal Support

Th~ computer terminal s required for a CAMMS exercise are presently

leased by TP.ADOC (CATRADA ) and furnished to the user without charge .

The current annual cost is $60,000 for the lease of 50 terminals . ThesE

terminals will be purchased in FY 1979/1980 for $100,000. The current

lease agreement with an option to buy allows $24,000 credit toward the

purchase price , so the actual cost will be $76 ,000. Thereafter , annual

maintenance will cost $10,500. Amortizing the purchase cqst over

S years , the annual cost to the Army for terminal support will be

$25 ,700 (i.e., $76 ,000 ~

- 5 + $10,500).

Assuming that 446 exercises will be conducted during a year (the

assumption for calculating cost of computer time), terminal support

will cost $57.62 per exercise ($25,700 446). A brigade exercise

uses the same number of terminals as a battalion exercise uses , so the

cost is the same .

Total Costs

Table 15 summarizes the total cost of preparation and controllers

for a CPX , and the cost of computer time and terminal support for CANMS .

The highest total for CANM S (for an exercise in prime time , including

the cost of terminal support) is $377.62 more than the lowest CAMMS

total (for the same level exercise in nonprime time , not including the

cost of terminal support) . Even the highest CAMM S figure is much less

than the cost of a CPX . A CAMMS exercise saves more than $1 ,000 of

the cost of a CPX at battalion level and more than $3,500 at brigade .

This saving results primarily from the reduction in preparation time ,

another advantage of CAMMS over a CPX .

CONCLUSIONS

CAMMS was judged significantly and consistently more realistic

and more interesting than a CPX . The functional areas in which CAMM S

enjoyed the greatest advantage were related to preparing and organizing

the battlefield ; controlling and coordinating combat operations and

concentrating combat power as rated by the S3; and the exercise of cornmand and control rated by the commander , especially exposure to the

capabilities of enemy weapons systems , facing a thinking enemy , and

making decisions under real—time constraints.

27
Table 15

Total Exercise Costs

Item Battalion Brigade

CAMM S

Preparation $ 847.17 $1,537.51

Controllers 3 ,558.48 4,915.58

Computer time

prime 1,280.00 1,280.00

Nor1prime 960 .00 960 .00

Total cost to user

Prime time 5,685.65 7,733.09

Nonprime time 5,365.65 7,413.09

Terminal support 57.62 57.62

Total cost to Army

Prime time 5,743.27 7,790.71

Nonprixne time 5,423.27 7,470.71

CPx . 

-

Preparation 3,038.02 6,175.78

Controllers 4,776.27 5,226.46

Total $7,814.29 $11,402.24

The principal weaknesses of CAMMS were that (a) it did not produce much stress; (b) it did not exercise the players in security procedures , such as electromagnetic and communications security; and

(c) nor did CAMMS require the players to react to special situations ,

such as enemy jamming, and chemical, biological , or nuclear warfare.

The CPX also received low ratings in these areas.

A CAMM S exercise cost 25% to 30% less than a CPX , primarily because CAMMS required less preparation time .

Overall , CAMMS produced a distinctly superior exercise at a moderate savings in cost over a conventional CPX .

28

____ 

• • • . .

- - -- - - • ,-~~•~~~~•• .- 

:. • ____

a - -- —•-- •--—• -— -

~

.—••-•———•—.,

~~~

-.•

~

-- —
APPENDIX A

Attitude Questionna i res

This appendix contains copies of the questionnaires on which the

pl ayers compared CAMMS and a CPX . Questionnaires were given to- the Si , S2, S3, S4, FSO and commander of battalion and brigade command groups

after they participated in a CAMMS exercise. To avoid reproducing

several similar forms, one example of each type is presented , and the

differences between other forms of the same type are described below:

1. Part I was the same for every position.

2. Part II was different for each position . This appendix contains

copies of Part II for the battalion Si , S2, .S3, FSO , and comander.

3. Part II for the b~tta1ion S4 was the same as for the battali ”n

S’S , except that the instructions referred to the S4 instead of the Si.

4. Part II for the brigade Si , S2, S3, S4 an d FSO was the same as

the corresponding battalion form , with the followi ng exceptions:

a. The instruct~~ns referred to th~ brigade instead of the

battalion.

b. Several i tems for the brigade S2 were worded slightly differently from those for the battalion S2, to correspond to the wording of

the Bri gad e Comma nd Grou p ARTEP , as follows :

lB. Identify critica l intelligence

2A. Identify critical intelligence

2B. Gather critical intelligence

20. Disseminate critical intelligence

5A. Identify critical intelligence

58. Gather critical intelligence

50. Disseminate critica l intelligence

c. Several i tems for the brigade S3 were worded sli ghtly differently from those for the battalion S3, to correspond to the word ng of

the Br igade Comman d Gro up ARTEP , as fol l ows :

iF. Select routes/zones of approach to objective

1G . Assi gn areas and sectors of defense/battle positions

lH. Sel ect delay positions , covering force positions and

routes of withdrawa l

4B & ilA. Supervise compliance with brigade order

1OF . Detect/impede threats to brigade security

5. Part II on the characteristics associated with the exercise of

command and control was the same for the battalion and the brigade

comman ders.

29

• - • . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~=-

~

-

~~~~- -~~~~~~~~‘- _________

- - -

CAMMS

COMPUTER ASSISTED MAP MANEUVER SYSTEM

FIELD EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

For the Battalion Si

1. The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide data for use in

refining this simulation and to determine how it will be used by units

in the field.

2. Part I asks your opinion of the realism and training value of CAMMS .

• 3. Part II asks you to evaluate the extent to which CANMS provides an

opportunity to accomplish the subtasks that make up the Battalion Comand

Group ARTEP.

4. Pl ease record your answers in the space provided on the questionnaire

and return the completed form to the CAMMS personnel from Fort Leavenworth.

5. Any additional coiiinents you wish to include will be appreciated .

6. Tha n k you for your coo pera ti on.

• 30

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • -— z

~~ -

~~~~~~~~
-. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

—.-- 

-- 

- -

r

UNIT ______________________

PART !

Circle the number that best represents your answer to each of the following questions with respect to CAMMS and to a CPX .

Not

at Moder- ConsidAll Slightly ately erably Greatly

1. How similar were the tasks CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

you performed to your actual job CPX 1 2 3 4 5

requirements?

2. How much do you feel the ex- CAI+IS 1 2 3 4 5

perience you received improved CPX 1 2 3 4 5

your ability to perform the posttion you played in the exercise?

3. How much do you feel the CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

exercise improved your command CPX 1 2 3 4 5

group ’s ability to perform its

tact ical miss ion?

4. How real istically were combat CA*IS 1 2 3 4 5

activities represented? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

5. How real istically were combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

support activities represented? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

6. How real istic were the out- CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

comes of the battlefield engage— CPX 1 2 3 4 5

men ts?

7. How real istic were the enemy CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

tactics and weapons capabili - CPX 1 2 3 4 5

• ties?

8. How realistic was the speed CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

of events on the battl efield? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

9. How much did you experience CAI’IMS 1 2 3 4 5

stress during the exercise? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

“v . How involved did you become CA14~

1S 1 2 3 4 5

• ‘

~ c exercise? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

• 11 . How interesting was the CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

exercise? CPX 1 2 3 4 5

31

-L
~

L

~~~~~~~• ~~~~~~

12. How many CPX ’s did your unit run in the past year? ______

13. If you could run either CAMMS or a CPX , F~w many of each would you

run in one year?

CAI’IIS _______ 

CPX ______

14. a. Were you abl e to identify necessary modifications In your tactical

SOP as a result of lessons l earned in CAMMS? ________

b. If “Yes” , list primary areas where SOP needs modifi cation .

15. a. Have you had an ARTEP recently? (Check one) ____ 

Yes ____ 

No

b. If “Yes” , how much do you feel CAMMS would have hel ped you prepare for the ARTEP?

Not at All Slightly Moderately Considerably Greatly

1 2 3 4 5

16. Conmients:

32

.

~~~~~~~ .-•- 

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ • •=~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -•- — f. -
- •-. - ---- —------- - .

~~~~~~

----

~

-- ~~~~~~~- •‘

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

-

PART II

L i sted below are the sub tasks of the Ba ttal i on Comma nd Grou p ARTEP

tha t are rel a ted to Si func tions . Bes i de eac h sub tas k are two sets of

response alternatives . In the upper set, circle the response that indicates how much this CAMMS exercise required you to perform the subtask.

In the l ower set, indicate how much a CPX requires you to perform the

subtask. If you have not played your present role in a CPX , check here ~~ and rate the CPX on the basis of your previous experience.

Circle the number that best represents your opinion.

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 3 All Slightly ately erably Greatly

Prepare and organize the battlefield.

3J. Provide supplies CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3K. Maintain equipment CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 6

Control and coordina te combat operations.

60. Maintain the battlefield CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 9

Mana ge combat service support assets .

9A. Arm and fuel the systems CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

9B. Fix the system CAMM S 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

9C. Su ppor t the troo ps CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

90. Integrate CSS into scheme CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

of maneuver CPX 1 2 3 4 5

33

~~ tr • - • .. - • -,-. , • ,‘•-
‘

~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - _____

PART II

Listed bel ow are the subtasks of the Battalion Comand Group ARTEP

that are related to S2 functions . Beside each subtask are two sets of

response al terna tives . In the up per set, circle the response that indicates how much this CAMMS exercise required you to perform the subtask.

In the l ower set, indicate how much a CPX requires you to perform the —

sub task. If you have no t pl ayed your presen t ro l e i n a CPX , check here —

and rate the CPX on the basis of your previous experience.

C i rcle the num ber that best represen ts your opi n i on.

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 1 All Slightly ately erably Greatjy~

Develop plan based on mission

lB. Identify critical combat CA*IS 1 2 3 4 5

information and inte lli- CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence

Task 2

Initiate intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB)

2A. Identify critical combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

information and intel li- CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence

26. Gather critica l combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

information and intelli- CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence

2C. Anal yze enemy CAt’TIS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

20. Disseminate critical corn- CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

bat i nforma tion and CPX 1 2 3 4 5

intelligence a

Task 3

Prepare an d organ i ze the ba ttlefield.

3A. Determine critical place CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3F. Develop a communication CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

plan CPX 1 2 3 4 5

34

- ~

- .

. ::•

- - ---~~•
- •

~~~~~~~~~~

• • 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not

at Moder- ConsidAll S1ightl

~ atel y erabl y Grea tl y

3!. Plan /employ ac ti ve/pass i ve CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

security measures (e.g., CPX 1 2 3 4 5

camou fl age , ELSEC , COMSEC , dunny positions of equipmen t, inoperative equipment realistically positioned and camouflaged)

Task 5

See the battlefield during the battle.

5A. Identi fy critical combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

Information and inte ili- CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence

5B. Ga ther cr i ti cal comba t CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

information and inte ll i— CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence

5C. Ana lyze enemy CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

5D. Disseminate critical corn- CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

ba t In forma tion an d CPX 1 2 3 4 5

intel l i gence

Task 10

lOA . Defeat or suppress CAf+IS 1 2 3 4 5

enemy’s elec tromagnetic CPX 1 2 3 4 5

intelli gence effort

lOB. Defeat or suppress CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

enemy ’s imagery intelli- . CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence effort a

lOC . Defea t or suppress CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

enemy’s human inte lli- CPX 1 2 3 4 5

gence effort

1OD . Deceive the enemy CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

35

I - •-—. 

$

-‘--- -& ~~~~~ - k

~~~~ 

- - - 

-

. 

~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~ - -

~~~~ — 

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 12 ~~~fl. Slightly ately erably Greatly

React to situations requiring spectal actions.

l2A. React to enemy elec- CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

tronic warfare CPX 1 2 3 4 5

12B . React to chemical or CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

biological attack CPX 1 2 3 4 5

12C . React to nuclear attack CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

I

36

- -

~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~

‘ —•~

::-

—-: ~~~~~~ 

•-

~~~~~~~

-•

~~~~~

-- --- 2 ~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~

-

~~~

PART II

Listed below are the subtasks of the Battalion Command Group ARTEP

that are related to S3 functions . Beside each subtask are two sets of

response al terna ti ves . In the u pper set, circle the response that indicates how much this CAMMS exercise required you to perform the subtask.

In the lower set, ind ica te how much a CPX requ ires you to perform the

subtask. If you have not played your present role In a CPX , check here 

and rate the CPX on the basis of your previous experience. ~~

Ci rcle the num ber tha t best re presen ts your opi n ion.

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 1 All Sl ightly ately erably Greatly

Develop plan based on mission

lA. Analyze mission CAMM S 1 2 3 , 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

lC. Identify cri tical friendly CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

information CPX 1 2 3 4 5

1D. Analyze friendly capa- CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

bilities CPX 1 2 3 4 5

lE. Sel ect/con trol key terra i n CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

iF. Select routes/zones to CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

objective CPX 1 2 3 4 5

1G. Selec t battl e pos iti ons CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5 - CPX 1 2 3 4

lH. Select delay and covering CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

force positions CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 3

Prepare and organ i ze the ba ttlef i el d

3A. De termi ne cr iti cal place CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

38. Selec t a course of ac tion CAMM S 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

37

- - 

• -

~~~~~~~

•

~~~~
~~

—• •-— ---

~~

---

. -~~~ —~~~~ 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not

at Moder- ConsidAl l Slightly ately erably Greatly

3C. Organize for combat CAMM S 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3D. Selec t con trol measures CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3E. Plan organ ic , attached CA*IS 1 2 3 4 5

and non-organic support— CPX 1 2 3 4 5

ing fires and determine

priority

3F. Develop a communication CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

plan CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3G. Comunicate/coordinate CAI’?IS 1 2 3 4 5

plans an d orders CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3H. Re i nforce terra i n CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 4

Troo p lea d .

4-A. Supervi se preparations CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

4B. Supervise compliance with CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

TF order CPX 1 2 3 4 5

4C. Conduct rehearsals CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 6

Control and coordinate combat operations .

6A. Modify scheme of maneuver CA1~1S 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

6B. Coordi na te/comun i ca te CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

changes CPX 1 2 3 4 5

6C. Supervise execution CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

38

~~~~~~~ 1___~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

—- - ~_ : -~~~~-_ ~~~~~~~- ~~~- 

.
—

~~~

. - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1J •

~~~~~~~~ _...

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 7 All Sl ightl y ately erabl y Grea tly

Employ fi res and other combat support assets.

7C. Employ other combat sup— CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

port asse ts CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 8

Concentrate/Shift Combat Power

8A. Determine critical place CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

and time CPX 1 2 3 4 5

8B. Concentrate/shift combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

power i n the attac k CPX 1 2 3 4 5

8C. Concentrate/shift combat CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

power in the defense or CPX 1 2 3 4 5

retrogra de

80. Protect thinly held areas CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 10

Secure and protect the Task Force.

lOE . Reduce vulnerability to CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

enemy mass destruc ti on CPX 1 2 3 4 5

wea pons systems

lOF. Detect/impede threats to CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

TF security CPX 1 2 3 4 5

lOG . Detect/defeat enemy air CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

assets CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Tas k 11

Troop lead during battle.

ilA. Supervise compliance CAMM S 1 2 3 4 5

with IF order CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 12

React to situations requiring special actions.

120. Reac t to loss of key CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

member of command group CPX 1 2 3 4 5

39

• f- --- - — •

~—~

-—-•- --~
________ — — — i_

~~~~~~~ -~~ — — — - v ~

.

~~~~~~~~~ r ~~~~

PART II

L i sted below are the sub tas ks of the Ba tta l ion Comman d Grou p ARTEP

that are related to Fire Support. Beside each subtask are two sets of

response al terna ti ves . In the u pper set, circle the response that m dicates how much this CAMMS exercise required you to perform the subtask.

In the l ower set, indicate how much a CPX requires you to perform the —

subtask. If you have not played your present role in a CPX , check here —

and rate the CPX on the basis of your previous experience.

Circle the number that best represents your opinion .

Not

at Moder- ConsidTask 1 All Slightly ately erably Greatly

Deve l op pla n base d on m i ss i on.

1!. Plan use of organic/ CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

attached and non-organic CPX 1 2 3 4 5

fi res

1J . Determine priority of CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

fires CPX 1 2 3 4 5

lL. Conduct initial fi re sup- CA1~1S 1 2 3 4 5

port coordination. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

Task 7

Employ fires and other combat support assets .

7A. Modify fi re support plan CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

CPX 1 2 3 4 5

7B. Employ fires (to include CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

organic/attached weapons CPX 1 2 3 4 5

systems and supporting

artillery , air defense , TAC A ir and Attack Hel icopters)

40

~~~~ - - ‘ - - - - - - -- - - - --

— 

~~ — -• - • • ---•- - •- “--- ___ _ _ •• •

_ _ _ ;

~~ - -

~~~-
- — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PART II

Listed below are some characteristics associated with the exercise of

• command and control . For each i tem , indicate (a) how important it is to

provide the characteristic in an exercise, (b) the extent to which it was

provided in this CAMMS exercise , and (c) the extent to which the same

characteristic is provided in a CPX. If you have not played your present

role in a CP)

~, check here ~~ and rate the CPX on the basis of your previous

experi enc e.

Circle the number that best represents your opinion.

1. Facing a thinking enemy

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

2. Working with incomplete

information

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAM~

1S 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

3. Making decisions under realtime constraints

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

4. Maintaining fl exibility to

cope with unanticipated events

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

41

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- •• • • ___
- 

~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~: -

None Sl ight Modera te Cons iderable Grea t

5. Exposure to the capabili -

ties (range, speed , l ethality )

of modern enemy weapons systems

a. Im portance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

6. Ex posure to enemy tactics

a. Im portance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

7. Utilizing all available

assets (FA , ADA , En gi neers , Air

Force , etc.) to counter the

enemy’ s weapons and tac tics

a. Im portance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

8. Concentrating/shifting comba t

power at the cr iti cal place and

time

a. Im portance 1 2 3 4 5 -

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

9. Gathering and analyzing

information about the enemy

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

42

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• -

- -~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ --- z~~~~~- - •- - ~~~
w•—~~~~~ -—-• ---

~

-—

~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -- 

~

—- - •• ______ _-T: ___

None Sl ight Modera te Cons id erable Grea t

10. Planning and disseminating

orders under battlefiel d conditions

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

11 . Utilizing communications

secur ity procedures

a. Im por tance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

12. Receiving, recording, and

disseminating radio and telephone

messages wi thin the TOC

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

1 3. Coordination among staff

members

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b. CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

14. Admin/log requirements

a. Importance 1 2 3 4 5

b . CAMMS 1 2 3 4 5

c. CPX 1 2 3 4 5

• 43

— •__ • ‘

~~

.TL•. ~ i . ~~ • 

___s *... = - --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----

~~~~ - - ___________

APPENDIX B

PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS QUESTIONNAIRES

The first questionnaire in this appendix was completed by the

exercise director at battalion and brigade level CAIIMS exercises. The

general instructions and the next two questionnaires were sent to brigade and division commanders to obtain additional data on the resources

required for battalion and brigade CPXs .

45

-

- ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~- 

•• -

~~

•

~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- 

~~~~~

•-

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .-~~~~
- ---—-----.-

~~~~~~

-—- -.-— - -—

~~~~~

-- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I

CA!44S

COMPUTER ASSISTED MAP MANEUVER SYSTEM

FIELD EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

• For the Exercise Di rector

1. The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide data for use in

refining this simu l ation and to determine how it will be used by units

in the field.

2. Pl ease record your answers in the space provided on the questionna i re

and return the completed form to the CAMMS personnel from Fort Leaven—

worth.

3. Any additional comments you wish to inc l ude will be appreciated .

4. Thank you for your cooperation .

46
T~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

~~~~~~~- - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____

NAME ______________________________________ 

RANK _____________________

DUTY ASSIGNMENT _____________________________ BRANCH OF SVC ______________

UNIT ORGANIZATION______________________________

1. How many man-hour or man-days (specify which) did you and your staff

require to prepare for each aspec t of this exercise?

Time Required

a. Learning the procedures _____________

b. Developing the scenario _____________

c. Training controllers and terminal operators _____________

d . Setting up equipment, conm,o, etc. ___________

e. Other (Please specify). ____________

2. How many hours does this exercise run? ______________

3. a. How many controllers are employed to run this exercise? Fill in the

number of each rank.

COL LTC MAJ CPT 1LT 2LT

E8 or E9 E7 E6 E5 E4 E2 or E3

b. Are the controllers from the same un it as the comand group that is

being exercised? (Check one) Yes, all No , None Some ( How

many? _____) 

— —

4. Have you ever prepared a brigade and battalion CPX/MAPX similar to this

exerc ise? (Check one) — Yes — No

If your answer Is yes, please answer questions 5—8, otherwise , con tinue

with Item 9.

5. Please indicate how many man-hours or man-days (specify which) were

required to prepare the CPX/MAPX.

Time Required

a. Developing the scenario _____________

b . Wri ting messages _____________

c. Training controllers _____________

47

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~ — • •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::
- - - • —~

.-- --- - •

~~ 

—-• —-•- - 

-- ___

Time Required

d. Setting up equipment, como , etc. _____________

e. Other (Please specify). ____________

6. a. How many control l ers did you need to run the CPX/MAPX? Fill in the

number of each rank.

— COL — LTC — MAJ — CPT 1LT — 2LT

E8 or E9 El E6 E5 E4 E2 or E3

b. Were the controllers from the same un it as the command group that

was exercised ? (Check one) Yes, all No , None Some (How

many? ______) 

—

7. What were the major differences between setting up this CAMMS exercise

and setting up the CPX/MAPX?

8. Given a choice, which exercise would you prefer to run? (Check one)

____ 

CAI4IS ____ 

CPX /MAPX

Why?

9. Coment.s:

48

- •

~

.....r*. - -

..- •-~~~~~~~~~ -

- • ~~~~~~~~~~~~• 

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___ -~~~~~~~ - --—--

~~ :~~~~~~L~~

1 . ~~~~JT ______

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. The United States Army Combined Arms Training Development Activity

(CATRADA), For t Leavenwort h , KS , is currently develo ping manual and

computer-assisted simulations to aid in the tra inthg of command and control functions at company commander level and above. One such simulation

Is the Computer-Assisted Map Maneuver System (CAMMS). CAMMS is currently

undergoing field testi ng to ascertain its cost and training effectiveness.

The Information derived from this test will contribute to the further devel — opment and implementation of CAIIMS within the Army Training System. A

• portion of this test consists of a comparison of the relative costs of

CAMMS versus a CPX/MAPX. In order to assess these relati ve costs, It is

necessary to gather cost and resource data concerning manually—driven CPX’s

currently being run in the field .

2. CAMMS is designed to train battalion and brigade command groups in

simulated combat. Therefore, we are seeking i nformation about bri gade and

battalion CPX ’s for comparison purposes .

3. There are, of course , several different types of CPX ’s. Therefore, in

answering the questions concerning a battalion l evel exercise consider a

battalion CPX/MAPX to have the following characteristics :

a. Provides training for a battalion command group consisting of

ba ttallon commander , 51 , S2 , 53, S4 , 53 air , assistant S3, Si NCO , S4 NCO ,

fire support officer, fire support NCO , opera tions sergeant, In tel sergeant,

and air liaison officer.

b. Has company commanders as player-controllers . That Is , the exercise

is partially driven by Inputs from the company commanders concerning battl efield events .

c. Has con trollers playing brigade commander and staff.

d. Has a pre—written scenario wi th messages or incidents lists .

e. Runs for two eight-hour training sessions.

4. SimIlarly , when answering questions concerning brigade level exercises

consider a brigade CPX/MA PX to have the followi ng characteristics :

a. Provides training for the brigade corinand group including the brigade

commander , 51 , S2 , S3, 54 , S3 air , assistant S3, 51 NCO , S4 NCO , fire support

• officer, fire support NCO , operations sergeant, intel sergeant, and air l i aison

officer.

- 

~

- — 

.

,1—.- -

~~ - ------ •~~~~~~ ---.- --~~~~~--
b . Consists of three battalion command groups and company corrur~

anders

as described in 3a and 3b above .

c. Has controllers playing division commander and staff.

d. Has a scenario with pre-wri tten messages or incidents .

e. Runs for two ei ght-hour traini ng sessions.

5. If you have run a CPX sim ilar to the one described above , pl ease answer

the following questions using that data . If you have not run a CPX sim ilar

to the one above , assume that you have been tasked to develop such a CPX

and estimate your requirements . Provide data for both a battalion l evel

exercise and a br i gade l evel exercise. Please indicate w hethe r your res ponses

to the following questions are based on previous CPX data or are estimates .

6. CATRADA POC is LTC J. R. Parker , AV 552-4669/3892.

‘-S ,j

* - . - 

- 

.., -

~~~~~

• 

~~—
~~~~~~

•_•• ••• •

~

•-••

~~~~~

— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________________________ - ---________ -

‘- .r’~ - - —-

~~~~~

- 

- 

— _ .

~~•~~~~____*~~~~~1_J

I

CPX FOR BATTALI ON COMMAND GROUP

(with company commanders as pl ayer-controllers)

1. Source of data .

_____Prev ious s im il ar exerc ises

____Best estimate

2. How many man-hours per controller did it take to prepare for each aspect

of this exercise?

Personnel Time

Task (by rank) Spent

• a. Devel op scenario

b. Write messages

c. Train other controllers

d. Set up equipment , commo , etc.

e. Other (please specify)

3. How many controllers were required to actually run this exercise? Fill

In number of each rank (include company commanders).

____

COL ____

LTC _MAJ ____CPT ____1LT ____2LT

____ E8 or E9 ____El ____ E6 ____ ES _E4 ____E2 or E3

4. If available , what was the total cost of this CPX/MAPX (man-hours and

dollars)?

~~

‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

- 

- 

- 

‘-.

~~~ ~~~~~~~ 

.

~~~~

- - - 

_~~

__ 

* ___1.,-
____

CPX FOR BRIGADE AND SUBORDINATE BATTALION COMMAND GROUPS

1. Source of data .

_____Prev ious s imil ar exerc i ses

_____

Best estimate

2. How many man-hours per controller did it take to prepare for each aspect

of this exercise?

Personnel Time

Task (by rank) Spent

a. Develop scenari o

b. Write messages

c. Train other controllers

d. Set up equipment , commo, etc .

e. Other (please specify)

: 1

3. How many controllers were required to actually run this exercise? Fill

in number of each rank (include company commanders).

____COL ____LTC ____MAJ ____

CPT ____1LT ____2LT

____ES or E9 ____El ____E6 - E5 ____E4 ____E2 or E3

4. if available , what was the total coit of this CPX/MAPX (man—hours and

dolla rs)?

52
--- ~~~~~~~~-—-- - - -

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX C

S1Th0(ARY OF RESPONSES TO THE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE S

TABLE C-i

Perceived Similarity of Tasks to Actual Job Requirements

Battalion Brigad e

CA~~

1S CPX CA}2’

~

S CPX

Position n Mean SD Mean SD n Mean SD Mean SD

Si 27 3.4 1.0 3.5 .9 6 3.0 .6 3.7 1.0

S2 22 3.9 .9 4.0 .7 6 4.5 .5 4.0 .6

S3 30 4. 2 .7 4.0 .6 6 4.5 .8 4.3 .8

S4 24 3.6 1.2 3.5 1.1 5 3.4 1.5 3.4 1.1

FSO 16 3.6 .8 3.7 1.0 7 3.6 .8 3.4

Commander 22 3.9 1.0 3.7 1.1 5 4.6 0.5 3.6 1.1

__________________________________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-

~~~~~~~~~~~W~~ __

-i

TABLE C-2

ANOVA Sunnnary for Perceived Similarity

Source df Nean Square F

Level 1 .379 .288

Position 5 4.989 3.797**

LXP 5 .514 .391

Error 164 1.314

System 1 .711 1.747

SXL 1 .324 .797

S X P 5 .942 2.315*

SXLXP 5 .579 1.421

Error 164 .407

*p <.05

**p < .01

54

• — . ~~-

.

— .

~ - 

~~~~~~~•
::.~~~

— C I— ~~ ~~ — ~~ ~~ ui

— — — ,-I _ ,-4

0.

~~ C N. c’i ‘.0 ~

.? ‘.~ tr~ ~~

m -

~~ c~ C~ cfl m m r

~ c~ c.i

.

~~ I C c’J C’-. cfl afl ~~ — ~

0 0’-. Ui

~~ — .-

~ ~

-l ,.4 ,

~4 —

1.1 ~~~~ _ _______________________

c) ~ Ui C c’i ‘.0 ~~ ‘

.0 ~~ ‘.0 Cs1 ..1

~ C51 ‘.0 

2: m -

~~ -

~ ~~ ~~ -

~~ c~, 

~

n c~ r

~ .

~~

Q

— 

‘.~~ ~~~~~ Ui N. Ui ‘.0 Ui ‘.0 Ui r-. Ui

0 .-l ~~ C’-. s—I C 0 0’ ~~ C s-I ~~ 0. 0

t,, .-I .-4 ,-I — — — -I

‘-I _______________________

0.

U ~ ~~ r- ‘.0 —~ N. ‘.0 ~~ ‘. 0.4 ~~ 

Z c

~ m ci ci m c.i ~ c~ ci m c’i c,

~-4 0. ~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~~ — C 0’ ~~ C 0 ~~ s-I 8 -I

~ 4 C

~

4.â 

~ ~~ 

~

fl_

— — — — — — — — — -I L) (

~ ‘. 0’ . 0 C -.

1

~ Ui 0’ Ui .4 ~~ -1 Ui C C.)

z ~~~ c~ r

~

0. ____

UiC’

~~~~~~~~ Ui~~~ ~~~ LrI c’

~

~ I ~‘1 CN C’-~

1 1- I c~

’J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

14 14 4) 4)

o .‘~~

—I C E C

o .-I ~ c

~, -

~

r ~ 0 .-

~ c’-i m -~~ ~~ 0 0. C/~~~~~ Q fl~~~~~C~

J

-I

4) ~~ I.’ ~~

~ 0. CO ~4 C~ •

~ 0 • 4) ~ 14 • z I-I

55

-- 

- 

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~

- - -

~~~

.-

- - • 

- __________

TABLE C-4

ANOVA Su~

mnary for Perceived Improvement

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 .820 .340

Position 5 4.474 1.852

LXP 5 .919 .380

Error 157 2.416

Measure 1 .223 .417

MXL 1 .106 .197

N X P 5 .715 1.335

MXLXP 5 .290 .542

Error 157 .536

System 1 3.986 4.510*

SXL 1 .057 .065

S X P 5 1.812 2.050

SXLXP 5 .935 1.058

Error 157 .884

H X S 1 .629 3.428

H X S X L 1 .379 2.065

M X SXP 5 .169 .920

MXSXLXP 5 .114 .620

Error 157 .183

*p<.05

56
——~~~~~~——--~~~~~~ --—.-. ---. • .- ---- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- ___

-4~~~~ -.1\0 O\ Ci CC4 ’.0 C’J r-~ Ui~~~~ -4.0 C’

.1 C\ - •

0 . .

Ci~ — — — s-I s-I — s-I — s-I

0.

(XI 0 ~~ N. Ui C .4 C’--) C~

i C’--) Ui ~~ ‘.0 ‘0 en r-. Ui C’) .4

4) . . en ~~ C’) C’) en ~ en C’) C’) C’) C’) C’I C’) C’.I C’.I en C”)

4)1

I en 0’ Ui C’) en Ui ~~ C’-) C Ui C’) ~~ en 0 (‘--4 0 .4 Ui

01) ~~ . . C/~ s-I — — — s-I — s-4 — s-I s-I — 4 14

Q CXI ~~ 0 Ui C 0 ‘.0 ~ en N. en ~ ~~ C’) ~~ en Ui Ui 4)

en ~

i en en en -~ en en C’) C’-.) C’) en en en en en en -~

~~ Ui ‘.0 ‘.0 -4 —.0 Ui Ui ‘.0 ‘.0 . 4’0 Ui Ui ‘.0 ‘.0 ’-4 ‘.0 Ui

00 ~~ C’) 0’ 0 0’s- I 0’ C — 0’ ~~ N. ~~ — 

Ct~ — 4 — — s-I — — — — 8 _____________________________________________________ CO —

>4

— 0. Lf~~~~CXI

I ~

) en 0’ en ~-.i ~~ 0 — O\ C\ C’ s-I C” en’.o’0 C’1 C

4)

Z C ’-ienCfl ~~~~~~~ ‘I C’4 Cn C’-) Cfl en C’ ) •

~~~~4) 0

.4 ~

,.I — 0’ 0’ 0 C’) — C’) Q~~~ ~~ C 0 0’ .

~~ C’)

~~ N.~~~ . . . . o i.

~ • — — s-4 — — — 0.

14 

4) 

1

~ 

.)

—

s-4 s-I 

— C.) CXI ~~~~-4N.N .’. C’0 4~~iUiC’i —4 Ui 4) .‘ 

Z en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en

en C’ C”— — Ui C’) en C’~ N. — Ui C’.) en 0’ N. I Ui C’-)

~ I c’

~ — C’) C’) — C’) C’) — C’) C’-) — C’) C’) — (‘-1 C’) ‘-4 C’)

1.4 14 1’ 4) 4) 4)

o .

~~ .~~ •~~

4.) CXI CXI 8 8 CC CM 0 8 C -

•

0 s-I C’) Cfl -4 Cfl 0 ‘-1 C’-) en -

~ u

~ 0 — C’) en -

~ U~ 0 0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ &~~Clj ~~i.Q ~~~~~~ C/ ~~CI

~~~~~ Q

—

~~o .-~ :

~

, 4-i 4.i i-i E

2) o 14 ~~

~ CXI0.~~ 0 4-i~~~~ CO .0

~~~ )

CXI 8 ECl~~~C~ 4) 0 0

— zI 0 0 0

57

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
•----- ---- ‘-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

N. Ui — ~ 0 -~ C’ ~~ C’) ~~ en C’ 0

C/2 — — — .I

>4

0.

XI 0 en 0 C en ~~ ‘0N. Ui 0 0’.0

4)

X en en en en en C’) C-) C’) C-I C’) en C’)

WI

I 0 -4 -~ en 0 ‘-4 Ui ~ ~ 0 Ui Ui 01) 0 .

~

.4 (f

~ — — — — s-4 

——— 1

~ 0 CXI 0 C’) N. N. N. ~~ -~ N. 0 Ui ~~ .4 4)

Z -

~ -

~~ en en en .

~ en en en en c-i ~~

c

~I Ifl ’.0 ’.0 -

~

4’.0 Ui Ui’.0’.0 -4 ’C Ui

C 0’ C ~ N. en 0’ 0’ -4 s-I C -

~ 0

‘12 — — — p-I —

>4

0.

a) ~ Ui en c-i ‘-

~~ en en 0 C’~ N.’.0 en c-i

0

~~ 4) 0 Z en en en en en en en c—i c-i c-i en en

4) 0 Ui~~~ I r4 — 0 ‘.0 C”-) N. C~~~ ~ en en - 04) C) I.) 

CXI 0

(/2 — — — s-I — — 

~ — — —s-I 4.)

,-

~~~4) XI — _________________

U CXI C 0’ ~~ C C 0’ Ui Ui c-i -

~ -4 Ui

X -~~ en en ~~~~~ en en en en en en en

e n0’ N .,-IUiC’4 e n0’r-.s-I ui c’)

I c—i — C-i C’) .-) C’-) C’) — C’) C’) — C’i

14 1.4

a) a) o

I-)

.r4

CC 0 C

o — c—i en -~ (/2 0 — c’-i en -~ ci~ 0 0. ~~~~~~2 v/2~~~~U ~~ c/2 u, c/2~~~ o

CJ Cri.—4 4_i

(4-4 (0 (2

0 4-~~~0 - O

~ — .00. 4) CC ~~~~~~~~~ CXI W c ~~ cJ~~ i 0. 2: (/2

58

— 

___ i. ~ —— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r

TABLE C-6

• ANOVA Summary for Perce ived Realism

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 9.043 2.368

Position 5 3.137 .821

L X P 5 1.994 .522

Error 147

Measure 4 10.088 12.682***

MXL 4 .240 .302

M X P 20 .468 .588

MXLXP 20 .493 .620

Error 588 .795

System 1 121.172 55.536***

S X L 1 6.281 2.879

S X P 5 4.724 2.165

SXLXP 5 2.652 1.215

Error 147 2.182

H X S 4 1.088 3.738**

MXSXL 4 .229 .787

H x S x P 20 .296 1.018

MXSXLXP 20 .186 .640

Error 588 .291

**p.c.O1

***p~~~OO1

59

• -~~~~~~~ - -- . - 

- 

i 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-• 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

— C en C C 0 en en ~~ Ui 00 c-i C’) ~~ c-i -4 C’) a

~ 0

(/2 ~-I — — — — — — — >4

0.

p-I — — — — — o nCXI en c-i I’— N. N. c - .I 0 c-i C— ~~~ ‘0 C ~~ Ui Ui 0 — c--i 4)

2: c-i —--—— c-i en -~ -~ en en -~ c-i en en en en en

cXII ~~~~~~C-i -4 -4 0’ C’i

~~~~-XI0’.00’ ui 0’.~~~~-~~~~ C 0(4 0

(12 .-4 — .-j — — ~~~ 

____________________

U XI ~~ en ~~ 0 C’0 en c-i ~~ Ui 0 -.

~ en C Ui C 0 0

4)

2: -I en c--i c—i c-i en en -

~ ~~ en -

~ -~ en-4~ -4~ .4. .4• Ui

‘.0 ‘

0’.0 -4 N. Ui ‘.0’0 ‘0 -4 N. Ui ‘.0’0 ‘0’-4 N. Ui

-I — C -~ ~~ en s-I C’ C’-. c-i ~~ en en — ~~ en ~~ en 0

>4

(/2 

—

s-I — — — — — — — — — — — 0 CXI Ui ‘0 N. C’ ~~ Ui ‘.000 -4 0 0’ 0’.0 ‘0 — N. Ui .3)

2: -i c’i c--i c-4 c-i en-i.-i.en.4en enenenen eenn

I-

~~~~~ 0

.4 4J — C’i C’i ’

-OO C’i~~~~~~~0C 0C’i~~~ -s-4 C- I E-4 0 ~ 0

~~

; 1.) (/2 — — — — — — — — — p_I — — — — ._I — i-I

CXI — ________________________________________________

U XI Ui Ui 0 en — N. N. C en C’) C’ s-I ~ C en s-IC’ en

c-i c-i en en en c—i en -i. -

~ -~ en -i. en -~ ~~ -i. en -

~

.4~ c-i C’ en Ui C -~ c-i C’ en Ui 0 ~

i. c-i 0’ en Ui 0 ni c-i c—i c-i c-i — c-i c-i c-I c-i c-I — c--i c-i c—i c-i c-) ,-4 c-i

1.4 14 14 4) XI) XI)

0 •

~~ .~~ .~

4.)

8

CO CE 0 C

o .-I c--i en -i. (12 0 s-I C—i en -i

~ cn 0 4 c—i en -

~ I

~ 0 0. /2’12 Cfl C/2 rz.~~U (/2 (/ /2(/2cx~~Q ~~ (12 C/2~~z 4 Q

1.)

a)

8 XI) a) CO 1.4 4) ~‘. a) a) —I Ii CC 4) 0 XI)

~ Ii ;,- 4-I

• XII i-I • (/2 I-I

• h O

L

~~ . ~~~ - ~

- - __________

~~~~~~~

• •- •
- — -~~ -~—- —•~~~~~~~ •~~~--~ -- . 

~~~~~~~~ —::~~~~ :

~~

TABLE C-8

ANOVA summary for Motivation

Source d.f Mean Square F

Level 1 1.162 .380

Position 5 8.672 2.888*

L X P 5 3.550 1.162

Error 155 3,056

Measure 2 92.620 103.148***

MXL 2 .358 .398

MXP 10 .651 .725

M X L X F’ 10 .921 1.026

Error 310 .898

System 1 27.739 17.272***

SXL 1 .498 .310

SXP 5 1.599 .995

S .XLXP 5 .910 .567

Error 155 1.606

M X S 2 5.795 18.744***

MXSXL 2 .270 .873

MXSXP 10 .239 .772

MXSXLXP 10 .365 .182

Error 310 .309

*p < .05

***p < .001

61

~~~~~~~~~~~~ _

_

~~~~ i _ • ~~~~~~
__ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

s-I s-I en C’-4 en 0 . . . . c/S — -I ~-I -I-I

>4

0.

o n Si. —i. C’-i ‘0 - i .0 4) . . . . 4)1 2: c-i c-i c-i s-~ s-~ C-i c-i

en en -

~ a~ -~ en Ui

14 0 . . . . (IS s-I p_I

U ~ ~~ Ci 0 -4 C-i C’) ~~ 4) . . . . 2: c’--l c-i en .-4 s-I en c--i

>4

s-I C~ ~ N. 0 N. ‘0 C’ N. US ~ 4) . . . . o 2: c-i c--I en c-i c-i c--i c-i -I ____________________ 0

C’ US 0’ c-i c-i s-I C

4) 4.) . . . • (IS

o x

CO

-4 .-I 1

~

.. en s-~ Ui Ui a) . • .

-i_I en en en en en en en

US -Ia) 0. -I

4-4 4) C)

-I -.4 U U i-I XI)

U CXI 1.1 0 CXI .0 0

8 0. 8

0 0.

4) C) (1.4 .0 CC 0

4-I a)

U XI) a) XI) CXI C) CC 8 N -I ..-I 8 4)

a) ~

. a) .0 O ..-I 14 U C) 14 a) CO CO

00 0 XI) CO 14 U 0 -4 CO ( 0 0

0 0 C) U U SW U ~ a) 0 0 -0 WE 0 .0 .0 o~~’4 0 0. 0 (0 .0 E U 814

~ .-I -I CXIO 0 4) U CI) 0. ~ 0 XI) C) s-I .J (IS XI) 0. D .-4~~ -I .0 C~ CO 4)0

14 ~ a) OU U 41 (0 j

(XI CC 14CXI 00 4-i ‘o.~ CO U a)

0. 0 0 (XI4 ) U

a) XII ~

_I 04) 0(0 a) U ~ 14 ~ 00. ~ C~~ CO 0.01414 0. U 00 U ZCXI ~ 4.) 00 0 0 0 0.4) 0 ,-4 .i.4 014 0 .U

.

~~i • 14 (X~ • C~ • 0 s

~ en 0.. E ‘.0 0”.

I I M

.01 C/S . . • CO . . . .

.4 ~~~~~~ CXI 0 CXI .4~~~~~~~ 0 0 usj E-

~ en en E~ ‘.0 E-~ C’ C~

. C’ 0’

62
r

~~ 

-: 

- ..

~~

TABLE C-lU

ANOVA Summary for Si. Subtasks

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 35.986 5.699*

Error 32 6 .314

Subtask 6 6.443 7.936***

Sub x L 6 2.933 3.613**

Error 192 .812

System 1 8.369 3.245

Sys -x L 1 3.201 1.241

error 32 2.579

Su~-x Sys 6 .238 .853

$ub-ic Sys x L 6 .148 .531

Error 192 .279

*p < 05

**P < .01

< .001

63

~~~~~~1 -~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -•~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~ --- :-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :.
______ — ~~~~ - -- •-

~ —- -.------~~~~~~~~

_. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ----~~.

~~~~~ -f~~~- ~~~~~-. 

— .-I C’ US 0 c-I 0’ 0’ C’ 0’. 0 0 C’ C . . . . • . . • .

US .-4 s-I

>4

0.

0 0(XI Ui Ui s-I en .

~~ Ui -4 ‘0 ‘-

~~ en en -

~ .0 4) • . . . . • . . .

XI) 2: en en en en en en en c-i en en en en

CXI

00 US N. N. Ui N. 0 0’ en US Ui Ui US 14 0 . . . . . - . . . c/S -I -I

Ui .i . e n - i . -. .-I -i. Ui

2: .4 -i. -

~ -4 -i. -i. en c-i -4 -i. -i. -i.

0’ C’ s-I 0 0 — en 0’ 0’. C s-I C . . • . . . . . • • . -

C/S s-I — s-I ‘I s-I s-i I

>4

0.

0 0 CXI 4) ‘0 -~ en Ui ‘0 ‘.0 c-i US en Ui ‘-4 (—1 0 4) . • . . . . . . .

US 0 2: en en en en en en en c-i en en en en ‘.4

>-. — .0 CXI

U C’ .

~4 (‘-‘I c-i c-i P_I c-i s-I 0 0 c-i c-i C • • • • • • • (

5) 4) (12 s-I s-i ._I — s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I 4 I

CO U CXI Ui -i. -i. Ui N. N. 0 C’) Ui Ui en in

(5) . . . . . . . . . . 4) en en en en en en en c—i en en en en <U

— a)

US ‘4-. s-I 0 .-I U

4.. a) U

0 ‘.1 4)

0 ‘4-i .0 a) U s-I a)

O 4) .

3) U .0 41 0 14 C.) U U C) s-I 4) 0 4) 0

(0 XI) 0. .2) .2) .0 00 XI) a) a) C) a) C) 00 0’ C) 00 s-I 0 J~ ~~~~~W ‘.4 4) 0 ~-I 0 .2) -I 8 XI) 0. 4) C) -i .0 C4 14 4) C) ._I

00 0 00 p-I U — ~ 000 — 0 s-I a) s-I a) a) 0. CI s-I a) a)

0 .-I C) .-4 00 U (5) 4) (0 s-I 00 U s-I 0 .-I s-I 0 N C) 0 a) U s-I r1 0 41 4) C) •.-I .,.4 4) 0 14 .-4 4) p_I s-I

C) U 00 U 0 i_I s-I ~ a) U p-I

0 ‘.4 0 4) s-I CXI 0.U CC _I O W ,-I

4) _I s-10 -_I U 4) 00 4)4) U.

~ s - l U 4) .0 0 C.

) 14 s-I C) a) 4) 0 C)

p_I a) XI) i-I _I ‘.4 0 4) ‘.4 8 — s-I s-I

0 4) U ,-I 4) 1) C) 0 U 4) 4.)

4) C) 0 11.4 C.) s-I ‘.4 >- 4J C) ._I ‘.4 s-I -..l s-Ia) ‘.4 4) 14 0 U EU 4) s-l Cd 14 0. U s-I U C) ).

~~ Q 4) ‘.4 Ø ’.I .0 U C) ~ .C) s-I a )).) ~

_I -I (0 14014 •.-I ’. (0

0. 14 U).) 14 U 4)4 ) (3) C) (J ~ a) 1 4 4 1 4) 4 )

0 C) 4)4) Ci ‘.4 041 14 C) .0 Qs- 4 0

~~~~ s-I ‘.4.0 144)4) CXI 414)4 ) U 144 )4) XI) >.. U ci 0 0. 0 (0 ~ sU 0

~ . (4.4 ‘.44) ‘

-4.4 Us-I a) —4 0. a) (4.4 (5) ._I

XII ‘.4 0.0 ‘.414 N E Ii 0 0 > - . a) s-I U N C IJ I-l U U 4) >.. 4) 0. >.. ..-I 0 C/S U 4) >.’. 0 0 .0 . a) ~ aj ,-i o s-i CO a) a) U 4)5 U > 0 . 4)41 4) U) • • 4) O • ,-I • Wa ) (0 • 4)0.P4 ‘.0 (

0 — I-I C’) ~~~~~Q <C en 0 0~~~ 4 Ui ‘ — 4 Q< 0

U .

~~ .54 .54 III

.0 (II • US • . . . CO . . . (0 .

4) ~~ (XI -.4 ~~~~U 0 CXI < r ~.. I-I 4) <~~~~~~U C C/S E-. s—I E.4 c--i c--i c--i c-i €-4 en en en E-l I/i Ui (Si Ui -

~

64

I II

~

___ • -

• - -. - 0 _ _ . ‘

~~~~ - — ~~~~

- — -— -.
— ---~~~~~~~~ - -

~ -~~~ ‘-- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

‘.Q N. N. N. en -~ en C • • • US — s-I f-I

>4

0.

0 0

4) ‘-4 C-- N. N . -.? ‘0 en .0 a) • • . •

a) 2: c-i s-I ..-I .-I c-i c--i c-i

4) - ____________________

00

s-I -i. Ui C-- 0 -~ en c--i 14 C . • . .

C/) , I

• 04) Ui C/i ’.0 N. CON.

4) . . • .

2: c-i s-I ~

_I -I en c-i —

en c-i en enc-i C • . . .

C/S ‘-I ‘-I -, — s-I s-I p_I

>4

4) 4) en s-I p_I C’--i ‘

—0 ‘.0 0 a) . . . .

c-i 0 2: c--i c—i c-i c-i c-i c--i C—i US s-I

s-I ____ __________________________

CXI .0 U 0 0’ 0’ 0 s-I c-i ._I

U C • . . .

00 4) (/2 s-I I s-I .4 .-I _ I a) ~~

U < 0 . -

‘

-‘ CO 0 CXI US ‘.0 N. US US 0’ N- (3) . . . •

-I CO 2: .-4 s-I s-I .4 I s-I s_I

—4 )

I U -___ _____ ______________________________

0. 0

.54 1.4 a) C) C) CXI 14 a) U

0 C) U

~ 0 00 4) -.4 a) 0 .54 00 ‘.4 — CO ‘.4 1. 4) 4) — -s-I C) E-’ s-I s-I 4 ) 4) WOO a) U C) a) 14 0 .0 0 0 .2) 1. U .i-I a) C) ‘44 0

0 00 (0 14 -‘.4 .54 41 C) -s-I a) 0 CXI .0 Ci

C) s-I ._I 00 0 4) a) U ._I s-I s-I 14 41

i-i C) a) s-I U CO Ci 0 U

0 041 —I 4 ) 0 ‘-4 4) 14 000 a) )—. ~~ O 0pI 0. 4) _I U 0 Us-I 0 4) 1.. 8 0 (3) s-lU Ii C) 4) ‘0 0 >-. ‘,-I 0 USC) U s- I a) 0 1414 a) CXI C) 0 .-I

4) U 4 )0 0 W a ) ci C) 00 CXI a) U ‘-4 .0 a) a) 4 ) 0.0 4) a) C) 0 14 s-I 8 ~ U 41 ,-I

~ a) .s-I .0 C)C) 000 U a) 4)4) U 4141

a) U U U > a) 0. (IS 4 ) 4 ) CXI -s-I ~~~ CO U U 4-I (5) a) a) a) C) C) C.)

‘4.4 ‘4.4 (4.4 C) CXI CXI CXI • a) U a) XI) • a) a) a) .54 0 CCCC c-i ‘.0 US 4 s-I c-IUS

CXI

U .54 • • • • .54 • • lilt .0 CO .4 ~~ U C CC -.4 OOU 0 4) C 0 C C (XI C-i C’) C--i 0 0 C/S E-s s-I s-I s-I s-I E~ s I p-I ~~

I CXI .0

65

~

• .
- — -

~~~~-------- -

~~~~~~~~~~------ — — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -“

F -

~~

TABLE C-12

ANOVA Summary for S2 Subtasks

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 9.669 .605

Error 32 15.992

Subtask 18 31.129 34~ 373***

Sub x L 18 .763 .835

Error 576 .914

System 1 3.260 .859

Sys x L 1 29.341 7.732**

Error 32 3.795

Sub x Sys 18 2.229 5.287***

Sub x Sys x L 18 .649 1.540

Error 576 .422

**p .< .Ol

***p< .001 

. 

-

66
US Ui US Ui US 0’ C-i US Il US US — US US c--i

C .

(IS s-_I s-I s-I

>4

0.

0 0CXI en en en en c-i 0 ~ c-i in en c-i C N. c—i c-i ,0 a) a) 2: -

~ -.

~ ‘-.

~

t -~ Si -? en -~ -.

~ -.i~ ~~ -~ en -~ en ‘04) ______ ____________________________________________________________ 00 Ui Ui Ui in US Ui in Ui Ui -~ Ui Ui US in US 14 C

(I)

1

~

0 CXI N. Ui Ui in en Ui Ui Ui C-’-- US N. N. N. in Ui a)

2: -

~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -~~ -

~~ en -~ -~

0 0 0 US N. US 0’ US 0’ 0 0’ .I 0 0’ C

C

C/) s-I s_I s-I s-I s-I s-I —

>4

0.

0 0 4) CXI C’ Ui ‘

0 N. US US N. N. US Ui ‘.0 en ‘-.3

~ Ui -.1’- 0 a) en 0 2: en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en US -s-I

-I

>5 4) .0 U 0’ 0 0’ C’ N. US C US C US s—I s-I 0 0 41 C

‘0 (XI US -I s—I s-I s_I — s-I s-I a) ~~ C/) —

T

0~~

CO 0 4) 0 Cs 0 s-I 0 C-i 0 (‘--1 (‘1 0 03 0 ‘.0 0 0’ (.3 . 54 4)

.-3 CC 2: -

~ en -~ -.t -.t -~ ‘-.

~~ -~ -~ -~ en -.i en ‘-~~ en

~~~4) <

E-4.0

U —

0 ‘0 C/S s-I

a) 0. s-I (.3 14.4 a)

-I

-.4 0 U

o 4-)

-s-I Cd

(0 .0 U) 0CC

s-I 0 0.) 0.) 003

O ,-I

~~ _I .0 4)1.. 4 1 4 10 4) 41 — a)

0 4) -s-I s-I > 0 0 9s- I CXI s-I 4) 4 ) 0 14 li ,-l 1141 (13 N C) _I CO 0 0 ‘0 0 . 0 14 Q-0 CO ‘.4 4)4- i a)

4) ‘1- 4 ) 4 ) 4 )0 0 0 — C) 14 •

~

-4 ‘0 CC 0 0.4-~~~ s-3 s-4 0 CXI 0.4) 0 410

4) ‘.4 CXI . 0 U s-4 00 U (

~

3 4 ) 4 ) .0 C) ~- 0 ‘.4 U 14 p-I 4.4 4) 4) C) >5 4) CO ’ .4 0 4)0 .00 ) ‘.4 CO~~~~ 0 — >-~~

. 5400 CC ci 8 8 0 Os-I 4) 0’0.—I 4 1 0 .0 ‘0 - I W0 ~ 4 ) 4 ) s-I 0 0’0. — I 0. 0 U US C) s-I 9 s_I l4 0. s--I 4 ) 00 COW 4) ‘.4 1. 0 8 0 . 14

COs - I 4 ) 14 a) >5 1401414 0 a)

Q. CO 1.4 ,-I 4 1 4 14 1 4 ) a) C) OOU C) 4)41

0 -s-4 4-4 140041 ,-I 14 Q 4-4 0 03 U

—4 8 ‘44 0 04 ) 4) CXI a) 04)4)4) a) 4) >5 C) 1 1. 0 0 0. 04)4) C /l i C) C)

> a) 54.4 a) ~~ C) s-I N s-I 0. ‘.4 14 a) N -s-I N 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 .) 14 E

~~~ -i-I 41 4-1 0 0 0 C > 5U >5C) C) C) e

~

, 0. 14 C) 0 C) s-~ 0

~~~ 4.4

s-I 0 ._ I a) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 04 ) 8 0 CXI a) 4)p_I -) Us - ) 00 4) >9 ‘.4 • 000 W 4 ) a ) 4 ) • 3 ) 4 ) 1 4 W - I C) 0 4) CO s_I < - I<U S U S C,S US en C C/S C C/S O.. CL) ~~ ‘C

CU

U .54 .54 li ii

.0 (IS CC 0 CXI < 0 C( . 3 (..~~~~~~~~ CXI <USO C(.2 (z. 0 

C/S E-4 .-I ~~ -I ,—I s-4 s-I s-I s_I E-’ en en en en en en en en

- 

- 

- • -~~~~~~ -

. -
-

~~~~-‘-~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

s

~~

-,- --

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- :

~~~~~

_ - - -__ __ -4

~

-

~~~~~~~~~~

_ - - - -

c-iC~~~~ -

~~~OC c--i. C - C O O

s-I 5I p_I s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I

0.

0 0

4) en N. en en N- Ui C-i Ui N. N. in

.0 a) . . • • . . . .

XI) 2: en en c--i en en en en en en en en ‘04) ___________________________________________________________________

00

s-I Ui in N. Ui (Si Ui Ui Ui -~ -1 -~ 14 C • • . . . . . .

04 ) - N. N.USUSUS

2: -~ -

~ c--i -~ -~~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~

C en en en 0 Os c-i US 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ • • . . . . . . C/S I_ I s-I s-I

>4

0.

0 0 4) 4) 0’ 0 en c-i -~

. C -i

~ c--i c—i en c-i

0 0) . . . . . . . . •

en o 2: c-i en c—i en en en en en en en en C/) ‘.4 —5 s--I

~~ ,~

‘ ~ -

~~ en -~ C-i C’s en s-I s-I s-I 0’ C’s

0 U C - . . . . . . . . 0’0 (XI US p-I s--I s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I

-s-I a) ~

-

~~~~Ui USCs ’.0 00300 ’ s

c—s ‘

~i en en c-i en en c-i en -~ en -~ en 4)

U - - . 0

I

S

a)

‘0 (0 14 . 544)

-.4 U U U a) a) C) 14 4) a) ~ 8 4 )00 14 .0 .0 (0 0 ‘.1 U Q

‘

5) 8 C/) (0 (13 0. 4-~~~~U 1 4

‘0 0 a) 0 CXI 4)i~

4 11 C) 00 C) U ‘0 a)

o 0 U CXI 0014 a) CU Ii 14 .0 (U -s-I .0 41 14 .0 (3) 0 8 14(0 41 CXI 0/ c) .0 0. 0 a) 1404 ) ‘.4 0 U 0. C) C) a) 0) (0 ‘.4 04) 0 0 CXI ~ 4) 1...

0 ‘0 a) U CO U -

40 C C Cd

0 0 ) 14 04) ‘0 ‘4.4 0.0.0 -.-I C) 0 Cd C) 0 0 U s-I a) ‘0 U 0 ( 0 0 9s- 4 0 4) U) 4) .0 s--I 41 (4.4 s-4 4 ) 4) C) Os-I U .0 CC 4)4)4 )4) l

~ ‘.4 CXI 14-4 o i.

~ as a) ~ — ci .0 ‘0 .0 4) s--4 U) ‘0 0 (00 a ) 03 0 4) ‘ . 48 ‘0 0.0.1.. 0 0) 9 C) 140 3 C) 41 4 10 0>5 4) 0) 8 4 ) 4)0 4 ) 00) ‘.44 ) (XI s-I C/ s-I s-I

4) 1404) 0 0 C.) 14 ‘4.4 14 1... 0 s-I 0 . C )0- . s-I s-I a)—..4J U 4) U C/a ) a) •_I

XI) 041 . 0 0) >514 .0 0 0. 4 ) 4 ) 14 1 4 4) C) U O) 00 U a) a) CXI4)U o CO CO U 14 CO 4 ) CC s-_I 0. 0 C) 01414

0 Us-I -s-I ~~ 04) O s-I 0. 0. 0 UU U I.. > > C) 00. >5 -s-I > 00 >5 0 900 ci 14110 00 “.4 ’0 1

~ (.303 0 0 14 4) 4) a) a) a ) ’0 ‘.4140 ) s-I 0) C/C/U 0.0.0 ‘0 0 0. 0. 41000

• .54 • 0 00 • ~~ 00 • 9 - 4 )0 0 1.. 0

US ..

~ US C/S O ‘.0 ~~~~U US N. (.1 03 C 0 00.. ~~~~~~~

• .54 .54 .54 .54 II I’

.0 CO . • . (0 . • • CO • CO . . . .

0 CXI <0 3 0 CXI < 030 4) 0 4) .4030 C ~~~~~ C/S E- -~ -~ -~ E.4 ‘

.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 E-4 N. lt-4 US US US 03

68

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

. 

-- 

.

~~~~~-

-- • 

- - __ _ z . 

-~~~~~~~
_

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_

~~~~~~

_

~~~~~~ ‘.

_ •

s—i c—i in c-i ‘

-0

C - • Cl) s-I ,

>4

0.

0 0CXI 0 c-i ci N. N. .0 a) . . 4) 2: en en ci c—i ci

‘0 • 4) ___ ______________________

00 c-i s-I N. 03 03 14 C •

03 Cl) s-I s-I s-I s-I

0’ 0 ci ci C - •

C/) s-I s-I s-I s-I

>4

0.

0 0 4) CXI s_I 0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘0 O 4) • • 0 2: en en ci ci ci en s-I C/S s-I ____ ______________________________

Cd ‘0 > 5 41 C’-’ en -~ -.~ Ui

a ) .0 U C • . 0 CXI C/S s_I s_I s-I s-I 03

41 U

(IS —

04)

0~~~ 0

O 0 4) 03 Ui C’s ci C’ 0) • . -

.54 2: en en c-i en c-i

— ___ ____________________

0

~~~.0 0 0 s-I ‘0 C/S 41) U 0

— Ci C) 0. 11 0

0 14 (z. U >5 00 0 CC U 0 C) .54 a) ‘s-I Ii ‘s-I CO ‘0 14 (I) a) Ii 14.4

4) 041 ‘

0 ‘.4 0 &-4 CO C) (1) a) 14 0 0) a) 03 s_I 0 D 14 XI) CXI ‘41 (13 U 0) a)

.0 8 CXI U .0 14 .0 41 0 CXI U 9 o 4 1 14 .0 s-I (13 a) U 41 -s-I 0 9 C) 0 3 ( 0 00 0

41) >5 U 0 a) ~

‘-4 >5 4143 a)

0 ‘.4 )) 9 14 0 4)0 .54

I-i s-I 14 (3) 0 4) 0 0 0. s-I .0 0 ‘0 4J_I 4.4

.

00) U 4) s-I s-lU 0 ‘0 4)9 ‘0 0. C C C ) 0 14W 431 U CXI 0 4) CC CXI a ) 4J ‘0(0 a) 0 0 Ci)

0 0) a) a) s-I C) U 0 (3) ‘-4 >5 0 .4 - i 4) s-I 1-1 0 ( 0 8 0) 0. a) Us-I 0 > .4 ‘0 0 CC C)C) 0 C) CO~~~-. -. 0 -s--I 4)01 U a) 0 ) 0 41 U 1. > a ) 0 .

(/S C)0 C) C) (-i Ii ~~~ CO U0 . 00.4) a) 4)

‘

0 4 )4141 0. 4)0

• a)a) 4) a) • 0 • 0 ) 1 4

.54 0 ~~~~) C C — c/S ci 0

(

0 s-I s_I s-I

(XI

41 .54 . . - ,54 • • li i,

.

0 03 (.3 (. 0 CC -.4 ~ C 0 CXI C CC 4) Cd c--i 0 0

C/S F-. .-I s-I s-i I—i s-I F-i s-4

69

LI -. - - - ---

., . •- 

• -
- ~ 

_ - ‘- — —;-

TABLE C—1 4

ANOVA Sinnmary for S3 Subtasks

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 80.529 3•619

Error 34 22•252

Subtask 30 7.739 8.195***

Sub x L 30 .754 .799

Error 1020 .944

System 1 105.292 16.421***

Sys x L 1 6.826 1,065

Error • 34

Sub x Sys 30 .810 2.728***

Sub x Sys x L 30 .346 1.179

Error 1020 •294

***p <.001

70

— ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~

i

~~~

___________

cU Si N. c-. —i- 

—~~ C’ N—

.0 a) • 

-

0) z en c—i c—i en c--i ci c--i

~~~~

1

cXI,J

ci C C’ 00 3 en

1.-i C - • 

-

03 US s l .4 sI

(ID

—

O Cd N. en Li N. C’s Ui 

‘

-0

a) - • . 

.

c-i ci c-i C-i s-I C-i C-i

Os- s--I 0 0

’ C - . . . .

US -I s-I s-I s-I

>4

0.

0 0

CU CXI 

0’s ’.O US 0’s’0 0 0

0 a)

~~ 0 2: c--i c-i c-i c--I c--i en en

(ID ____ _______________________________

>5 CXI .

0 U s-I c--i • en c-i c-i en s-I U C • • . .. . 

.

‘

0 Cd (/5 s--I s-I s-I s--I s--I s-I s—I 

-

~~ a) 03

Ui 41 C/)

—

2:

0S C US ‘-.4~ 03 s-_i 

-~ (Si a) . . . - .

5-3 01 2: -~~ c--i en en en en en

0 3 4 ) <U — ___ _______________________ 

-

(

0 ‘0 (0

C/S s—I i_I ‘5) a)

0-. ‘.4 (4) 11 (a ‘44 CO 0) 

4

‘5) 4) 

~

-

-I 

0

U U 41 a)

U 4) 1-1 0 Cd 0 CXI

.0 (0 0. 8

0 (3.

4) C) 0 

~1-4 .0 0) 0 4_i 41) 4~1 a) 0)

a) 4) 

‘

0 C) 05 

9 N 0 — .s-4 (0 a) -s-I .4 ‘5) > 4) .0

0 ‘0 

.~-I 14 U 

C)

Cd 1-4 4-4 a) CI) CO

00 0 4) (0 >5 1.4 U 0 s-I CO 03 

0 0 0 C) U U 0. 41

0)0) U Cd a) 0 0 ‘0 4) 0 ‘0 Ccl .0 .0 0. 4 O ‘.4 0. 0(15 .

0 9 

‘~~~ 8 1.-. 4) s-i .s-I 4)0 0 0) 4-1 Cl) 0.0 0 ii) C) ‘—4 41 US a) (3. o s-4 s-I .0 a) Cl) a) 0 14 0 0) 0 4.’ 41 a) 0 > 5. 0 - Cd (I) 00 ‘4-i (45 4-1 a) 0. 0 4-1 1. 0 Cd U

0) a) .4 

O W s-I 0 ‘00) 41 4) 1.-. ‘0( 0 00. CXI CXI 0 .0 1-4 1.

0. -s-I U 00 U 2: 4)41 0 00 0 0 0 .0)

0 -s-I -s--I Eli

.

54 - 14(0 - cc) • 1.4.400 sI as en 0-. 2: ‘0 2: C’s ‘.4 (. C~ 4 en 

~ .54 .54 .54 li i

.

0 Cl) - . Cl) • Cl) -

0 Cd 5-’ ~~ Cd C CXI <0 3 0 C 0 0

C/) F-’ en en F-i ‘.0 F-’ C’-. C’s C’s 0’ 

-4) ,0

71

-

- -- 

~~ - 

-

~~~

•

~~~~-~~

-

-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -
TABLE C-16

ANOVA Sui ary for S4 Subtasks

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 18.065 2,794

~rror 37 6.465

Subtask 6 4.082 4.763***

Sub x L 6 .432 .505

Error 222 .857 -

System 1 454 .104

Sys x L 1 22.256 .5,074*

Syb 2 Sys’ 6. .212 .723

Sub x Sys x L 6 .570 1.942

222 .294

*p < ,05

***p< ,OQ1

72

____________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —-- - ~

- --

~~~~~~~~~~~~
C’s s-I 

ci N. s-I C - - • (I) s-I s-I s-I

>4

0-. 0 00 0 CC) US N. N- —(3’- N.

0 a) -

‘s-I 2: en en en en en -4(XI

4.’

U s--i ci en 

C’s C’

(XI C • 

•

03 C/) -I s_I -I

s-I en .-4 s-I s-I

C . 

. C/) s-i s-I 4 s-I sI

>4

0.

0 0

(0 Cd 

~

o en iiis-I c--I 0 0 a) . • C/S 0 2: en en en en en • (. ‘s-I

s-I __ _____________

>5 (XI

.0 U — 

-~ 0 in en i-i - C . .

‘

0 Cd C/) s-i s -4 s-I s--I sI a) 03 N-U —

s-i-i~~

0 

0 (0 0 4) in en en c--i ‘.0 (.1.54 a) • .

-303 2: en en en en en 034) _____________________ < U — 0 0 0 C/S s-I U 04 I cc) (.3 0 0 E-4 0 ‘s-i 0 ‘0 -.4 0 14 U o ‘0 0 Cd .4 0 0 .0

4) (XI C) 

8 0) 0 ‘.I ‘0 U C)

O a) 03 14 . a) 0 Ii

0 11 (3. a)

0 CXI ‘s-I (3. .0 

0 U 4-4 0 4-’ (XI

‘

0 41 Cl) 0 s-I a) Cd ‘

4-4 0. CC ~ — 0 a) ‘0 CXI C) 14 0 U

‘s-i 

>5.4 4)03 14 0 U 9.4 41 0

0 Cd ‘s-I C 0 a) 0.

4) 

00 11 s--I a ) CO 0. s-I 14 0 Cc) J.i CO 0

(3. 0 0) -s-I ‘s-I s-l Cd U)

4) 1.i U 9-i CO (3. 4414 (3. ’s-I U a) a) o 0 -s-I 0 >51-. 14 14 s-I 54-4 4) s-I 00 ‘.4 -s-i a) a) 0 ‘4-. u.~ ~. CCC) -s-I 41 0.0. a) 0 ’s-I 8 C) 80 >5>5 C 0 1-. 0 (.103 4-4 0

0CC ) a) 

‘

0 s-I s--i CU 0O U 0 ‘0 0 . .54 • -14 a) 0 • 0 9 ‘0

0 C/I ,-4 0 4 0 CO N. 2: (.1 ci ,-I 1~l ~~ .•54 Ill .0 03 - - . 10

0 Cc) i_I 

‘~ ) CXI <0 3 0 0

C/S F-i s-I s-I s-I F-I N. N. 4) 

s

O

73

- -
: ___ ___

TABLE C-18

ANOVA Summary for FSO Subtasks

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 9.480 1.626

Error 34 5.829

Subtask 4 .882 1.342

Sub x L 4 .121 .184

Error 136 .657

System 1 .453 .120

Sys x L 1 •120 .032

Sub x Sys 4 •352 1.190

Sub x Sys x L 4 .185 .626

Error 136 .296

74

LI-- - .± -‘- -

~~~~ 

•

~~~~~~~~~~~~

--_

~~~~ - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. i

~ ___________ ____

en c—i CD .—~ CD US US Q — US N- ‘—~ C - - • - • - , • • •

C/) s--i s_I s-I s4 , 4 — — 5-. —

>4

0-.

0 0CO CD CD s-I ‘.0 C’ N- N- N- C) C’ .

0 0) - • . - • - . . - . - - 0) en en en en c-i en en en en en en ~~ en c-n

‘0

Cd _____ _______________________________________ - - -

00

-s-I CO en Li (P’s if’s CO Li It’s ~ . cii C It’s (Si C 14 . . - . . • . . - . -

03 US —i — —

4-’

a) (ID— -

‘0O - CC) <0 

0 Cc) - ‘.0 C’ ‘0 ‘0 N- en r— —‘s -~~ N- en ‘

.0 CD

4) - . - . . • - • - . -

0 Z —zJ- en —i- -.

~ -i- ~~ ~~- en ~~ - -

~

j0

F-.

0 C’ CO C C)’. c--i ci C’ 0 s-I C ~ C’ “

C - • - - - . . - . - .

‘

0 C/) ,-4 s-4 ,

~~ s_I s_ I

4)

i-i — -— _______________

cc) >4

0-.

0 0 s-—I Cd Cd en en -z)- -zl s--I Li ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 II~ in N- CO —

0 0 4) - . . . - . . - . .

14 o Z en en c-i en en en en en en ç

~-’s en en c-i en

-H

O -4 0 CC)

0 4-i CO N- CD CO C’ C C’ CO C ,-4 C- C CO C-i 4-I - . . - . . - . - - - - - ‘0 CC) (ID s- I s-4 s-I s-~ SH 5-i

0 03

Cd C/) — ________________

‘0

0 < 0 CC) 0 CC) C C’ C C ci s--I C’ c-i C’ C’ en ci CC)

(0 4) . , - . • • • • - • - - (0 Z -

~~ en —i’- —i- -~ -.~ en -i- en en en en -i- en

0

0

CI) (1) 4) Cl)

0 4~

1 -(0 .0 ‘5)

0 ‘0 4) 41 a) 14 0) O s- I a)4J .0 41 0 ‘5) CC) 4)05 -14 41 0 ‘0 .0 .

5- 1.-i 0.F--. <0) 0 1.-i a) 00 4-i 41 4-4 0)05 CU 41 .

0 4) U (0

(1) 1)) <0 (0 cc) ‘0 0 H 0

0.0 .-c/) 0 0 ~ i-1 •H

14 0 0 4-1 ‘5)0 ‘-0 14 0 0. (4.0

0 U O s-i b O O < C -

) 4) 0 041 41 -s-I (0 0. 4- 3 -5-1 C/) F-’. •H ‘- ‘4 C-) 4-i 4) (d ccl ‘

—‘0 0 4-1 14 ~~ E~~~ U)

Cc) ccl (0 41) 144 ) 41 0. (0 -s-I 0) 14

14 (0 •H P-. ‘.—‘ 0) 0 ‘0 cc) 1--. l-J 0 4~

J .—.0) 4-i ~ ~~ 0 (44) .

0

.0 0 I U CO F- ’. C)•U CC) o 0 U s-I bO (0 0 (4~4 s—I 4) (0 (1) U --4 ,0 ci~i 0) ‘

0 Cd a)

(0 (0 0 • Ha) CP 4-~~~4.’ (0 0 00 ~ U) (0 -H 4) 4-~ 4~

1 0 0) CC) 0) U 0 0 ) s--I (0 ‘005 - 14 - --4 0) U Cc) U9 -H O) C/) 00) 14.1

C’ >-~ 0 s’-~ ~

s- I 0) • 4.J -s--I 00 0 CC) (0 4-4

,-~ (0 4-i 14 410) -1(0 4~1 . -4 Ø ) 00. 4-i (0 ( 00 0 cc) CI)

I 0) 0) 0) - H 4 ~

i .014 U .

0 U’0 (0 ‘s-I 0 s-i -I 4.’ 4.’

O (0 s--I ‘0 s-0 (4 0) CC) (4140 --4 ’0 N -s-l i-l 41 00(0 05 (0 4) 0. (0 ---

~~~Q) 0.’0 4-4 ,_IOCC) 4 1 (0 F-— (0-H cC) 00 4)

a) (0 0 . 0 F- ( 40 - -I C.-. 9-i CC) s-I 4 )’0 C) -s-i ,0 00 (0

— 0 0 0 - -- 0) U E F--. CC) 0) -H CC) (00 ‘00. 0 41)

.0 0 U U) )-~ (0 ~~~~1 40 .0a) 0 0)0 0 1- ia) 0 14 CC) H 0 (0 0’0 4) 9-1 Cl) ( 0 -s--I O C/) C) CC) -s-i a 0 Os-i (0 f-i U .)i

~ -H 0 s-_i4 ) .0 0 0 <0. ~~-

~

- C C) ‘0 ~ U~~~) (0 0 -H (0 •H 4-1 4.’ 4-4 a) s--I CC) 00 s-I ‘0 ‘0 01 0) U

4-I - H .

0 Cl) CC) ,-‘-. s-—4 0) 00.0 ‘O s-I 0 14 (0 0)

Cl) .0 4-1 -H 000. OF- ’. 0 CU0)~~~~ -s-I cc) F-’. 04) C.) ‘

0 0 4-i -H 4-I - s-I (

~i 0 ‘H 4~

i 4-1 4-4 4~

i 41 s-H (0 (4 -H • (0

4-i 4 4) H C) s--i 004 ) 05 CC) CC) 00 41.

) 1_I 00 00 (4 41 00 0) CC) ‘0 0-H 4) s-—4 (1) 00J - 4-iC) 00 0Oa) 0 0 CC) 0 00 -H 4.’ 1-c CC) 4-i -H 0 F--. 4~1 -H a) (0 s-~ ~ 4 •s-I 0 (0 ~

_I en U 04(0 00(00 0 .0 0 N-H E 0 4-i 4-i •H 4-J W ~~~~s-4 H ~~~ c n N- CC) 0 -H (0 4-IC C) 0) 4-i (I) -H 0O a) 4) ---~ 4 ) 0) H -H0Q ’ ‘0 (0 4-. H 54 -H 00 0 0) 000 U1--i .0.0 0CC) s--~ ( 4 4 (0 0 I-i ,4 II II CC) U 14 .

)4 - -10 0. s--i (3. -H01) QJ O c -i 4~1 4 ~

1 (0.0 -s-~ C.114f — i 0 (0 .

0 CC) 0 CC) ~ l

~

) ~c 0 cc) — 41 ‘5) 0 ‘0 0 0

— 

o1. -. ~ z ~ o ~~~ ~~~ ~~ C-~ 0 (0.0

75

-

~~~~~ ~~~~~ __ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- — ------ -s-----,-— --’--’- -- - --- -- -- --

~ 

_

~~~~~~~~~

‘

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- ‘ -- ---- — ---,- --- -.

~

--- 

- -

TABLE C-20 -

ANOVA Summary for Characteristics of Command and Control

Source df Mean Square F

Level 1 7.139 .591

Error 38 12.077

Characteristic 13 1.389 2.352**

C~xL 13 .299 .506

Error 494 .591 -

System 1 84.693 29..254***

~ x L 1 7.479 2.583

Error 38 2.895

C x S 13 1.761 6.673***

C x S x L 13 .285 1.081

~rror 494 .264

7~

~~~~~~~

-

—-~~ 

-

~~

- 

‘- i

’ - a-- - -- -—-~~~~~~ , —~ -~ 

~~~~~~~~~ -
APPENDIX B

PERSONNEL COSTS

TABLE B—i

Composite Standard Rates for Costing

Military Personnel ServicesL

Annual Rate Hourly Rate

COL $38 ,674 $20.9275

LTC 31,521 17.0568

MAJ 25 ,988 14.0628

CPT 21,395 11.5774

1LT 16,677 9.0243

2LT 12,231 6.6185

E9 21,415 11.5882

E8 17 ,777 9.6196

E7 15,192 8.2208

E6 12,663 6.8523

E5 10,673 5.7754

E4 8,958 4.8474

E3 8,192 4.4329

E2 7 ,557 4.0892

*Hourly rate based on 1848 hour military

man year. -

‘From rev ised Army Tra ining Study (ARTS) TEA 78 Managemen t System

Package , ATCG—ATS , Fort Belvoir , VA , 10 April 1978.

77

— -—.—-- ------~ ~~~~~~ -~--~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
TABLE D—2

Preparation Costs for a 16—Hour CPX

Battalion Brigade

Man—hours Cost Man—hours Cost

Develop scenarioa

MM 

LTC - 

10.7 

2.0 

150.47 

34.11 — 20.0 281.26 — CPT 12.7 147.03 37.3 431.84

E8 - 

1.5 14.43 — —

E7 .7 5.75 — — E6 .7 4.80 — — E4 5.3 25.69 — — E3 1.5 6.65 — —

Total 35.1 $388.93 57.3’ $713.10

Write messagesa

MM 2.0 28.13 16.0 225.00

CPT 49.3 570.77 49.3 570.77

1LT 75.3 679.53 64.0 577.56

E8 — — 8.0 76.96

E7 1.7 13.98 32.0 263.07

E6 — — 32.0 219.27

E4 3.5 16.97 3.3 16.00

Total 131.8 $1,309.38 204.6 $1,948.63

Train controllers

a -

LTC — — 10.0 170.57

MM 5.0 70.31 14.7 206.72

CPT 17.6 203.76 37.3 431.84

1LT 9.1 82 .12 9.3 83.93

2LT 6.0 39.71 — —

- E8 14.0 134.67 14.7 141.41

E7 23.8 195.66 14.7 120.85 *

E4 6.0 29.08 38. 7’ 187.59

E3 - 

6.0 26.60 18.7 82.90

Total 87.5 $781.91 158.1 $1,425.81

a~ 4 for battalion, 3 for brigade.

78 

—-..r~

_ 
- . ~~~~~~~~~ ‘

~~~~~~~~ - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- ---

~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________

Table D—2 (Continued)

Battalion Brigade

Man—hours Cost Man—hours Cost

Set up equipment~

’

NM 4.0 56.25 2.0 28.13

CPT 4.0 46.31 7.0 81.04

1LT — — 3.0 27.03

E8 — — 16.0 153.91

E7 18.0 147.97 19.0 156.20

E6 8.4 57.56 3.0 20.56

E5 25.0 144.39 — —

E4 61.7 299.08 80.0 387.79

Total 121.1 $751.56 130.0 $8~4.70

OtherC -

MM — — 2.0 28.13

CPT — — 2.0 23.15

E8 — — 2.0 19.24 . 

-

E7 — — 2.0 16.44

Total — — 8.0 $86.96

a~ 4 for battalion, 3 for brigade

bn~~

.2

cn 1 for brigade

79

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~ — - -~~~~~~~~~

‘-

- -

~~~~~~~ -—-- -~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~
-‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I’-IEiT

~~ 

I TTT~~~

TABLE D-3

Cost Per Man—Hour of Exercise Preparation

Battalion Brigade

Develop scenario $11.08 $12.45

Write messages 9.93 9.52

Train controllers 8.94 - 9.02

Set up equipment 6.21 6.57

Other — 10.87

80

.- ‘

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ —

~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~—
OJSlr.iuUTJON 

ARI Distribution l t 

4 Q,\SU (l.lf<AAI 

2 tiODA 101\MI CSZI 

1 ~IOOA IUArf.f'CR 

IIOOA IPN.-Io\·AR) 

~;oo.t. IPMi:-HRt·POI 

tiOOA (:;GAO 101 

t:ODA (Qt,MI·DOl ·CI 

tiOOA ([)APC-PMZ·Al 

HOOA (IV,CH-PPl·AI 

HODA (OAPEAIAE) 

HODA (OAPE-I.l?Q-C) 

HOOA (OI'.f'(.QW) 

HO!:>A IOAPE-HAL) 

HOOA (OAPE·CPSI 

HQOA (Dt.fO MFA) 

HOOA (OJ'.AO·ARS·f'l 

HOOA (01\f'C.f'AS·AI 

HOOA (DU::A-ORI 

HODA IOAMO RORI 

HOOA IOASG) 

HOOA (0A10-PI) 

Chi~t. Consult Oiv IOA·OTSGI, Ad lp~.i. MD 

Mil Asst. tlurn Fles, OOOA&E, OAO IE&LS) 

HQ USAr.t.l . .A.PO Seattlf<, ATTN: ARAGP·R 

tiO First Army, ATTN: AFKA·OI·TI 

2 HQ Frith Arm\', Ft Sam Houston 

1 Oir, Army Stf S:•rdies Ofc, ATTN: OAVCSA IDSPI 

Ole Chief of Sti, Studies Ofc 

OCSrl:n, ATTN: CPS/OC:P 

Th~ Army Lii.>, Pent ~•. ATTN: RSB Chief 

The 1\fmy l o!J, Ptnta,on, ATTN: AIHlAL 

01::. Asst Seo:t uf the Army (R&DI 

Tech Sup;oort Ole. OJ<'S 

USASA, Arl n~ton, ATTN: IAR0·1· 

USA Asch Ole, Durham. ATTN: Life Sciences Oir 

2 USARIEM, N~ticl:, ATTN: SGRD·UE.CA 

1 USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: ::;TETC·MO·A 

1 USAIMA, Ft fl ~gg, ATTN: ATSU-CT0-0:.1 

USAIMA, Ft f.ru 9. An~: :.>•.,oa t Lib 

US WAC Ctr l'< Sr h, Ft McC' II. . ATTN. lib 

US \'J,\C C:tr & Sch, Ft Ciell.; , / ,TTN: Tng l>ir 

U3A O.o ;r ~rm;,st~ r Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATS1.1·TE 

lntrll i· "·-~ ~IJ: ·ro, l Otv Ok , f:WL, Ft H:>la!.>ird 

USA Sl !:;;,•o ol Sdo, Ft Gordr.n, JI.TTN· r, TSO·EA 

USA CloJp:"i" Ctr l' Sch, f't H;,rnilton, ATTN: ATSC·TE·RO 

IJ ATSCH, Ft fl1>tis, ATTN: !'clue Ao •isor 

USA VIJr Coll< ~c. rl slo! Barracks, ATTN: Lib 

2 WI! AI :1, tl~:orop,yr.h oa try Oiv 

1 ou. sn· .. Me>atNe\' 

I USA Con ce!'l An.1l Agcy, lho~d3, ATTN: MOCA·MR 

l USA Co ncept AnaiAgcy, I.Jethesda, ATTNt MOCA·JF 

1 U ::;A Arctic Test Ctr, APO $o!attle, ATTNt STEAC·PL·MI 

I US A Arctic Test Ctr, APO Seolltl'!, ATTN: AM:>TE·PL.·TS 

l USA Arm~mcnt Cmd, Rcstono Arsen.1l, ATTN: ATSK-TEM 

l U:.A Arm.:~ment Cm:!, Rock lslo1nd, ATTN: AMSAR·TOC 

l 'f'AA·NAf'EC, Alllnlic City, ATTN: Library 

l FAA·NAFt::C, Atlolntic City, ATTN: Hum E:ngr ar 

l FAA A'!ronau:tcal Ctr, Okl.lhom3 City, ATTN: AAC-44 0 

2 USA f' l<l Art~· Sch, Ft Soli, ATTN: Llbr,.ry 

l USA Armor Sen, Ft Knox, ATTN: Lib rary 

I USA Armo r Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB·OI· E 

l US A Armor Sch, Ft Kflox, ATTN: ATSB·DT·TP 

I USA Armor Sen, Ft Knox, A lTN: ATSB-CD-AO 

81 

2 HOUSACf)EC, Ft O•.J. AT'r l•i : l il >~Jry 

1 UOUSACOEC, Ft t:rd, / .TT!ol . ATEC- E:X- E- Hum Factors 

2 USJI.EEC:. H !lcrtj,,n,inll ?.rmon, ATTN: Lo!•:ary 

USAI'ACDC, Ft U•:" J·' '"'" l b:ri;ort, ATTN: ATCP - tiR 

liSA Comm EI t .: h, rt lc·:or ou :h , ATl'I'J: 1\TSN-EA 

U$/,(C, Ft Monmoutlo, ATHI: EL· C1' HD!' 

USI\!' C, Ft MronmooJth, A1Tto;: o\MSEL- PA- 1' 

U$AfC, Ft Monnl< •l•th. J'.l TN: Ar.1<;EL- SI- CB 

USAEC, l't Monmc..::h, ATTi•J: C, F2cl De• Br 

USA Materials Sys n~l Ar . >'.llCr•lo.;n, ATTN : AMXSY-P 

Edg">'IOOd A1>~nal, A!:. rd~ert , ATTN: $Ahf: ·\-·CI. .. H 

USA O;d Ctr & Sdo. f .t•••.:<rn. ATTN: A lSI · TD.I- C 

2 USA Hum Er.;Jr Lah. .t<:n!~c , ATTN: l il·: ·, y!D•r 

1 USA Comba t A:m1 Ins 6ct, ~~ f.;ennong, t.TT:'I: l;d Supervisor 

USA ln!antry Hum il,.,:, :.hot, r 1 Cenniro·.;. ATT~: : Ctoitl 

USA Infantry Bd, f't r. ~n roiro•J 1\TH.; · STE E:C-TE- T 

USASMA, Ft Cliss. ATTN : AiSS-LRC 

USA Air ~f Sch, Ft f.!.ss. ATTN: ATSA·-CT0 - 1.\E 

USA Air O~f Sch, rr f.l:s·,/,TTN: Tedo Loh 

US!'.\ Air Oe.f Pd. F1 il!iss. !IT'f:ll : Fll!:S 

USA Air Ocf Bd. Ft s:•;>, TI !: STEBD-1'0 

U$A Cmd & G<•nrrr: Stf ·· ~'· Ft L•averowo'1h, AITN: L:IJ 

USA Cmu t; Genco at $:f Co;l~~'~· F t Leavcn,·,onto, ATTN : ATSW ·SE - l 

USl\ Cmr1 & Ge:.crc.: : (;{~ ._..-. Ft !:uv• l'l \·~·v: '- . t,TTr~: td ~.rl'.·i~ ~· : 

USA om~incd Am·s Crnht fl , Act, Ft l c avcro.':unto. !\TTN: ~: .: · 

USA Combuoo.! Ar "'~ Cm':t [h v Act. Ft Lta•.::r,wo:th. ATTN : CCS 

USA Combin"d Arrr s t:'mht Oev Act, f t l. ta•·~ nviOrth, ATTN : A T(.f,<.,, 

USA C:>ml!incc1 A·r·lS Cmot De: Act, Ft :..e~v. nwortt •. ATTN: ATCo\';·. ·- ~ 

1 USA Combinctl Anm r~obt Ocv Act, Ft ,.·; wur;~ . ATIN: AH I.CC.. !' 

1 USAEC0:\1, Nrght Vosi::ro l :,;_,, r: 0 "1v·m. r, i TN: Al,: ~f I - NV·-Sn 

3 USA Com lut • $ y, Crn\..1. rt tw;Jo•r. Al Tf-_: ·, tc;, lirtrart,-

US.\M!'ROC, Ft Rd vci: , r,1 TN: 5~e .. oo 

USA f:n~ Sch. Ft Snl, oir. ATl r·•: Librtr)' 

USA Tc ic L• b. Ft Bt lv<> rr, ATTN : f:TL- TO- S 

USA Toro~r Jph :.: ~io, rr c:.•t•,o:o. ATTr<: STINFO Ceollc r 

USA ;>og ra •, ~ Ln!>. ft R•'">ir, ATTN : ~1 L- GSL 

USA ln: lirg•: nc~ Ctr t< Sen, Ft Hua: hcrcd, I,TTr\: \:TO- ~S 

USA lntdliDcncc C.tr f, S.-h. l't toJc ou ~. ATTN: A TS-CTl>-MS 

US.I\ ~lli!}C ce Ct• f, Sc:1, f : I :u J~huc . t. T~ ;~ : ATSI- TC 

U~A lntelli; er:ce Ctr r: Sc<o, Ft Huachuca, A I TN. A TSt .. T!:X-C,S 

US '\ ln rr !li:Jcr.t:c Ctr & S.c!l, f t uc.chuc , A·;i :~ : 1\'iSI CTS--Qi·: 

USA ntd ~: ,te C;: & !,•;.:, ft ih :~:huca, t;t T~l . h i'SI- C.T0-01 

USA i! ll i~c et> Ctr ; , !'coo, F: ~. ,ch·;;:;: , AT T:': A l :,1- CT 0 -C$ 

USf\ lntef!ic,;··n..:': Ctr r.- , r : :u~dHIC l .. i 'T1

\ ' : lJ f-\~/:. nD 

U3A lntclh~~'" '' C:t f, f. : •. f t l :uochu;:,, /,TTN· 1\'fSI- TC,1 

USA ntl'llo ·· ~c~ Ctr C 5.t..l· t ~h .oc •ou ~./,"! TI . lob ca•y 

1 COR, HO ftll uldo~ t '. :,r TN: Tt·th Rc; f'i·.• 

2 Con. l:.';A f-t ,~\ llr:,, P•,·:: C•r: . .\TTl~ : ST[i:f'- MT .. S 

_I HQ, TCATA, ATTN: T ech Library 

l HQ, TCATA, ATTN' AT CAT·OP·Q, Ft lbod 

l US.A Ro!crulting Ctnd, Ft ~~~~ri C: an, ATTN : USARCPM·P 

I Senior Arrr 1 Ac.lv., U5 AFAGOD{l'AC, F.l~ln AF AuY. f-' td No. 9 

l 1-IQ ltS ARI' AC, OC:SPEtl, AI>O SF ?&5'!>8, ATTN: GPPF ~E 

1 Stimson Lib, Ac.:~tlt'my ol H<!otl:h Scit'roc ~. Ft Sam Hou>t:>n 

l Marine Corps.fnst., A TiN: ~an MCI 

l IIQUSMC, Conrm;uH~Jnt, ATTN: Code MTMT 

l HQUSMC, Co mJnd nt, ATTNs Code MP1 ·20-23 

2 USCG Academy, N.,w Lond on, AT1 N : Admissie>n 

2 USCG Ac01demy, l~ w London, ATTN: Library 

1 USCG Tr.:.lning Ctr, NV, ATTN: CO 

l USCG.Trainlng Clr, NV, ATTNt Educ Svc Ofc 

1 USCG, ~sy o: h.>l Ft~' Or, DC, ATTN: GP l /& 2 

1 tfQ Mid-Rang" EJr, MC.: Q.!t, Quantico, ATTN: J•&s oiv 
1 US Marine Corps Liaision Ofc, AMC, Alexllldria, ATTN: AMCGS-F 

1 USATHAOOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATRO-ED 

6 USATRAOOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATPR-AD 

1 USATRAOOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATTS-EA 

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson, ATTN: Library 

2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rucker, ATTN: STEIG-PO 

1 USA AIJl!Y for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library 

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Educ Advitor 

1 USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rucker, ATTN: PO Dr-0 

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, StLouis, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR 

2 USA Avladon 9vs Tett Act., Edw•ds AFB, ATTN: SAVTE-T 

1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliu, ATTN: ATSA TEM 

USA Air Mobility Rsch 8o Dev Lab, Moffett Fld, ATTN: SA VOL-AS 

IJSA Aviation Sc:h. R~ Tng Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM 

USA Aviation Sc:h, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-0-A 

HO, OARCOM, Alexandria, ATTN: AMXCD-TL 

HO, DARCOM, Alexandria, ATTN: CDR 

US Military Acildemy, W~t Point, ATTN: Serials Unit 

US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrshp 

US Military Academy, W~t Point, ATTN: MAOR 

USA Standardozation Gp, UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE-GC 

Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 452 

3 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 458 

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 450 

Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 441 

Naval Aerospc Med R~ Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sch Div 

Naul Aerospc Mtd Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Code L51 

Naval Aerospc Med R~s Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Code L5 

Chief of NavP~rs. ATTN: Pers·OR 

NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr 

Nav Oceanographic, DC, ATTN:· Code 6251, Ch.ts 81 Tecto 

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr 

1 NavAirSysCom, ATTN: AIR-5313C 

Nav BuMed, ATTN: 713 

NavHeoicopterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601 

1 AFHRL IFTI William AFB 

1 AFHRL (TTl Lowry AFB 

1 AFHRL (ASI WPAFB, OH 

2 AFHRL IOOJZI qrooks AFB 

1 AFHRL (OOJN) Lackler.d AFB 

1 HQUSAF (INYSDI 

1 HQUSAF IDPXXAI 

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB 

3 AMRL (HEI WPAFB, OH 

2 AF lnst of Tech, WPAFB, OH, ATTN: ENE/SL 

1 ATC (XPTDI Randolph AFB 

USAF AeroMe<l Liu, Brooks AFB ISUL-41. ATTN: OOC SEC 

AFOSR (NLI. Arlington 

AF Log Cmd, Ml1:1ellan AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB 

Air Force Academy, CO, ATTN: DeP.t of Bel Sen 

5 NavPers & Dev Ctr, San Diego 

2 Navy Med Neurapsychiatric Rsch Unit, San Diego 

1 Nav Electronic Lab. San Diego, ATTN: Res Lab 

Nav Trll!JCen, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000-Lilo 

NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Coda 55Aa 

NavPostGraSch, MonterPy, ATTN: Code 2124 

NavTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib 

US Dept of Labor. DC. ATTN· Manpo..,.r Admin 

US Dept of Justice, DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin 

Nat Bur of Standards, DC. ATTN : Computer Info Section 

Nat Clearing HollS'l for MH-·Info, Rockville 

Oc•·veo federal Ctr, Lakewood, A fTN: BLM 

I :t De fe.nsc Documentation Center 

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra 

1 Scienlific Advsr, Mil Bd, Army Hq, Roos~ll Ofcs, Canberra 

1 Mil Jnd Air AttJche. Au<tria" E:rnbassv 

1 Ccnue ck> Reche oche Oes F actc•ors, Humaine de Ia Oefen<e 

Nation•le, Rrooss~l5 

Canadian Joint Staff Wa~hinqton 

v i Air Staff, Royal Canadian AF, ATTN: Pers Std Anal Br 

3 Chief, Canadian Del R~h Staff, ATTN: C/CROS(WI 

4 British Del Staff, British Embassy, Washington 

82 

1 Dtf • Clvlllnst of Enviro Medicine, canada 

1 AIR CRESS, Ktntlnglon, ATTN: Info Sysa, 

1 MII~T~.Copehegan 

1 Military Atuc:ht, Fmldl Ema-y, ATTN: Doc Sec: 

1 Mtdtcln Chef, C.E.R.P.A.-Arllrlll, Toulon/NWII FriiiCI 

1 Prin Scientific Off, Appl Hum E19 RICh Dlv, Ministry 

of Dlfenlt, New Delhi 

1 Pwn RICh Ofc Library. AKA, 111111 Dtf- Forcn 

1 Minlmril wen Dtf_., DOOP/KL Afd Sociaal 

Psyc:hologildlt Z.Un, The Hague, Netherlands 

• 

•