""Techlcel Paper 3SO AD

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE

ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

NemilK. Eaton Q C

0 Janet F. Neff

ARI FIELD UNITat FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Septembe r 978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Best Available Copy
- ¶T7T'F ~ ~ 

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, U S Army Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION. Primary distribution of this report has been rmaed by ARI. Pleawse ddres cone mpon'Jen. concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Insti*,.te for the Belsav111ors, and Social Scoences. ATTN PERIIP. 5001 Elsenhodiir Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

FINA OIPOSIIONThis report May be destroyed when stis no longer needed. Pleag" do not returrns to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for this Behavioral arid Social Sciences.

ILT The findings in this report ore not to be construed as on official Depowtm efit Of the Armyv position,~ unlts% so designated by other authorized documnents.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Mon, Does Ent~ed

REPORT DOCMENTATION PAGE 1 BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

RE. " R N111601 m/ j2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMB8ER

Technical Paper 350 /7 S . TYP Of REPORT & PERIOD CoV9ERo

4.TITLE (Eowl Iifiritej ( G H FFNCRY OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANKý -

GNEYPERFORMANCE S-- . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NMummR

7. AUJTHOR(@) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT MUM11CR(e)

ýNewell K. /aton and Janet F.lNeff

B.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS WO PROGRAM ELEMENT.PROJECT. TASK

A*AWRK UNIT NUMBERS,

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and b - w. .

Social Sciences (PERI-IK) 2Q76217A767

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333.......

I I. CONTR4OLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel September 1978 j,1

Washington, DC 20310

______________________________________104

14- MONITORING AGENCY NAME A AOORESS(JI diff~erenft hControlling Olicef) IS- SECURITY CLASS. (of Whe report)

Unclassified

IS& OECLASSIPICATION/DOWNGRAOING r - SC H COU LE 9

I STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN.T (.f the stbotoect entered In Ifock 20. ii dIff-ent, froin RoPo.I)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It, KEY WORDS (Contirnue on .... se side it necessay wd id,,,ttv. by block n,~mb.,)

Personnel turbulence

Tank crew performance

Armor training

20. ABISTRACT (Con.h,.e on re-mie -1lA. it necessary -it identitr by btok nia-be,)

SThis research, by the Army Research Institute Field Unit at Fort Knox, Ky.,

sought specific data on the relationship of tank crew turbulence to performance.

-In Phase I, a questionnaire developed to saasure and evaluate existing

crew turbulence was adninistered to crews of five armor battalions during tank

gunnery training. Responses from 211 crews were correlated with gunnery qualification Table VIII scores to determine the relationship between various crew

turbulence variables and gunnery performance..

DDO F 1473 EDITION OF I NOV GS IS OBSOLETE Ucasfe

SECUR4ITY CLASSIFICATION OF TWIS PAGE (11bo Del.o Enter**.

/0^
- ÷A

Unclassified

$SCUmTY GC.ASSIFCATION OF THoI PAG5VM( D" )

20O2 Phase II investigated, with four groups of 11 crews each, the effects of

artificially created crew turbulence on Table VIII performance. Complete crews

who had just completed Table VIII for record couprisad the Control Group. In

the second group (Unfamiliar Crews), crewmen were assigned to different crews

and different H60AI tanks. In the third group (Unfamiliar Crew* and Positions),

gunners acted as tank commanders and loaders acted as gunners, assigned to

different crews and tanks as in Group 2. In the fourth group (Non-Armor.Replacements), non-armor personnel who had received 3 days of special training

acted as gunners and loaders. ,

"•Results showed considerable turbulence existed. Complete crews had been

together typically 1-2 months, tank commander/gunner pairs 1-3 months. Typical

tank commanders had held their positions 12-42 months, gunner. 5-12 months,

drivers 5-9 months, and loaders 2-6 months. Great variation in times existed.

In Phase I, r perience of both tank commander and gunner in their positions

was significantly related to gunnery performance. More experienced tank commanders had shorter opening times, and more experienced gunners had more main

gun hits; the longer the two had trained together, the shorter their opening

times. In Phase II, Groups 1 and 2 performed equally well, indicating that

unfamiliar crews and tanks did not make a difference. Group 3 did much more

poorly than Groups 1 and 2, indicating the importance of the tank commander and

gunnur being familiar with their duties. Groups I and 4 also performed about

equally well, indicating chat non-armor combac support personnel with brief

intensive training can be integrated into crews with trained tank comanders

and drivers and yield Table VIII performance comparable to thalt of armor crew.

.I'

Unclassified

SECURlTY CLASSiFICA¶:ON OF TNISPAGEWUSDahft a.m.e)
Technicel Piper 350

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE

ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

Newell K. Eaton

Janet F. Neff

Submitted by:

Donald F. Haggard, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT at FORT KNOX KENTUCKY

Approved By:

E. Ralph Ousek, Director

Personnel and Training

Research Laboratory

Joseph Zeidner. Technical Director

US Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Number Technology for Increasing

20762717A767 Soldier Productivity

Approwd for public rdften; dilttibution unlimited.
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 briefing or Disposition Form.
FOREWORD

An area of major importance in the Army Research Institue for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is improvement of the individual

soldier's training and performance. The ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox,

Kentucky, in its work unit area "Technology for Increasing Soldier

Productivity" (Army Project 2Q762717A767), is concerned with research

and development of technology for improving individual performance

among armor crewmen through more efficient individual training. One

of the persistent problems in armor training is personnel turbulence.

This Technical Paper describes research undertaken to determine the

degree of tank crew turbulence in armor units and to evaluate the

effects of turbulence on M6OAI gunnery performance. ARI Research

Memorandum 78-15 presented Phase I of this research.

J JOEPHW IDNER

hnical Director
"T1HE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

BRIEF

REQUI REMLNTS:

To determine the degree of tarik c-rew turbulence in armor units and

to evaluate the etfects of turbulence cn M6OAI gunnery performance on

Tank Table VIII.

PROCEDURE:

In the fiist ph:tsc of this research a questionnaire was developed

to evaluate existing crew turbulence. It was administered to cre..en

in 5 battalions of the 1st Armor Division - USAREUR. Those crewmen were

undergoing tank gunnery training, including the Table VIII qualification

course, at the 7th Army Training Center, Grafenwoehr, FRG. Questionnaire

responses were correlated with Table VIII scores to determine the relationship between various crew turbulence variables and gunnery performance.

In the second phase of the researeh personnel from the 4th Infantry

Division (MECH) particip.ated in a four-group experiment to determine

the effects of artificially created crew turbulence on Table VIII gunnery

performance. A control group was comprised of armor crewmen firing in

their normal positions with their normal crews on their assigned tanks.

A second group (Unfamiliar Crews) included armor crewmen working in

their normal positions but az;;igned to different crews and different

M60AI tanks. A third group (Unfamiliar Crew, and Positions) of armor

crewmen included tank commanders who were normally gunners and gunners

who were normally loaders. They were assigned to different crews and tanks

as in Group 2. A fourth group (Non-Armor Replacements) included armor

tank commanders and drivers, and non-armor gunners and loaders assigned

from combat support units. Non-armor personnel underwent three days of

training specifically designed to permit them to perform gunner and

loader duties.

FINDINGS:

1here was ,'i hderalut, turbulence in the battalions evaiuated.

Complete crews had nonnally been together 1-2 months, while typical tank

commander/gunner pairs had been together 1-3 months. Typical tank

commanders, gunners, drivers, and loadcrs had held their position: 12-42,

5-12, 5-9, and 2-6 month,;, respectively. Variation was great on both

variables: length of time crewmen hlid worked together, and had been

assigned to their positions.
In Phase I both the experience of the tank commander in his position

and the experience of the gunner in his position were related to gunnery

perfor-,ance. More experienced tank commanders had shorter opening times, and

more experienced gunners had more main gun hits. Neither the time the

whole crew had been together nor the experience of the driver or loader

was related to Table VIII performance. The longer the tank commander and

his gunner had trained together, however, the shorter were their opening

times.

In Phase II the Control Group and the Unfamiliar Crews Group performed cqiually well, indicating minimal effects of fa-iliarity with specific crewmembers or specific tanks. The Unfamiliar Crews and Positions

Group performed much more poorly than the Control or Unfamiliar Crews

Grour. indicating a need for the tank commander and gunner to be familiar

with their duties to insure satisfactory gunnery performance. The performance of the Non-Armor Replacements Group was about equal to that of

the (entrol Group. This indicated that non-armor combat support personnel

with brief intensive training can be integrated into crews with trained

armor tank commanders and drivers and yield Table VIII performance

comparable to that of armor crewmen.

IFT1LIZATIN Or Ff.DINGS:

These findings suggest that emphasis be placed on the training and

retention nf tank commanders and gunners in their respective positions.

The research also indicated the need for emphasis on cross-training

gunner and loader personnel to permit them to assume tank commander and

gunner positions as required. A brief intensive hands-on training program like that used with the non-armor personnel could be developed for

that purpose.

Finally, the research suggested that with the 3 day training program,

non-armor personnel could perform as well as gunners and loaders in tank

crews with experienced tan], commoanders and drivers. Thus, such personnel

could serve as a readily available source of replacement personnel in

the event of combat.
T1E EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 3

PHASE I 3

Method 3

Research Participants 3

Questionnaire 3 Tank Gunnery Measures S

Results S

Data Handling S

Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire S

Tank Gunnery Measures S

Descriptive Statistics 6 Turbulence - Gunnery Relationships 8

Discussion 8

PHASE II 11

Method 13

Research Participants 13

Procedure 14

Results 17

Data Handling 17 Equipment Familiarity 18

Between Group Differences 19 Unfamiliar Crews 23

Comparison of Group 1 with Group 2 23

Unfamiliar Position 23

Comparison of Group 2 with Group 3 23
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Unfamiliar Crews and Positions 23

Comparisons of Group 1 and Group 3 23

Non-Armor Replacements 24

Comparisons of Grou and 4 24

Comparison of Groups 2 and 4 24

Comparison of Groups 3 and 4 24

Table VIII Reliability 24

Questionnaire Results 24

DISCUSSION 26

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 28

REFERENCES 30

APPENDIXES 31

TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics - Phase I 7

2. Turbulence - Gunnery Relationships 9

3. Turbulence Table VIII is

4. Group Means on Tank Gunnery Performance Variables 21

S. Results of Between Group Comparisons of Tank Gunnery 22

Performance

6. Descriptive Statistics - Phase II 25

FIGURES

Figure 1. Tank Gunnery Performance as a Function of Group 20

Assignment
THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK (UNNERY PERFORMANCE

INTRODUCTION

Tank crew turbulence, i.e. movement of crewmen to unfamiliar surroundings, occurs frequently in both training and combat situations.

Loss of personnel resulting in crew turbulence has long been a concern of

armor commanders in terms of the possible effects on training efficiency

and gunnery performance. Ci'ew turbulence is particularly important in

combat units where personn,1 must be reassigned to replace combat losses.

While it is generally accepted in the armor community that turbulence has

a degrading effect on tank crew performance, the specific effects of

different types of crew turbulence have not yet been determined

empirically.

In assessing the potential effects of crew turbulence, three variables

should be considered. These are position familiarity, personnel familiarity, and equipment familiarity. Position familiarity is related to the timc

an individual has to learn the duties associated with his duty position

in the tank crew. Position turbulence can occur due to attrition of

crewmen in combat situatior.s, as well as to reassignment of personnel to

new duty positions for periodic training during noncombat situations.

Personnel familiarity is related to the time individuals trained in their

specific duties are assigned to a particular crew. Personnel turbulence

often results in crews who are together for only short periods of time

prior to training exercises or combat missions. Finally, eq•ipment familiarity is related to the time crewmen are assigned to their particular

tanks. Of course, these variables are not independent. They can, and

in the field usually do, occur in combination.

A review of the literature on tank crew turbulence revealed a study

which investigated both the degree of crew turbulence in armcr units

and the effects of position familiarity on crew performance. Data on

the degree of turbulence in 6 armor battalions (4 CONUS, 2 USAREUR)

were presented by Larson, Earl, and Henson (1976). They found high

levels of turbulence in terms of changes in duty position, and changes

in personnel assigned to particular tank crews. Tank commanders typically

changed duty position least (0-20% over 4-6 months), while drivers,

gunners, and loaders changed duty positions quite often (33-88% over 4-6

months). Changes in personnel assigned to positions in specific tank crews

was high for all positions (53-95% over 4-6 months). These findings are

consistent with those from the Report of the Task Forces on Training

Technology (1975) as given in Wagner, Hibbits, Rosenblatt, and Schulz

(1977). The report indicated a 40% turnover in tank crews every 90

days. Larson et al. also reported a positive relation between Tank Crew

Qualification Course (Table VIII) scores and time in position for tank

commanders, gunners, and drivers.
The Tank Forces Management Group (1977) has identified turbulence

as a consistent problem in armor training and suggested that tank crew

turbulence "degrades armor unit combat readiness." The individual

replacement system, centralized promotions, and position changes within

the battalion were identified as the primary sources of turbulence.

Speculation about the effects of tank crew turbulence on gunnery performance to some extent depends on whether one conceptualizes a crew

as consisting of a collection of individuals performing specific individual duties, or as a team of people whose performance depends

more heavily on crew interaction. Wagner et al. (1977) indicated that

structured team performance depended primarily on the skill levels of

individual team members, and the effects of personnel turbulence were

minimal. A series of studies by Egerman (Egerman, 1966, Egerman, Klaus,

and Glaser, 1962; Egerman, Glaser, and Klaus, 1963; and Glaser, Klaus,

and Egerman, 1962) supports this position. Wagner et al. suggest, however, that performance of tank crews in operational (low structure)

settings may be affected by personnel turbulence.

The most widely utilized measure of tank gunnery is performance on

a Tank Crew Qualification Course, Table VIII. Because a moderate degree of structure is involved on Table VIII, one would expect personnel turbulence to have a modest effect on gunnery performance. A Table VIII

which requires movement of a firing tank from station to station to

engage single and multiple targets would seem to be about midway in

structure between a highly-structured, static range situation, such as

Table VI, and a more freely structured unit training exercise, such as

Table IX or an ARTEP.

The degree of formal job structure varies with duty position on

a Table VIII. The loader and driver have highly structured duties; loading and maintaining the tank main gun and coax machine gun, and

moving the tank from location to location. The gunner and tank commander

have a greater variety of stimuli to which they must respond on Table VIII,

and a greater degree of interaction is required. The tank commander, for

example, must identify targets in a way the gunner can understand, and

provide subsequent fire commands which lead to the desired gunner

behavior.

Based on the premise that the effect of personnel turbulence is

related to the degree of structure associated with the overall task

requirements and with the degree of required crew member interaction,

one might predict a moderate effect of crew turbulence on Table VIII

performance. Also, tank commander/gunner turbulence would be expected

to have a greater effect than driver/loader turbulence.

2
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

To determine current levels of tank crew turbulence, and to identify

relationships between the various aspects of crew turbulence and gunnery

performance, two research projects were executed. The first phase was

conducted with a relatively large sample and utilized a correlational

design. Its primary purpose was to determine current turbulence levels

and explore a wide variety of potential turbulence-performance relationships. The second phase included a smaller sample under much more controlled

conditions and utilized an experimental design. Its primary purpose was

to explore the causal relationships between the three aspects of crew

turbulence and tank gunnery performance.

PHASE I

The primary source of turbulence data presently available is that

provided by Larson et al. In that report, a fairly comprehensive view

of the degree of crew turbulence is presented, but the data was collected

several years ago and may not represent today's armor forces. Also, the

relationship of crew turbulence to gunnery performance was not fully

explored.

Concern over the magnitude and effects of crew turbulence on tank

gunnery training were expressed to ARI by numerous individuals in 1977,

and research involving experimental manipulation of several degrees of

turbulence (Phase II) was planned. In the interim this correlational

research was designed and co'ducted in conjunction with tank crew assignment research ongoing with five armor battalions in LISAREUR.

METHOD

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

Research participants were crewmen in the 255 tank crews from five

armor battalions in a USAREUR armor division. Crewman irr 211 crews

completed a tank crew stability questionnaire and were included in the

sample.

QUESTIONNAIRE

A Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire (PT 5188) was constructed to

provide various measures of crew and crewman stability. The questionnaire included 22 questions. The tank commander was asked to answer

the following questions about the crew:

3
1. \iiow many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together,

with you as TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your current

driver assigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned as

your !wader?

2. How'many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together,

with you \s TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your current

driver assigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned as your

loader, on !he tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII?

3. Hlow many mnths have you and your complete crew actually been able to

train together,\with you as TC, your current gunner as gunner, your

current driver a•,driver, and your current loader as loader?

He was also asked to answer the following questions about himself and his

gunner:

1. How many months have you and your current gunner been assigned

together, with you as TC and your current gunner as gunner?

2. How many months have you and your current gunner been assigned

together, with you as TC and your current gunner assigned as your

gunner, on the tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII?

3. How many months have you and your current gunner actually been able

to train together, with you as TC, and your current gunner as gunner?

Each tank commander was then asked to answer the following questions

about himself:

1. How many months have you been assigned as the TC on the tank you used,

or will use, to fire Table VIII?

2. How long have you been assigned the duties of TC, regardless of the

tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

3. How long have you actually had to train in the duties of TC, regardless of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

4. How long have you served in M60 tanks, regardless of the duty position you held?

Then each gunner, driver, and loader were asked to answer the same four

questions (which were rephrased to make them appropriate for the position).

Mhe Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

4
TANK GUNNERY MEASURES

Criterion data collected on Table VIII were opening time on each

engagement and hit/miss data for each maln gun round. Opening time was

operationally defined as the ti;.ie which elapscd from the beginning of

the fire command by the tank commander until the first round was fired.

7o help insure completeness and accuracy of Table VIII hit and time data

three sources were used. First was data taken from the records maintained

by each battalion. These were collected at Grafenwoehr as each battalion

Afired the Table VIi. Second was data collected by a member of a data

collection team during the tank crew's debriefing conducted after Table VIII.

Data collection team rienbers were enlisted men detailed by the battalion

to assist ART representatives in data collection. A data collection team

member was present during each debriefing to acquire immediate hit/tine

data from the scorer (usually a platoon leader) and obtain answers to

any questions about the conduct of the Table (misfires, targets which did

not "pop-up", etc.). The third source was a tape-recording of each Table

VIII run. The tape recordings included crew intercom communication,

firing tank-to-control tank communication, and tower-to-tank communication.

To make the recordings a data collection team member connected a cassette

recorder to the firing tank's audio-frequency amplifier (AM 1780/VRC).

Recordings were used to verify time measurements, answer questions about

any unusual circumstances such as misfires, nonappearance of targets,

etc., and to resolve any discrepancies between data collected in debriefings and data taken from battalion score sheets.

RESULTS

DATA HANDLING

Tank Crew Stability Q•cstionnaire. Each questionnaire was checked

for completeness u'ion receipt. Incomplete questionnaires were returned

to the crew's company for completion. Using this procedure 211 question- naires (83% of the questionnaires possible from the sample) were available

for analysis. Of tLkese 198 (78%) were complete. Crewmen's responses

were converted to mouths for all itqms and tabulated for analysis.

Because data was tabulated to two digits a maximum of 99 menths (8 years

3 months) was permissible on an\, item. Any respondent answering with

more than 8 years 3 months was assigned a score of 99 months.

Tank Gunnery hit/miss and opening time raw scores

were tabulated for c;ch In:ank ;ind cross-checked to insure accuracy by using

battalion scoresheets, dlebriefing scoresheets, and the tape recordings.

From these the following summary variables were comnuted for each tank:

Summary Variables

1. Mean main gun opening time - day.

2. Mean mair gun opening time - night.
3. Mean main gun opening time - day and night.

4. Total first round main gun hits - day.

S. Total first round main gun hits - night.

6. Total first round main gun hits - day and night.

7. Total main gun targets hit - day.

8. Total main gun targets hit - night.

9. Total main gun targets hit - day and night.

Because Table VIII gunnery was corO•ictT'! by each of the five battalions

according to slightly different procedures the possibility existed that

battalions would exhibit significant differences on the summary gunnery

variables above, necessitating use of standardized rather than summary

gunnery variables in ensuing analyses. Accordingly, nine ANOVAs wLre

conducted to determine whether significant between-battalion differences

existed. An alpha-level of .01 was chosen. Six of the nine analyses

(variables 1-4, 6, and 7) yielded significant results. Because of the

between-battalion differences, intercorrelation matrices for the nine

summary variables were computed overall, and separately by battalion

for use in choosing final gunnery criteria. These are provided in

Appendix B.

Inspection of thesematrices indicated a high correlation between

main gun hit measures (variables 4-9), and between opening time measures

(variables 1-3), and low correlation between the various hit and time

measures. Because of these relationships, and because of their significance to tank gunnery, day and night mean opening time (variable 3) and

total main gun targets hit (variable 9) were chosen as the bases for the

gunnery criterion measures. To eliminate between-battalion differences

indicated by the ANOVAs, standardized time and hit scores were computed

for each tank in each battalion. These were used as criteria for all

subsequent analyses.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive statistics, including frequency distribution, mean,

median, mode, standard deviation, standard error, and semi-interquartile

range were computed for all items on the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire.

A summary of these descriptive statistics, ihcluding abbreviated item

designation, mean, median, standard deviation and semi-interquartile

range, is provided in Table 1. Note that due to the two-digit data

tabulation, mean and standard deviation statistics are somewhat conservative for items 8, 9, and 10. There were 14-1S% of the TCs who answered

these items with more than 8 years 3 months and were arbitrarily assigned

a maximum score of 99. The median and semi-interquartile range, of

course, were unaffected by this procedure. Due to the fact that the distributions for all items were positively skewed, rather than normally

distributed, the median.and semi-interquartile range may be the more

appropriate measures of central tendency and variability. Complete

descriptive statistics and frequency distributions are provided in

Appendix C.

6
C4 C4 C4 ~ 4 4.4 a 

U0

cz C,, * 

- >S.

4.. -4

JC UI . . .. . . ... * .. . U, f4 v~ v A t ý0 n ,r ;4 ;

C4

L - eq M

U r-4

N 1- CU -

wb 4 A)4. -as

0~> 4JJ~e _ ~ e qC 0)0 c

0- 0~-. 

a a Wa 0 e 0. m.e -W 4. 0 ) 0C C) C) CD 00 r- " 0C=)4" ) 0 I J0 VCO I-' c o c CCC c: 0- .w "- cd In

414. W~0) 0. 

00at . t .O 4 1 .4 4 4 -4.4 tn WOaj ."0C~ ol .opC .1 ~~~I ccb~t ca0~ CISr~ ua~ cC 00 ca4 1*jC O0 C

tnk -- m 4 f-.,4 2 1 .44 - 12 1 Nee1 *-47

M c Iz Ai aA M(A n c tt ti 0 C7
TURBULENCE - GUNNERY RELbTIONSIiIPS

In order to. assess the relationship between crewmen's responses

on the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire and Table VIII performance,

correlations were computed between crewacn's responses, in. months, and

the Table VIII opening time and targets hit criteria described above,

The results of these correlations are shown in Table 2. Because of

the large number of correlations computed, and the relatively large

sample, an alpha level of .01 was chosen for significance.

Responses on many of the turbulence questionnaire items were positively skewed. In addition, a linear relation may not be expected between performance and crew/crewman experience. One might expect greater

performance increments associated with experience increments for relatively inexperienced crews/crewmen than with equal experience increments

for more experienced crews/crewmen. Therefore, a log transformation

was computed for questionnaire responses wherein the transformed score

equaled Log10 (raw score + c). The constant (c) was determined by examination of frequency distributions of transformed scores. Various constants from 0.2 to 3.0 were evaluated, and the c which best provided

a median transformed score equidistant from the ends of the distribution

was chosen. By this procedure more symmetrical distributions were obtained

for all variables. Correlations were then computed between the transformed questionnaire responses and the opening time and targets hit

criteria. Response-criterion correlations and constants chosen are shown

in Table 2. Again an alpha level of .01 was chosen for significance.

Three kinds of relationships proved to be significant. First,

the more time a TC and his gunner had trained together the more quickly

the crew opened fire. Second, the more experience the TC had, in terms

of his assignment as TC on his Table VIII tank, his assignment as TC,

and his training as TC, the more quickly the crew opened fire. Third,

the more training a gunner received the more targets his tank hit.

DISCUSSION

There were two objectives of this research. First was to determine

the degree of tank crew stability i7 five armor battalions in USAREUR.

The second was to determine the relation between tank crew stability

and tank gunnery pE formance on zhe Tank Crew Qualification Course,

Table VIII, at Grafenwoehr, FRG.

The data presented above und- Descriptive Statistics indicated

that there was considerable turbulence in the battalions observed.

While complete crews normally had been together 1-2 months, as shown

by mean and median statistics, there was considerable variation. Many

had been together more than 2 months while others had been together less

than 1 month. The same pattern existed for tank commander/gunner

8
Ne~f4 ~ N U~Lf .fl 'i Lf0 0 £ l 0 ' f

41

CflI#j 000 000 0000 0-4. 00 0000

0

144

-We 4 L r( otqm ( nf-P o

4.4ý -- P4~ Nf4.C r400 4 4C0- - 00

z .. 4 4 I e( n"V 0L r 0% -a Aq

o PC4) 4. 000 000 0000 0-4.-..q 0000 0 0

44..4 =)

O00 ok .q eq 0u)-P4 0 I'1M (%.-4 t. -V1 ~ GoW)e z 32U ~~ 000 .-EPi4-4 -4 - 0 0 04.4.. 0 0

4.*

$4 4

to 4$1 

.0 4 ) CU41 0 0~ r. r_ 4 0~ .

W In 0 4)C U C1o0' C Ou 02I= C

.4j0 04 00 04l a F (4 lU im n " 3(

4)0 c IUUC 0 410 004. 0010 -4aI 0 -041

4.1 0 0 4)

04. 4-) 4-1 4.5 4. 4.1 4J 4.J +J J 41 411 0 4 4.41 +A .1 *j4.1 41 4.14.

R =0

9
turbulence. Typically, tank commanders and gunners had been together

1-3 months, but variation was great, with maniy together less than one

month and many others together 4 months or more.

The data indicated that most tank commanders had a moderate level

of experience as tank commanders, typically 12-42 months. Again, there

was great variation in experience. Tank commanders typically had been

assigned to their Table VIII tank 3-6 months, but wide variation was

evident on this variable also.

Data for remaining crewmembers, gunners, drivers, and loaders,

followed the same pattern, but with progressively less experience at

each position. Results indicated gunners, drivers, and loaders typically

had 5-11, 5-9, and 2-6 months experience, respectively. These crewmen

had typically been assigned to their position on their Table VIII tank

1-5,months, depending on position. As with tank commanders, variation

was great, with many gunners, drivers, and loaders assigned more than

6 months, and many others less than one month.

Observation of the relation between crew stability measures and

gunnery performance was quite instructive. The results indicated no

significant relation between gunnery performance and the time the entire

crew had been together, but did indicate that the longer the'tank commander

and gunner had trained together the more rapidly they opened fire on

•Leir targets. Thus, while unit commanders may not need to stress wholecrew stability, some emphasis placed on tank commander-gunner stability

may yield tank crews which can service targets more rapidly. Of course,

these findings are limited by the degree of turbulence observed within

the battalions, and would not necessarily generalize to situations where

there might be considerably less turbulence. In these battalions,

however, the range of crew and tank commander-gunner turbulence was

in keeping with the findings of Larson et al. The battalions seemed

to fairly represent current US armor battalions. While whole-crews having

a significantly greater amount of experience together may indeed perform

better than those in this research, such crews do not seem to exist in

any sizable numbers.

Tank commanders experience, in that position, was related to gunnery

performance. The longer a tank commander had been assigned to his

tank, the longer he had been assigned as a tank commander, and the

"longer he had trained as tank commander, the faster his opening time

on Table VIII. These relationships can best be explained in terms of

the development of the tank commander's skills. It would seem logical

that such relations arise. The tank commander has more control over

time-to-fire, in terms of his target acquisition, gun-laying, ranging,

and fire command, than any other crewmember.

10
While no relation was observed between tank commanders variables

and number of targets hit, that can probably be explained by the fact

that it is thp gunner who normally engages targets. fie must lay on

targets and mike adjusted lays based on the various fire adjustment methods. In addition, because the ranges to targets were fairly well

known by the tank crews, any effects of differences in tank commanders

ranging skills would have been attenuated.

From the discussion one might expect to observe a relation between

gunner training and number of targets hit. Such a relation was revealed

by the analysis. The longer a gunner had trained as gunner the more

targets his tank hit on Table VIII. Although no relation was observed

between gunner variables and opening time such a finding may be explained

in terms of the tank commanders greater control on that variable.

No significant relationships were observed between driver or loader

variables and either time or targets hit in Table VIII. These results

may also be readily explained. In most cases the amaunition to be used

was announced and loaded prior to the beginning of an engagement, thus

limiting the effect a loader could have on opening times. And loaders

appeared to be consistent in identifying and loading the ammunition

correctly, thus limiting the effect Of loader variables on the targets

hit criterion. Because engagements did not begin until the tank was in

position, the driver's contribution to hits and time was limited.

Overall, the findings for individual crewinembers indicate that

position familiarity of tank commanders and gunners plays a small, but

significant, part in reducing opening time on Table VIII, and increasing the number of targets hit. Such a finding is, of course, in concurrence

with the beliefs of the majority of the armor community. It would

seem to underscore the need for emphasizing the training, and retention,

of tank commanders and gunners in their respective positions.

PHASE II

The results reported in the Phase I research indicated a relation

between tank commander's position familiarity and gunnery performance; and a relation between tank commander/gunner personnel familiarity and

gunnery performance. Because of the correlational nature of the research,

however, causal relations between these variables were not clearly

demorstrated. And the many uncontrolled variables in the correlational

research, such as weather, equipment, unit training, unit policies, scoring standards, etc., may have overshadowed smaller effects due to

more modest levels of crew turbulence.

11
The purpose of this research was to delineate causal relationships

between gunnery performance and various types of crew turbulence which

can occur in operational units. Maximum turbulence conditions were

created, thus facilitating the evaluation of the effects of turbulence

on gunnery performance.

It was hypothesized that reduced personnel and equipment familiarity would rcsult in reduced gunnery performance. Personnel and equipment

familiarity usually change concurrently in operational armor units.

Wh•en an armor crewman is reassigned it is usually to a different crew

and tank, which should lead to immediate reductions in personnel and

equipment familiafity for the reassigned crewman. Reassignment of

all crewmembers to crews and tanks with which they are unfamiliar

should lead to maximal reductions in personnel and equipment familiarity,

and show maximal effects of those variables on gunnery performance.

It was also hypothesized that reductions in position familiarity,

resulting from changing an individual's position assignment, should lead

to reduced gunnery performance. In typical units tank commander replacements are chosen from available gunners, while gunner replacements are

chosen from available loaders or drivers. (With the implementation of

CNIF 19 gunners will be chosen from available loaders). Reduced position

familiarity attendent to change in duty position from gunner to tank

commander, and loader to gunner, s;,ould lead to reduced gunnery performance. The degree of such performance decrements should be a

function of the level of cross traioing provided to gunners and loaders.

Reductions in position familiarity, in combination with reduced position

and equipment familiarity attendent to reassignment to new crews/tanks

should lead to greater reductions in gunnery performance.

I Position turbulence could also occur should there be an outbreak

of ostilities requiring that replacements for tank cre'vmen be taken

from combat support battalions and include non-armor personnel. .Aong

the personnel selected for these positions may be cooks, clerks, military

policemen, etc. Individuals in these occupations exist in most combat

divisions world-wide, and could provide a source of personnel to serve

in tanks should replacements for tank crews be required before time

permits armor crewmen to be provided through normal channels. Preparation for combat would probably consist of a brief training program for

crewmen and not more than a day to train with the crews to which they

would be assigned. Such replacement personnel would initially experience

reduced levels of position, equipment, and personnel familiarity, and

probably reduced gunnery performance. The degree to which such reduc.-

tions in familiarity lead to reduced gunnery performance would depend

upon the efficacy of the training given and the time crewmen have to

work together.

12
To evaluate these hypotheses a four-group experiment was designed.

One group was a control group while three were experimental groups

representing the different turbulence variables. All personnel in Groups

1, 2, and 3 were armor crewmen while non-armor crewmen were included in

the 4th Group. Group 2 was comparable to the Control Group in position

familiarity, but represented a low degre- of personnel and equipmcnt

familiarity. Group 3 represented a low degree of position, personnel,

and equipment familiarity. Group 4 was a group consisting of armor tank

commanders and drivers, and non-armor gunners and loaders who had been

given three days training. All were assigned unfamiliar equipment and

personnel.

Comparisons of the Control Group and Group 2 permit an evaluation

of personnel and equipment familiarity for armor personnel. Comparison

of the Control Group with Group 3 was designed to illuminate the combined

effects of position, personnel and equipment familiarity for armor

personnel, while comparison of Group 3 with Group 2 would permit evaluation of the effects of position familiarity alone. Finally, comparison

of the Control Group with Group 4 was designed to evaluate the combined

effects of position, personnel, and equipment familiarity for non-armor

personnel, while comparisons of Groups 2 and 4 could provide an evaluation of the effects of position familiarity alone.

The primary objectives were to determine the effects of crew

turbulence on tank crew gunnery performance and to study the effects of

replacing crewmembers with non-armor personnel including the development

and evaluation of a training program for non-armor replacements. The

secondary objective was to test the relationships between gunnery performance and selected turbulence variables using the Tank Crew Stability

Questionnaire.

METHOD

RESEARCH PARTICIP.ANTS

The research participants were primarily tank crewmen from an

operational armor battalion at Ft Carson. Tank crewmen from 44 crews

completed the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire for use in the correlational phase of the research. An additional 22 non-armor personnel

were selected from the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) to participate in

the experimental phase. These men were excused from their duties to

participate in the research. Thic sample consisted of a Unit Organizational Supplyman, and Administrative Specialist, three Food Service

Specialists, a Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic, two Infantrymen, a Telecommunications Center Specialist, six Military Policemen, one Correctional

Specialist, one Race-Relations Equal-Opportunity Specialist, a Tracked

Vehicle Mechanic, two Tactical Wire Operations Specialists, a Radio

Operator, and a Voice Radio Operator.

13
PROCEDURE

The battalion participating in the research had just completed its annual gunnery season culminating in the Tank Table VIII for crew quali- fication. Following the Qualification Table VIII, tank crewmen were assigned to one of the four groups included in the research, and fired a second Table VIII. This second, or "turbulence", Table VTII provided scores with which to evaluate the effects of turbulence in the experimental

groups.

Gunnery performance measures for both Qualification and Turbulence Table VIII were collected with the cooperation of the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) Tank Gunnery Assistance Team and included Table VIII point scores and time/hit data on individual engagements. A description of the Turbulence Table VIII engagements is provided in Table 3.

Tank Crew Stability Questionnaires (described in Phase I) were completed by tank crewmembers following the first Table VIII and returned to ART personn~l for use in the assignment of crewmen to experimental conditions for the Turbulence Table VIII. This data was also used in the correlational phase of the research.

Qualification Table VIII rosters and Tank Crew Stability Question- naires were the bases for selecting research participants and assigning crews to experimental groups. Only crews that had remained stable through Tables VII and VIII were considered. The assignments were made for each company immediately following their completion of Table VIII. Fifteen crews from two companies and fourteen crews from a third company were selected. These crews were randomly assigned to experimental conditions to create four groups of 11 crews each, and fired the tur- bulence Table VIII under the conditions specified by the group to which they were assigned.

The experimental groups were created in the following manner: Group 1 (Control) crews were selected from the sample of complete crews which were 

with 

available for the study. Each crewman assigned to this group was his Table VIII crew and maintained his normal duty position. These crews were assigned to their Table VIII tanks. The first group was the control against which the remaining groups were compared.

positions 

Tne men assigned to Group 2 (Unfamiliar Crews) maintained the duty in which they had been trained and evaluated during the gunnery season. However, they were assigned to work with personnel with which they had not served during the Qualification Table VIII and were assigned to a tank to which they had not been previ~usly assigned.

The Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crews and Positions) crews also consisted of crewmen who had not been together on Qualification Table VIII, and who were assigned to unfamiliar tanks. The Group 3 tank commanders

were excused and replaced by their gunners, and the gunner positions

14
Table 3

TURBULENCE TABLE VIII

DAY

Target Engagement Range (Meters)

I. Anti-tank (steel) Precision, HEP-T 1950

2. Moving tank (panel) Precision, APDS-T 1750

3. Troops Coax 300

4. Troops Cal .50 1400

S. Troops Coax 450

6. Tank (panel) Battlesight, HEAT-T 1000

7. Moving truck (panel) Coax 600

8. Truck (panel) Cal .50 1600

9. Tank (steel) Precision, IIEAT-T 1750

10. Tank (steel) Battlesight, APDS-T 900

NIGHT

Target Engagement Range (Meters)

1. Tank (panel) Precision, APDS-T 2000

2. Truck (panel) Cal .50 750

3. Troops Cal .50 1400

A. Moving tank (panel) Battlesight, APDS-T 1200

5. Anti-tank (steel) Battlesight, HEAT-T 900

6. Anti-tank (panel) Precision, HEAT-T 1500

7. Troops Coax 200

8. Moving truck (panel) Coax 500

9. Troops Coax 450

10. Anti-tank (steel) Battlesight, HEP-T 700

15
were filled by the loaders. The driver and loader positions were filled

with men who had held those positions during the gunnery season. As with Group 2, the crewmen in Group 3 had not been trained together or

worked on the tank to which they were assigned.

In Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) tank commanderr and drivers were

armor crewmen who had served in those positions, but not together, during the gunnery season. They were assigned to a tank they had not used during the Qualification Table VIII. The gunners and loaders were

non-armor personnel who were randomly assigned to crews.

The assignment of personnel to experimental groups was random with the restrictions that Group I (Control) crews had to work with the same

crewmembers and on the same tank they had used on the first Table VIII while crewmen in Experimental Groups 2, 3, and 4 were assigned to

completely different crews and tanks. No crewman served in more than

one duty position. Due to inoperative equipment it'was impossible for

a limited number of crews to fire on the tanks to which they had been

assigned (familiar tanks for Group 1, and unfamiliar tanks for Groups 2-4). There were 4 such crews from Group 1; 3 from Group 2; 2 from Group 3; and I from Group 4. in order to retain these crews in the study, they were reassigned to other (and inappropriate) tanks. Due to movement of personnel within the battalion, drivers and loaders occasionally had to work with more than one crew, but maintained their normal duty positions.

The tank commanders in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were informed of their

crews and group assignments one day prior to their firing the second lable VIII. No formal training program was permitted, but the tank

commanders were encouraged to meet with their crews for several hours

in order to familiarize themselves with each other, their tanks, and

their specific crew duties.

The Group 4 tank commanders, drivers, and non-armor men reported to the Ft Carson Table VII where they remained until they fired the turbulence Table VIII. The non-armor personnel were arbitrarily designated as either gunners or loaders, and were assigned to a tank

commander/driver pair. A three-day training program was conducted for the non-armor personnel under the supervision of ARI and battalion

representatives with the tank commanders and drivers functioning as

cadre. The three-day training program was designed to prepare gunners and loaders to fire Table VIII only and did not include training on

normal mnaintenance, tactics, etc. The gunners* program involved safety, preparation for operations, fire cormands, identification of targets, adjustnent of fire, and tracking. The leaders' program included TEC lessons and hands-on practice. Loader's training emphasized safety, ammunition identification and loading procedures, preparation for operations, M219 disassembly and assembly, replenisher tape reading, preoperation checks and services, and combat loading. The gunners and loaders completed each exercise (day and 'ight) using sub-caliber

ammunition on Days 1 and 2, and 10 main gun rounds on Day 3.

16
On Day 3 the non-armor gunners and loaders were reassigned to a

tank coumander/drivcr pair other than the ones with which they trained.

This was done to meet the requirements of the combat replacement scenario

described above. This also made the familiarity of Group 4 crewmembers

comparable to that of Group 2 and 3 crews. The crews fircd Table VIII

within a day or two follcwing completion of their training.

An outline of the three-day training program is provided in

Appendix D. A complete description of the training is given in O'Brien,

Crum, and Healy, 1978.

RESULTS

Of the 44 crews identified for participation in the research 40

completed the turbulence Table VIII and were included in the data

analysis. These included 11 crews in Group I (Control), 10 in Group 2

(Unfamiliar Crews), 9 in Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crews and Duty Positions),

and 10 in Group 4 (Non-armor Replacements). The Group 2 tank was

disqualified on Table VIII for disciplinary (not gunnery) reasons. One

Group 3 tank was disqualified due to a gross (gunnery) safety violation

and one failed to complete the night course due to a minor injury

sustained during the day course. The Group 4 tank was disqualified

due to equipment malfunctions.

DATA HANDLING

Table VIII data was tabulated for each crew for both the qualification

Table VIII and the turbulence Table VIII. Variables considered are

shown below:

Primary Variables

Table VIII points

Main gun targets hit

Main gun ol.ening time

Machine gun points

Secondary Variables

Main gun points

Stationary battlesight targets hit

Stationary precision targets hit

Moving targets hit

Number of main gun targets hit within time standard (S sec.

battlesight or 10 sec precision)

Stationary battlesight opening time

Stationary precision opening time

Moving target opening time

17
Means wege computed for each crew on each variable for Table VIII

Day (D), Night( (N) and Day and Night (D + N) combined. Point scores

were computed using the standard Ft Carson Tank Gunnery Assistance

Team (TGAT) procedures. On main gun engagements 75 points were awarded

on each engagement where a target was hit within the allotted time

(20 seconds on battlesight engagements or 30 seconds on precision

engagements). In addition, between 0 and 75 points were awarded for

opening time on any engagement wherein a target was hit. Maximum

opening time points were awarded when opening times were less than

5 seconds on battlesight engagements, or less than 10 seconds on

precision engagements. Longer opening times were awarded fewer points in accordance with the sliding scales for opening time points provided in Appendix E.

Machine gun points were computed on each engagement as follows:

When the opening rounds were within the target area 20 points were

awarded for opening times of 5 seconds or less. Opening times of

longer than 5 seconds were awarded fewer points according to a sliding

scale provided in Appendix F. In addition, up to a maximum of 20 points

were awarded for target effect (4 points/hit for vehicle engagements

or 4 points/each 5th of troop coverage on troop engagements). Finally,

up to 10 points were awarded for "technique" based on the judgment of

the TGAT NCO who scored the firing tank.

Stability questionnaire data was tabulated and handled just as

in the first portion of the research.

EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY

The unplanned assignment of a few Group 1 crews to unfamiliar tanks,

and some Group 2, 3, and 4 crews to tanks on which one or more crewmembers had fired during annual gunnery permitted an evaluation of

equipment familiarity which otherwise could not have-been made. The

planned evaluation of equipment familiarity was to be made in conjunction with an evaluation of personnel familiarity (comparison of Group 1

with Group 2); however, a separate analysis of eeuipment familiarity

was possible.

To evaluate the effects of equipment familiarity crews were designated as "unfamiliar" with equipment if no crewmembers were assigned

to the tank during the annual gunnery season, and "familiar" if the tank

commander and/or gunner were assigned to the t•ik during annual gunnery.

For each variable (D + N, D, and N), a 3 x 2 unweighted means Analysis of Variance (Winer, 1971, pp. 447) was cowputed. One factor was

equipment familiarity, as defined above, while the second was Group assignment; 1, 2, or 3. There were too few unplanned tank assignments in Group 4 to enter into the analysis.

18
The results of the 36 Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) indicated

4 main effects of familiarity: statlonary battlesight targets hit (N),

total main gun targets hit (N), total main gun points (N), and moving

target opening time (D). In the first three cases crews on unfamiliar

tanks performed better than those on familiar tanks. Familiarity

interacted with Group assignment in only three cases: moving target

opening time (D + N), stationary precision targets hit (N), and

moving targetdopening time (D). The first interaction occurred because

the three Grodp 2 crews on familiar tanks performed more slowly than

their counterparts on unfamiliar tanks, while the second was due to

the two group 3 crews on familiar tanks performing more poorly than

their counterparts. Only the relationships with the opening time

on the moving target (N) made sense; equipment-familiar crews opened

fire more quickly than unfamiliar crews. This was interpreted as a

chance occurrence. Consequently, all crews' results were treated

according to their nominal group assignments in all further analyses,

and equipment familiarity as a variable was given no further consideration.

All summary data for analyses are provided in Appendixes G, H, and I.

BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES

In order to determine whether significant group by company

interactions existed, two-way unweighted means ANOVAs were computed

on each variable. Significant group by company interactions would

indicate that the treatment (group assignment) effects observed depended

upon the companies from which the crews were drawn. Such a finding

would limit the generalizability of the results. The ANOVAs, however,

revealed no significant interactions (all F < 2.40, p >.05, df = 3,36).

Accordingly, all further analyses were based on one-way ANOVA computations.

In order to evaluate between group differences, Dunnett tests

(Winer, 1971, pp. 201) were computed for comparisons of the control

group (Group I) with the three experimental groups. Tukey tests (Steele

and Torrie 1960, pp. 109) were computed for differences between experimental groups. Alpha levels were set at p <.05, 2 tailed, for all comparisons. The Dunnett and Tukey procedures were chosen as more conservative analyses than the Newman-Keuls.

An overview of the results indicated that numerically, Groups 1,

2, and 4 were comparable, while Group 3 performed more poorly. Typical

results are shown in Figure I for Table VIII total points (D * N),

main gun targets hit (D + N), main gun opening time (D + N), and

machine gun points (D + N). Statistically significant between group

differences were found for total points and opening time. A detailed

description of the results is given in the following pages. Means and

between-group comparison significance levels are provided in Tables

4 and S.

19
1300 1236 -- • 'ISO

TOTAL. TABLE. VIII 1100

PO INTS

900 786

700

Gp I Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

1. _S 13.9

W.`lAN MAIN GUN OPENING 13.0 -

TIME

11. S o.. 11.1

10.0 9.6

Gp Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp4

6 |5.9 S.-S

MEAN MAIN GUN TARGETS 5.4

HIT 5 .]iS.

42 .

Gt) 1 Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

350 -!343

325 i 321 31'

MPýA.\ MACHINE GUN I -"

POINTS

275 -•

61-1 1 Control 250 25

;p 2 = Unfamiliar Crews

Gp 3 - Unfamiliar Crews - -

and Positions Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

Gj 4 = Non-armor Replaccm1cn.

Figure 1. Tank Gunnery Perfor'a-, rc, a-' n Function of Grcup Assignment

23
'0~~ C ~ 0 C>c 0

in co '

00 co Il " P -4 f %0

. . i . -' r4 N C4N 0 

p Lob00 m O0 - P4 4 inl

od sn i N 0 0 00 0 00 A -4 C404 44 t N

* .

tNt C.) u4 n - M o 8 I-

,I .! 1, -. L41 ! 1

-'CO W) 1-

-4 -. %0

C) (n C)a00 0 CD00

0! el inZ 00 t'ý?. -4 -C OO 00 lf% &N -4-4 P-4 on - an

Cý~~.q ITc vftr Ir o

>~~~- -4 0 P-u. '

Cý 1 0' 0 t i ninf

1.1 cr C)i DcC N4. - ION 7 -ý1 Iin O0 -t Cl c o 0

-m i-n- 10co c

Itt i- t-4

CI.'O as00 00 oý r;0 Loll "O~0 Ln NO

ID-u in t.ul-.u Ln '0u -aL

II ~-N ~ ' O i *'l t 21l 01

-- r, .. 0

-4 .1 in--

o. "-4 C40 C: 2

Ii ~ ~ . 04 )I 4 ~ *4

0 ctd. P "4 4.1

C -- . ; 4.-1 Cr-4 ýý; M.- .

21
V) ?Aa a X ak 3* t# 4. iia

'44a' C4a

a 0 U7

0 .a 0 0. o0 to 1a * a 0

z0 u

4aJa a a a .

0 41 L

1^ a a ah r- v4a a- s a 0 = 

(to) 

LU l l f ~ ~ a a am

aZ wn tn

... m 4 P4 

r- 0 t

55 ., ma 'E as a

;.4 414 J -0 +

065 a a a a - aaq a

(a a ao aý as a, a a2 aA a 4J~ cca a ma a *4

C4s a 0 a2 5 eC

0 0 t4 cL

4441-0=m0.0

41h 04 U *' 41 0us4a 0.4. W an Rs " +

22 z4
UNFAMILIAR CREWS

Comparisom of Group 1 with Group 2. Group 1 and Group 2 differed

in degree of personnel familiarity. Group 1 personnel fired the turbulence Table VIII with the same crewmen and in the same positions

as on the qualification Table VIII two weeks previously. Group 2,

on the other hand, was composed of crewmen who held the same positions

as they held on the qualification Table VIII, but who were working

with different crewmen. Thus, any differences between the groups could

be attributed to differences in familiarity of crewmembers. Computation of

Dunnett's t for comparisons of Group 1 with Group 2 on each of the 12

gunnery variables Day (D), Night (N), and Day and Night combined (D +

N), revealed no significant differences between groups. Thus personnel

familiarity did not contribute in a significant manner to performance

variation on the turbulence Table VIII.

UNFAMILIAR POSITION

Comparison of Group 2 with Group 3. Because both Group 2 and Group

3 were conditions with reduced personnel familiarity, the comparison of

Group 2 and 3 is appropriate for evaluating the effects of reduced

position familiarity. The Tukey analyses indicated ,many significant

effects. The crews which experien-ed only personnel changes had

significantly more total points (N) and battlesight targets hit (N)

and faster main gun opening times (N), precision opening times (N, and

D + N), and battlesight opening times (D + N).

UNFAMILIAR CREWS AND POSITIONS

Comparisons of Group I and Group 3. Group 3 crews experienced both

personnel and duty position turbulence. Because personnel familiarity,

evaluated in comparisons of Group 1 and 2, yielded no significant

differences, any differences between Group 1 and Group 3 can probably

be attributed to unfamiliarity with positions. The Contro! crews had

significantly more Table VIII points (D + N, and N), main gun points

(N), main gun targets hit (N), battlesight targets hit (N), and

machine gun points (N). In addition, Group I opening times were

significantly faster over all main gun engagements (D + N, and N),

battlesight engagements (D + N, D and N) and precision engagements

(D + N, and N). Thus, while personnel differences alone did not lead

.o significant performance differences between Control Crews and

Unfamiliar Crews, Unfamiliar Positions in addition to Unfamiliar Crewmembers led to numerous significant performance decrements.

23
NON-ARMOR REPLACEMENTS

Comparisons of Group 1 and 4. As with Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and

4 differed in personnel and duty familiarity, but involved a different

kind of duty position turbulence. The Group 4 crews consisted of armortrained tank commanders and drivers, and non-armor trained gunners

and loaders. Because personnel turbulence did not lead to significant

performance differences between Groups 1 and 2, any differences between

Groups 1 and 4 could best be attributed to replacing crewmembers with

non-armor personnel. The results, however, indicated no significant

differences between Groups 1 and 4 on any of the gunnery variables

evaluated.

Comparison of Groups 2 and 4. As with the evaluations of job

familiarity above, Group 2 provides a control for the evaluation of

the type of duty position turbulence created in Group 4. There were

no significant differences between Groups 2 and 4 on any of the gunnery

variables evaluated.

Comparison of Groups 3 and 4. Comparisons of Group 3 and 4 were

used to evaluate the effects of the two different kinds of duty position

"turbulence. Although the performance of Group 4 was numerically superior

to that of Group 3 on all variables, the differences did not reach

acceptable levels of significance.

TABLE VIII RELIABILITY

The design of the turbulence research offered a unique opportunity

to acquire test-retest data with which to address the reliability of

Table VIII. The data was available because the Control crews had completed their qualification Table VIII with the same crewmembers, in

the same duty positions, and on the same tanks as used for the turbulence Table VIII. In cases wherein a crew re-ran the Table VIII for

qualification, the most recent data was used for analysis. Correlations

of +.43 for total points, +.SO for main gun points, +.37 for main gun

targets hit, and +.54 for main gun opening time were obtained. Because

of the small sample size (N = 11) significance tests on the correlations

are not particularly meaningful. These correlations are best considered

as point estimates of test-retest relationships.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Tank Crew Stability Questionnaires and Table VIII results from

44 crews were available for analyses. The questionnaires were handled

as they were in Phase I. A summary of descriptive statistics including

mean, median, standard deviation, and semi-interquartile range is

provided in Table 6. Selected questionnaire variables identified in

Phase I as significant were correlated with Table VIII gunnery measures.

No significant relationships were indicated by these analyses.

This can probably be explained by the smaller sample in Phase II.

24
41

-4 -, G 0-wL

S.. C4 0

ufr.aý Wav0 N C C L %a *n qr-w en

0 Ln .n00 

C4 C. . a0 .4. .- 4 C c ! C

u Im0 0 0

Ul 

0

442

C.u) M. * .

'0 *j 

Fr -4 00 ~ %-0 5.1. %%.J

.0 b•0 e%0%c 0- CJ~ tho Ad C

-. 1 N 0in U' c o% A0.% A.0 4 = n 0In 0a w G i

-4 0.. 0 c:b " 0 0 Lia tic a-e0c 4J I-- U m .

~'w No ) V~ >~ coc 4 U_ .0 w'.4% 04 N0

CO. *00. to Cn 0d4 1 0 - o csc 0 o c ,4) a) "a CIO -_ u0 0 C.. 00 0 m cmN.. no.-r- a~- C

00 CIS 41o 0 0 o~~~~4 0 0 0 0 0 ) "4 -,q - L~ ".4- u 0000 8-4 I-u '- CA tA th ' 1 .4 a1 T4 0

0m 004 

.0 0 00 0 0 0 0 9 4J4 J J4 4.J 4-) 4.8 4.)~ 41 ~ 41= .8=0 0000 =4)~ c) a4* C C0 

0 00 J4A J 4 . 80 (0 00 C880 

4 ) 

000.0 

4 ) 4 

004.0 

) 

004.02 0.2 0 0.Q

w .

I-.t2

0 2S
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to determine the effects of

personnelequikpment and position familiarity on tank gunnery performance,

as indicated by performance on Table VIII. To answer this question four

groups of tank crews were assembled. Group 1 served as a control group

with typical levels of personnel, equipment and job familiarity. Group

2 (unfamiliar trews) was a personnel turbulence group in which crewmen

served in their normal duty positions, but with different crewmen.

Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crew and Duty Position) crews were identical to

Group 2 with respect topersonnel and equipment familiarity, but unfamiliarity with duty positions was added as a variable for the Group 3

tank commanders and gunners. Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) was also

a condition of reduced personnel, equipment and position familiarity.

Unfamiliarity of duty position was created by replacing the gunner and

loader with non-armor personnel.

The results of this research indicate that unfamiliarity with the

duties assigned to the tank commander and gunner had a serious effect

on Table VIII gunnery performance. On almost every variable evaluated,

the performance of Group 3 crews (Unfamiliar Crew and Duty Positions)

was worse than that of Groups 1, 2, or 4, and many of the comparisons

were statistically significant. The poorer performance of Group 3

crews overall was particularly evident in the night firing scores.

Also, it is important to note that the analyses of Group 3 performance excluded 2 crews who were disqualified; therefore, the results presented

here represent a conservative estimate of the effects of duty position

turbulence. Had minimum scores been entered for disqualified crews,

Group 3 means for points and hits would have been lower, and mean

opening times would have been longer.

It is apparent that the gunners and loaders did not have suff cient

cross training to prepare them for the tank commander and gunner pdsitions.

The battalion did provide cross-training for crewmen in classroom settings, but there was not sufficient time to provide hands-on cross training during the gunnery season. The realities of combat utilization of our

tank forces, however, suggest that combat losses may necessitate the

kinds of replacement procedur's evaluated in this research.

The new 19E gunner/loader training implemented at Ft Knox should

reduce the problem of replacing the gunner. However, this will not

provide crewmembers qualified to replace the tank commander. Thus,

serious consideration should be given to cross-training of crewmembers

in tank commander's duties. Results from Phase I indicated that length of time tank commander and gunner worked together affected gunnery

performance. This suggests that tank commander-gunner interaction is

important and should be part of the cross training for tank commander

replacements. A brief training program for tank commanders and gunners similar to the one used for Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) gunners

and loader.; may be an efficient way to incorporate cross training into

the normal gunnery training.

26
Although crews in Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) also experienced

unfamiliarity of personnel, equipment, and position, their overall performance was not significantly different from that of either Group 1 or

2. This can be explained in part by the fact that experienced tank

commanders werp present on the tanks, and had trained the non-armor personnel on Table VII prior to firing the Table VIII. Also, the non-armor

crewmen had just completed three days of training designed specifically

to prepare them for firing Table VIII.

The effects of personnel turbulence were evaluated by comparing

the performance of the Unfamiliar Crews with that of the Control Crews.

There were no statistically significant differences in performance

between the Unfamiliar Crews and the Control Crews, indicating that this

type of personnel turbulence does not significantly degrade gunnery performance. In fact, on many variables the Unfamiliar Ciews had

scores that were numerically superior to the Control Crews. The numerical results can be attributed to random rather tnan systematic group

differences.

Although the results indicated that personnel turbulence did not

seriously degrade Table VIII performance, the Tank Crew Stability

Questionnaires showed that even the Control Crews (Group 1) had

relatively little experience together. Thus, the Group 1 and Group 2

crews did not differ greatly in length of time together. Group 1 crews

with significantly greater amounts of experience with one another might

have performed better, leading to significant Group 1 - Group 2 differences.

Such crews were not available in the battalion participating in the

research, however. And data presented in Phase I and Larson et al.

indicated that such crews are not readily available in today's Army.

The evaluation of equipment familiarity was conducted separately

from personnel and position familiarity due to the fact that some crews

were not able to fire the appropriate tanks. Of all the ANOVA comparisons run, only for moving target opening times at night did equipment

familiar crews perform significantly better than unfamiliar crews. This

may or may not reflect a chance occurrence. Based on the comparisons

we can conclude that familiarity with a particular tank played only a

minor role, if any, in Table VIII performance. Again, equipment

familiarity might have been a more important factor if the controls had

been assigned to their tanks for a substantially longer time.

The data presented in this research also provided some information

on the reliability of Table VIII as a tank gunnery evaluation tool.

That information is interesting in its own right, and is helpful in

interpretation of the between group differences observed. The correlations

considered as point estimates indicated moderate levels of reliability.

Overall, the moderate levels of reliability were not suprising. No

attempt was made to control for variables associated with weather,

ammunition, or time of day/night when firing occurred. And motivational

differences may have existed because the first Table VIII was for

27
qualification and the turbulence Table VIII did not directly affect the

status of the crews.

The questionnaire data was used primarily as a tool for crew

assignment. The descriptive statistics were useful, however, in evaluating

the comparability of turbulence in the Ft Carson battalion with turbulence

in the five USAREUR battalions observed in Phase I. The correlations

between questibnnaire variables and gunnery performance which yielded

significant effects in Phase I did not produce the same results from the

Ft Carson data. This apparent inconsistency is not suprising since the

results obtained in the USAREUR study included data from approximately

200 crews, while complete data from only 44 crews were available at

Ft Carson. Small effects of turbulence which could have been observed

with the large sample could easily go unnoticed with the small sample.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the research in Phase I revealed considerable levels

of turbulence in 5 USAREUR battalions. These results were consistent

with those of Larson et al. (1976) and Report of Tank Forces on Training

Technology (1975). Personnel turbulence was most apparent with complete

crews, which had typically been together only 1-2 months. There was

less personnel turbulence among tank commander/gunner pairs, which had

usually been together 1-3 months. There was a great deal of-variation

in the degree of personnel turbulence observed, however. Some crews,

and tank commander/gunner pairs, had been together less than a month,

while others had been together four months or more. The results suggest

that stable crew assignments were far from a reality in the battalions

observed.

Position turbulence was not as great as personnel turbulence. Most

loaders had served in their positions longer than three months. And

tank commenders, gunners, and drivers had typically held their positions

more than six months. Variation was also great on these position

turbulence variables. Thus, while most crewmen had a reasonable degree

of experience with their duty positions, a number of them were quite

new to their positions when firing Table VIII.

The research indicated that whole crew personnel familiarity did

not have a significant effect on gunnery performance. Neither the

Stability Questionnaire results from Phase I, nor the Group 1 and 2

comparisons from Phase II, suggested any evidence that entire crews

which had been together for a moderate period of time fired better

than those together a shorter time. The results are tempered by two

factors. First, few crews which had been together a long time, even

one year, were available. Such crews might perform better than the typical

crews in today's armor forces. Second, the Stability Questionnaire results

did indicate a small but significant relation between gunnery performance

28
and'the ti~ne t;ink commanders and gunners trained together. Thus, tank

commandee and gunner turbulence may be an important factor in pre- dicting gunnery performance.

The major findings of this research were related to duty position

familiarity. In both phases of the research experience in a particular position appeared as a significant factor in gunnery performance. Both tank commander and gunner experience in their positions were

related to gunnery performance in Phase I, and Phase II crews which

included men in unfamiliar crew positions performed much more poorly

than those in comparable crews who were familiar with their duties.

Both Phase I and Phase II results speak strongly for emphasis on the

training and retention of armor crewmen, particularly tank commanders

and gunners, in their positions.

Mhen the results were used to address the problem of how to replace

armor crewmen, either by changing positions or by incorporating non-armor

personnel, two findings were revealed. First, changing a crewman's

duty position without training him for his new duties, leads to markedly

reduced performance. The armor crewmen were not adequately crosstrained to assume their new positions, even though they had just completed

annual gunnery and cross training in classroom subjects was provided

as part of the gunnery program. The second finding was that inccrporation of non-armor personnel into crews as gunners and loaders did not significantly degrade gunnery performance. However, the non-armor men were

given three days intensive hands-on training specifically designed to

prepare crewmen to fire Table VIII. Such personnel, given a short

training package such as used in this research, may provide adequate replacement personnel in emergency situations. The same type of training

packages could also be developed and incorporated into unit gunnery

training to assist in cross-training armor crewmen.

Equipment familiarity appeared to have only a limited impact on

gunnery performance. Only one relationship between increased equipment familiarity and improved performance (for tank commanders) was noted in

Phase I, and only one (for moving target opening time at night) was

observed in Phase II. Thus, if equipment familiarity played any role

at all in the Table VIII performance observed, it was probably only a

very small part.

Questions which remain unanswered address the degree to which

turbulence factors affect performance on mere structured tasks, such as

Table VI gunnery, and less structured tasks, such as Table IX and ARTEP

performance. Following the position of Wagner et al. expressed in the

introduction, it appears reasonable tb assume that neither personnel

nor equipment familiarity would play a significant role on more structured

tasks, and the effects of position familiarity would be reduced. On more

unstructured tasks, however, personnel, and perhaps equipment familiarity,

along with position familiarity, may play important roles in modulating

crew performance.

29
REFERENCES

Defense Science Board. Report of the Task Force on Training Technology,

Chapter 8. Crew/Group/Unit Training, Washington, DC: Office of the

Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense,

May 1975.

Egerman, K. Effects of team arrangement on team performance: A learningtheoretic Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology-, 1966,

3(S), S41-550.

Egerman, K., Glaser, R., and Klaus, D. J. Increasing team proficiency

through training: 4. A learning theoretic analysis of the effects of team

arrangement on team performance. (Technical Report AIR B64-9/63)

American Institutes for Research, September 1963.

Egerman, K., Klaus, D. J., and Glaser, R. Increasing team proficiency

through training:3. Decremental effects of reinforcement in teams with

redundant members. (Technical Report AIR B64-6/62) American Institutes

for Research, June 1962.

Larson, J. A., Earl, W. K., and Henson, V. A. Assessment of US tank crew

training. TRADOC Combined Arms Test Activity Test Report FM 331,

Ft Hood, Texas, 15 July 1976.

O'Brien, R. E., Crum, W. J., and Healy, R. D. Accelerated tank gunnery

training program for gunner/loader replacements. (HumPRO Res. Memo.

RM-WD (KY)-78-3). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization,

May 1978.

Steele, R. G., and Torrie, J. H. Principles and.procedures of statistics.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

US Department of the Army. Tank Force Management Group Study Recommendations (Approved Chief of Staff, July 1977).

Wagner, II., Ilibbits, N., Rosenblatt, R. D., and Schulz, R. Team training

and evaluation strategies: State of the art. (llumRRO Tcch Rep 77-1).

Alexandria, VA: iluman Resources Research Organization, February 1977.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed).

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

30
APPENDIXES

Page APPENDIX A. Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire (PT 5188) 33

B. Correlation Matrix of Summary Criterion Variables 39

C. Complete Descriptive Statistics and Frequency 49

Distributions

D. Outline of Three Day Training Program 75

E. Main Gun Opening Time/Point Table 83

F. Machine Gun Opening Time/Point Table 87

G. Sumaary Data for Analysis of Equipment Familiarity 91

H. Summary Data for Analysis of Equipment Familiarity - 95

Day

I. Summary Data for Analysis of Equipment Fa.ilia-ity --- 99

Night

31
APPENDIX A

TANK CREW STABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (PT 5188)

33
TANK CRLW STABIL.ITY QUESTIONNAIRE

TCs, please fill in your name, tank, company. Bn, gunner's name, driver's

name, and loader's name. Then complete questions #1-10.

Have your gunner complete questions #11-14, your driver complete questions

41S-18, and your loader complete questions #19-22.

Khen you rnd your gunner, driver, and loader have all completed their

questions check the questionnaire to insure that all 22 questions have been

answered. Then give questionnaire to the platoon sergeant who should give

it to the company first sergeant.

Thank you for completing the questionnaire.

TC name Tank_ Company_ Bn

What is your Table VIII gunner's name

What is your Table VIII driver's name

leat is your Table VIII loader's name

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.

Do not count time in liE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master Gunner

Courses, etc.

1. How many nonths have you and your complete crew been assigned together, with

you as TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your current driver

assigned as your driver, 4nd your current loader assigned as your loader?

(Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

2. How many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together, with

you as TC, your current gunner assigned is your gunner, your current driver

assigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned as your loader,

the ti tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Lesst han I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

3. How many months have you and your complete crew actually been able to

train together, with you as TC, your current gunner as gunner, your current

driver as driver, and your current loader as ldader? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 0 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

35

PTS188
4. How many months have you and your current gunner been assigned together,

with you as TC an- your current gunner as gunner? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or.more

S. Now many months have you and your current gunner been assigned tog et-hr,

with you as TC and your current gunner assigned as your gunner, on the tank

you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 90 8 9 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

6. How many months have you and your current gunner actually been able to

train together, with you as TC, and your current gunner as gunner? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 90 8 9 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ormorc

7. How many months have you been assigned as the TC on the tank you used,

or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

8. How long have you been assigned the duties of TC, regardless of the tank,

crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

9. How long have you actually had to train in the duties of TC, regardless

of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

10. How long have you served in M60 tanks, regardless of the duty position

you held?

YEARS _ _MONrTHS

HAVE YOUR GUNNER FILL OUT THE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

PT S188 36
GUNNER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies. Do not count time in liE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master Gunner

Courses, etc.

11. flow many months havc you been assigned as tho gunner on the tank you used,

or will use, to - Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

12. How long have you been assigned the duties of gunner, regardless of the

tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

13. How long have you actually had to train in duties of gunner, regardless of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS ___MNTHS

14. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty position

you held?

YEARS MOINTHS

HAVE YOUR DRIVER FILL OUT THE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

DRIVER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies. Do not count time in lE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master Gunner

Courses, etc.

15. How many months have you been assigned as the driver on the tank you used,

or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 1 10 1 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 .23 24 or more

16. How long have you been assigned the duties of tank driver, regardless of the

tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MON'THS

17. How long have you actually had to train in duties of tank driver, regardless

of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

37 PT 5188
18. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty position

you held?

YEARS MONTHS

HAVE YOUR LOADER FILL OUT TIHE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

LOADER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.

Do not count time in l1E AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master Gu, er

Courses, etc.

19. How many months have you been assigned as the loader on the tank you used,

or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month . 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 or less

20. How long have you been assigned the duties of loader, regardless of the

tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

21. How long have you actually had to train in duties of loader, regardless

of the tank, crew, or company ya' may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

22. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty position

you held?

YEARS MONTHS

Loader - When you have completed questions #19-22 return the questionnaire to

your TC.

Thank you.

38

PT 5188
APPENDIX B

CORRELATION MATRIX OF SUMMARY CPITERION VARIABLES

39
K SUMMNARY CRITERION VARIABLES

Variable Code Decition

302 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Day)

303 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Night)

304 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Day and Night)

305 Ist Round Main Gun Hits (Day)

306 1st Round Main Gun Hits (Night)

307• 1st Round Main Gun hits (Day and Night)

308! Main Gun flits (Day)

309 Main Gun Hits (Night)

310 Main Gun Hits (Day and Night)

311 Standardized Measure of Opening Time (Day and Night)

312 Standardized Measure of Hits (Day and Night)

41
""*4_4i~ 4-0! 1~ -0 D~ .. aý C.~ 402- --

0 * . C. 2 f2. - & 4 .. - cb - Pf a "- Z a, ... 

0 0 a Mo a W C3 1 A o azQ 4 a ýac 0 z r

in 40 i . .- v. Go' : wwia -0 -0 M~ -a

-40-

0 ý-.- 01f 410 * O ~ a- 0_ O_ .

Cp- a~ fne C, a f 4W .200 C31 -02 r al50 '0o40 0 0 ~ s-CP q 43, a o 4 t 4D 4t 0 to4 4t 40 40 e a

* -~- 0 ~ A s -40 F # M0 *C S-.Fpo Gs 00. -tfo .50 ,...

w a v a, 42 Ol o` * 4: *r ' , A . U -

'A 01 Vs a 1 0

5..5 0a 1 .0 0 on15 a,- -0 a P. 0 C, -0 Z -0- 400S a La~9 .0. # o .4 00 fu a o0 t * o .~-0 .ic 

l.. al I-* 10 cm C, .O , . r, 

v. N2 -1 5$ N N - In U w51 w OV 

C. ~ c4i -as V-o -'P -D -n - Nm A. ;-A 4 3

.0 A a vn a ,0 O 0 ý0 ,r - ,i Ik 

.3 a- a do .a 5 .40 VSC 0, 0 4-0 4oc, moo 0 C .fle MCI ot O

a-, - .0 ~* ' a C a-C' 4C a' c5 -Ni a

ui ac lCl r

10 o t0. ceo .ose - a 0 -4 a oe a-- 431:Z WW. 43,V 00

0. v" 2. c. -W 00 hiC hiC A I aC. a Q* PCr - 4r v"

'D a, - .* ;

bi a. fm . D 0rd. -m 4

ixJ -a -a 00 a! ;e 'S U-sJj F-0 a,0 O- P- v5

CL V 3o ~ *A on 1 -0 -0 66*015 4 4 2*'05 0 65 -- 46 * .

z crS ý4 a r- -w o. a o*.iP 4 O'1 a P. 5, a * . ,

(0 54 S N S 5 N 56 I 5 0 N U

40: fn , 4 to so M.

0u t we 1. 00% 0r ICO a V. ea- ceo Quo ft~w 0..- n

f - a ai a & *l -- v o , *0 -- o spa * ,9 a

ma 0 =_ - %I . . C a 41 N - ' 5 N 6 t 6 N I S N 3 S N z cc 40 L: aC a-' 0 5C Sm aC C '

0- N IL - 0 a 1 1

Co 017. -fld ~ Ac N 00 a .. a A - c. 'a.. a o - - P, 41 e It. *

CL No -b to -40 N N 5 N * U 5 M. U U *

a4 Q4 0

6- pn %: p Sal~c . '.. cc S . cc 4 ~ 0- 4 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ P10 ~ CV ~ ~ #5 ~ V M- ~ 0 Nc 0 ~ O ~ . ~ .. ~ ~ ae l SS' r_15 

=I = W. cc

* ' .42
0 CD 0 4 0 0~ Q a, 44 ~ 'of. . g-'@ Al4' w.'. 00

W Inm *3@ a0 _%n0 @Ia 10,01, C 4@ 40.4 0 0ý 43) ~ W: ftP 4 0 a Co It a a ;T IV 0 c,4 0 40 a

a- 4 M oa 41 N A a. Q Q 40 eu 1 4. ýoC

ri W a I4 f" N: t a I I

0 4a

*A - -

0 44.4 mt AI a'~ 4 A..' 4 0U. 0, %110.0 a-.. a- CP v- 4 t

33A .11 t0 ... l- ot4 .4 0 00 .0 00 OV 000aCP a- V- coo a

P4-2. -4 * s . * 0 S P or 00 0 40 0.

Sm f* 0. OS Ss P.- Sý S C3,S 

4 0 0:; S N S4 N , IS 10 ca a N ),

* -* '0 n 'f--0-03 - -0 o0 a

* w

0, ~ ~ @P4 34 o P3. 44 Ml. -30 0 33 #-0) 30 .

f. A a- 40 ^: v Q 4 44 4 A l 4 4

-4 C, N t Ný N_ N 0 N*4N C: .U . cc - 7. - 3 0 U)

s 0 f

* 'aio ; -. 40 a4 In0 44. AIOC 000 VP4 J4 04 .

4 Al * -up* o- ,* a *9 11 0 a * 0 * 3 *

ry P Cr. N d sp - C b C'. -

3w :w 33 3 

P.443
Q ab a

eve .040 10v. Poi 0 20- 4 4C- Al0 400 .. 0 N 4 F_ N. p" * 8 0 * * r A 0 * 0~ m o -o N lo * 0": ai * b 0 o W 0 a 4a 0 o 0

P4 b.* 4-0 Go. -o' '* -2 0 0 0 0 - 0-0 v 0

em* A4 al - V 0b 0%~ -Mv - ol 0- N. o-. 4 a A cx ~ Non0

S.. eO. -Ov .. A 200 w 00 r ~ 10 A0 - "00 0

* 0 4 41 04 A 0 a .. 7 0 0 00 0 t- 44 0 wAC UA-a NA 4 " N A N 0 l U N" a A c' AMN~

* -44 0to %, 0 -00 0 0 . -so P

* 4N.0 04ý N. .44 0N 0a 04N 0 40 -N ad m.g. 01 4 *0

0 m - ^l~ w0. 400 .0"a a0 a0 Non 0 "M 0 Ale m M0AONO 4-

P" co . 0 w 40 . . w 0 .0 I@ a . z

; it 0 4 .4 a

- 0 U) .. a -0) -0 601 in -0A 0 I-4 

0

* 400 09 flo C9 20 a A P00 coN #40 a0 P 40 I

A C - S a A _ * 0 * 4 a -A a 0, co Cp. co -~ *

ow a ora 40 a a

U U

N.. 4b ..a4-- 014 f0 000 440 #43 ~4' 0 0 ou4 

10. Ve .3 0 . 0 * 4 * N a -0 0 &-o * P_ 4 1-* 40 * z

0 cS A Sl a 0"f 0 A i 0b 0 x 4 5P -"a ~ 0%M

U-WW

4' 0N.4 0~ : - N- a4 A4 COO 04 -n404m 0. 014r o 4 v

vu) w 00 * A, w P. w P* c0 0ý N m 04 * l 0 4 a

U4 - -e - 0 c V2 0 '-0 -40 t -in P

-n lpa ---. c 0

4-Pc~ *c3. -n. n..N 'In... 0.0U. 00P. A w-~ 

A# A a 5 0 55

2 ~ 42 Ol - 1 '0 .) - 1 ' PA " mP

a I r x ' c

U #. 0". 0.N AJ. ... 9 0-A 9 0..bJ 00 0.'1

0 400 5-0 OO ION. o.- 44# 04 .NA aN c '4-
-4 e. old i, of- a

.0I co -t w) co

~~~~~ vs 4 .514 I4 Cý a4.40 4 ~ i~ 4

00t a as -' to * 4 ~ 1 -419 N4 - smj a ~ I N 5 8 a

o 4 ~ .~ . ns~ i~~a 

. *t cp g0 - 42 5'- g a a *

aI aCA*

N tu 4 - r P- 4 5N A- 4~~~ z5', ap -ý - ~ 10,C3,~5) .. ss *.

aof

a; a . a N Jr.

on4 to7~ in is~

'pc

IT,

X -T I ! : - - - C , 

5 C. N~~~L . ~ ~ ~ pp ~ ~ 4 ~ ISaO f a * aa a~r - i

. -N 

S .44'

soa 

.. ONO

~~0 -'- ?.J t

C'b

zr *5C . . . f .l4~ .. ¶ '
nn nn1 --

, ~ ~ ~ 2 (P -0 A ... ; e ,, a CL

* u A IIs V =Q . 8- a .M 0 0 40 g N

* ~ 0 .ItI grI U'%J JI100.UO 0.4 co Ta9 i.

6o .. . aa

1 1,*

S. 0% 6 q 4 v. I . CO IS a . I z. U

.J Z v i .0 V a~ 0... - - -a- wa 0.aU Oa 4 0

* g - V CP * . 40 i . C 3 0 * 40 a * I It lp 4 a g * U , •, C D a . a a 2 '

.6J

6 a II 0 a S. S. a C. m U .4 J, t. 

0 -i

A.

44)_ _I cao - o "VI q . q! or, Z3 z 3z zZ

w ItJ .•a -1 * . lm a " b V 40 a.*m " S4 a * u a -•

a~1 a

.. 4 . 6 0 S P . U S - . C, S. 4* M4 -'@5 al2 & -A C: . , A -U. i7, I , . .a 

In

0 Uf A0 * /60 0 0 0 0 '-3 40 @6 *@ ed

64~i 4 4 S 4 it . . Sis 

4-40

- - b 2 A& -u t- m co r.a 4 *p -n aw ip do a- m o CX a a V a w 'uc a 3

**~o V U .n A In @ OA .S A -2 0

a Sfu

44
J% a' v 43 .P a, -Y W. . a a- a & a .

4 ~ a IP Cl -6 1 In 4 6 4 - 4 6

3. 4 .. 9.g Ole% 0. -J% V4 .4: Q .. Z -I, 

6 -,

A ofti dohi ;a.i 10 C*0 *0 01 NI m 0 a, C..

4 11 N 4 4 4 to I a -6 a I If

3- 0 04 3 -A -00 fin 0 0 .00 0 -* In z

* iV IF w w a 4 aZP0 C .MC V To N Y I

4P 4-11 N V iJ.- 0. A ~ 0 i iJ 0 - 0 4-.- 4-a A. @P" CtJO 0 A 4 0 a9 - 0 1 ~ - zo 3 * V a J. 1 a N @ 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 i.? 8 ~ . b-9 1 a I a a ~ T V N If * 0 If V N * Z

C, .) V V V) C 

A 44

.V. . 0 -. 0 mob -- -'. as .I.0 a'0 a- 0 a3 In -0 -

w N40 UAI a- 0-@ . 4-: N- * O @ a c o00 4 0 N0 

" "e S - t N - N : S N

0I0

Inin Nb go t fma L .

0~~~~~~~11 It*N0 91 -N @ 0 SV -- 4 0 NV O ~

C.1'

44
APPENDIX C

COMPLETE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

49
TANK CREW STABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Variable code Description

185 Months crew assigned together

186 Months crew assigned together on tank used for

Table VIII

187 Months crew trained together

188 Months Tank Commander and Gunner assigned together

189 Months Tank Commander and Gunner assigned together

on tank used for Table VIII

190 Months Tank Commander and Gunner trained together

191 Months Tank Commander on Table VIII tank

192 Months assigned as Tank Commander

193 Months trained as Tank Commander

194 Months Tank Commander was on M60 tanks

195 Months Gunner on Table VIII tank

196 Months assigned as Gunner

197 Months trained as Gunner

198 Months Gunner was on M60 tanks

199 Months Driver on Table VIII tank

200 Months assigned as Driver

201 Months trained as Driver

202 Months Driver on M60 tanks

203 Months Loader on Tabie VIII tank

204 Months assigned as Loader

205 Months trained as Loader

206 Months Loader on M60 tanks

51
STAT'ISTI-CAL PACKAGE F0N THESOIL 2 S :5PSSM RE~LEASE 6.04

Fi~lE TL K (CREATION VATF a 2ý 771⁄4

WELATIVE ADJUSTED Cum

____ ___ ______ ___ _ -FOLO - 4EjW

CAEOYLABEL C06f ;ýPLQ (PLT) (PCT) CI'CT)

0. 7Q 37."1 57,'a 11.aO

1. 37 j. 17 j@ .5 51.o00

3, 27 12.8 12.6 62,50

4, 7 3,3 303 8!),80

6. 0 3.6 3,8 91.40

le 1.9 1 .4 53

9. 0s e5 96,20

too 2.9 *9 97.20

A2 1.4 104 96 .6

19. 's .5 99.10

24 9 *9 lOCeco

ToTA ~ u 0 100.0

MEAN - 2,199 SID EWR , MEDIAN Il

-MO6t 00C0 STD uE' VARIANCE 11.1;0

KURT0318 16.836 SKE'.NES$ 4AG

NINtMUP .000 -Fl -4 -1

VALI C ASES- -211' kLSSING CV:
STAT13TICAL PACKAGE FOR TME S0CIAL SCIENCES SP33K R ELEASE 6,04

FILE TANK (CREATION DATE 8 20 DEC 77)

RELATIVE ADJUSTLO CUM

CATEGORY LABEL CODE PRLO (PLTJ (PCTJ (PCT)

0. 80 -379 38.1 38,10

1I 41 19.4 1905 S7060

2. 32 15s.2 7,90

3. 26 .12.3 12.4 85.20

-- S 2.4 2.4 81.60

So a 3.60 38 9.40

be 5 2.4 2.4 95080

7. 3 114 1.4 95.20

8. 3 1.4 1.4 96.70

9. I .5 .S 97.10

1o. 2 'g 1..0 . 96.10

12. 3 1.4 1.4 99.50

190 .95 05 100000

99990 1 65 MISSING 100.0

TOTAL 211 100o0 1O000

-MEAN.914 . .TO ERR•. MDIAN 1.110

MODE 1000 STD DEV 2,685 VARIANCE 70208

KURTOSIS 9.599 SKEWNESS 2,6Z4 RANGf 1g,9000

MINIKUM '000 MAX14UM 19.000

VALiD CASES 210 MISS:NG CASES I

53
STATISTICAL PACKAGE POR IML SOCIAL SCILNCLS SPSSH NELEASL beQ4

F ILE- TANK' -(CRFEAT ION*DT 20 AC 7 ?)

.VARIOT

RELATIVE AnJUSTLO cut,

.AR50LUTE FrqLw PRELO k

CWIOR ~LL...... COI)L-- FMt.0 CPfLTj (PCT) (PC1)

0, 93 44*1. 44.1 44'.10

4. 210al. 2193 54

2. 32 j 2 1 S .2

3. 18S SO50. 89,10

'I -5 2.4 2.4 91.50

5. -4- 109 -93.'40

60 3 1." 1.4 4a

5 2.4 2*4 97.20

1. 02 .9 W9 98.60

1?. 2 .9 .9 99.50

19. 1 .5 as 100900

TTL 21t 100.0 100.0

MEAN ___ 150 SOERR silo MEDIAN .77I8

.000 1Th E V 2.4i3- -- lfARiNce- b.00

-59RTOSIS. 44,521 SK E 0-NESS__ _.39?1'4 RANGE - 19.0000

MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 19.0000

VAIDCASS- -C i 2 1 MISSNG CSES -- 0'

54
STAT13T!CAL PACK(AGE FOR 704L SOCIAL SCIENCES 3PSS"I REILEASE~ 6,04

FiLL TA~~ (i4ET1UUAILU aUO UtC-71J

ADJ CUM AOJ CUM ANJ CUP

-- ~COOla..E-REQ--C~T PZT -.CUDE. -F REG PCT PCT. CODE FREQ PCT P'CT

as 0. 47 2222 6. .14 7 85 12. 6 3 98

to 29 14 36 7. 3 1 66 150 a 1 99

aca.l 2 1 46. e 6. d ~89 19. .9 1 too

3. 34 16 64 9. 5 a 91 2'a. 1 0 100

.A-.. 4k9-. M-- i - - A -94

b. it 5 78 lie a 1ý 95

MEAN .S,53o SID ERR - 269 MEDIAN O.803

MODE '000 StD DLV 3.900 VARIANCE 15.212

RANGEl 2*4.000

MINIMUM *000 MAXIMUM 24*4000

VALID CASES 21l MISSING CASES 0

55
STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSiH HtLEASL 6,04

F'IL TANK (CREATION UATE a 20 DEC 77)

ADJ CUM A cJ CUM

CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE CFRE PY u" COE FHEG PCT PCT

S4.7_ 22 6- . . as 5 12. 5 2 98

1t 31 15 37 7. 5 2 88 1is i 1 99

__ e -__f 13 so 5 6 ' 90 16. 1 0 99

39 33 16 66 9 4 42 91 19. 1 0 100

6i 17 ,a, 74 10. 0 6. 3 94 24, 1 . 0 100

5S 10 S 79 11% 2 1 95

MEAN 3_t431 STO ERR '2b64 MEDIAN 20.82

nODE O000 0 D-V .... 830 .. !ARANC

_UPT85S~ewnSS J,995 RANGE ......- 24.000

MINIMUM ,000 MAXIMUM 24.0000

VALID CASES - 211 - MISSiNiG CASE5 - 0

56
TAT 1STI CA L PA C AGL FOR THL SO0CIAL C1L NC ES 3 P5S3 Rt LEMS 6.04

FILE TiANSk (CW4EATION DATE 20 DEC 17)

-VARI90

AD.) CUM AD.) CUMI AC. CUP~

COE-FR -0 MP PCT-. PODE FREW PCT IP;T

00 54 26 26 6. 12_ 6 90 Is* 1 0 98

to 41, 19 45 To 4 2 91 1b* 1 0 99

.59 14 -4,,59 2 93 174. 1 0 99

3a 20 12 71 9. .2 1 94 19. 1 0 t00

4. t5 7 __71 _ to 3 _.1 90 24, 1 0 t00

5. 12 0 84 12. 4 29

PEAN - 2,919 ST 51ERR _ .25 MEDIAN 1.002~

moE .000 '-STD 0EV 136026 VARIANCE- '13.s15s1

KURT03SIS .. 5. J¶WS 2441 _ RANGE 24.0000

MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 24,000

VALID CASES 211 ýMISSING CASMS 0

57
STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR TMt SOCIAL $CILNCtb SPS$M - "ELASE, *.04

FILE TANK UNL.ATION UATEa 20 IOEC M1

VAR191

ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM

_-._CT E .ER PCT PCT.. CODE -__FREQ PCT PCT COOF FHEQ PCT PCr

0. 26 12 12 7. 9 4 67 14, . 1 87

1* 20 9 Zoe 8. a '4 11 lb* A5 I

2, 18 9 30 9, 7 a 74 It, L 0 89

3. 28 13 44 100 9 4 78 19. 2 1 90

.4 21 10 54 Ile 3 1 80 20. 3 1 91

i bb 12. 11 S6 ab 21w d 1 942

6. 1'. 63 13a 1 0 85 24, 17 8 100

MEAN 68639 STD EfR 0'478 "DI-Ak 4.143

4ODF . .0 3 ... STo EV 6,943 VARIA•CE 18.212

URTOSjS S•KFNSS K747 i.304 RANGE 24*000

MINIMUM '000 MAXIMUM 24,000

VALID CASES 211 MISSING CASES 0

58
3TATISTICAL PACKAGkz POP IHL 50CIAL SCILNCES SP5SH RLLEAS8. 6.04

fL TANK (C;ýATiON U.ATE 20 DEC 77)

VAI2- ADJ CUM AD0CU AOJ CUM

C9iQE~Y1L C __ QFL~ E CT PCT

0. 4 4 1. Q 7 107

to 6 3 7 22. 1 0 47 54, 1 0 72 -20.~ 7 3 Ii 23--I ~A i~. 73

3. 13 6 17 24, 6 3 60 57s 1 0 74

so 5 2 24 2f. 64 2 53 60. 7 3 77

b a 2 1 25 18 0AA.~ $1--64 7. 3 L 26 s0, 1 0@64 64. 1 0 78 - 5128 31. t5796,A~

9. 1 0 28 32. 1 0 65 60. 1 0 s0

10L~. 1. L 0~~3 4 2 -1-0 1 -

It* 3 1 31 S4, 1 0 56 80. 1 0 82

0 32 b 35,------ 58 849,_ _3 1, 835

13. 4 2 38 36, 7i 3 17. 1 0 84

1 .0 38..3. 3 4. . 0 -- 84

16 3 10~ 39. 1 0 63 94. 1 0 86

242 41, 1_ 0 63 9__6

17. 0 43 '2, 3 1 65 98 0 8

19. 2 1 145 '68. 7 3 70

2___2 1-46 S 0-----3LL_ 1__7- _ 

CODE FF~C~4REQ CODE _____-

MEA 3.6 SO RR 2,381 MEIAN 24,333

MODE Q9 9 0 Q hE jA 34,33.! IA RI 4Mj. I 79 #j 6 6

KURT0SIS W.8(,- SI(EwNSS .,74S RANGE 99.0000

MINIMUM- -2000 MAXI MiJM99000

59
STATISTICAL PACAAGE FOR THL bOCIAL SCIENCES SP55H - 'ELEASL b.(4

FILE TANK (CREFATION DATE 2 20 DEC 77)

VAPR93

ADJ CUM ADJ CUM AVJ Cut,

CODE FREU PCT PCT CODE PNE,_PCT PCT LODE _F V•EJ •cT PCI

0, 7 3 3 18. 5 a 44 51. 1 0 71

1. 6 3 6 19, f 0 •4 -54 1 0 71

7 3 to 20, 1. ,.0 5 s 50, 1 0 72

3, 9 a 14 21. 1 0 45 60. 7 J 75

4, 7 3 17 Z22 2 1 46 O2. 1 0 76

5. 7 3 21 2 40 8 ' 64. 2 L 71

. b..... 4 2 22 5 : 1 0 51 6S, 1 0 77

7. 2 1 23 k6, 2 1 52 bag L J 7b

4, '4 2 2S 27.,_ 5 2 54 72. 5 2 80

9. 2 1 26 3. 1 0 55..6..S 1 0 so I j 3 _ 1? 3 6_1 ?.6 60 84. 2 1 81

Ile I 29 38. 1 -6 bI6 6 1 0 82

... 13? 6 35 40, 1 0 61 91. 1 u 82

13. ' 2 37 41, 1 0 62 96. 3 1 04

L~ 33 4ze S. 2 64 97. a 1 85 , '4 2 40 43, 2 1 65 9d, 1 0 8t

AI l - . t. I _ . 4•. , . .. 69 9., 31 1t 100

17. 1 0 42 50, 3 1 70

, -.. .. .. . . . .- %.4 S 3 IY .N G 0 T A .....

COOE FRGCC0E FRLEDOE FE

9999. ,

MEAN 3b,057 SID ERR 2.418 MEDIAN 249437

6E g9i.0-00 S5, DEV 34.91 VARIANCE .1A221.545

KURTOSIS -. 969 SA*NESS 702 .FAGE 99,000

MINIMUM .000 99.000

VALID CASES i09 M1SSI'G CASES 2

60

//
3TA ,T IST ,I CA4 PA CKAGL FOR THL SOCIAL SCILNCLS S$pSii RkLLASL be4M

YAI4ANJ CUM ADJ CU ANJ CUM

"_.yci pr. PC r oo!E LLPC&T, 

0. 2 A 1 23- 4_ 2- 8 59. 1 0 61

S I a a4* 12 6 34 bo i b 6

a, I.j as 32 9 5. L6-6 2 e - -1 0 67

3. a 4 7 2b$ 3 1 37 64. 2 1 68

a 9.-A -1 -i (15 q6 2 1 69

5'. is so23. 5 2 40 60. 4 1 71

2 1 13ý -,32. 3 A241, 67. 3 1 72

7, 1 0 1~4 141 1 0 42 69. 2 1 73

~.- 4a 6 35. ~ 7, . oiL0. 74

9. 2 2 36. 9 4 47 72. e 76

10.~36 2 .. J---4.----- 47 _ 4 __ 71

12. 3 18 38. 2 149 75 1 o077

3 1 20 '4. 1- -' a9 I8 1 0 7

14. 1 0 20 42, 1 0 s0 79. 1 0 76

45 0 i 's, . so e 4- 2 --S

1. 1 0 21. 48, 9 4 54 850 1 0 80

17. 3L3... 4 9 . 2 8 g 2-, 1 8.

%8 24 a0 1 2 56 91. 0 b2

20. 2 1 25 55. 1 0 59 99. 37 16100o

MISSING DAT

MODE 5 EY00 ! ..33,? VARIANCE 1103.892

I(UTOIS -1.246 SKEONES3 .23 MNE-----99.000

VALID CASES 208 MISSING,~

61
STAT13TICAL PACKAGE FOR~ tI1k SOCIAL 3CILNCLS SP53Hi R ELEASt bpQ4

T ILf TA-,N-9 (--CREATION DATE' M20-DEC 71) -

YA RI95.

ADJ Cum ADJ cum AUJ CUe4

---- JQAL FREWJ PCT PCT __CODE Fwt.Q PLT PCT CODE I-REW ICT PCT

0, 31 15 jS 7, 7 3 7? IN. 1 0 9e

1* 28 146 29 8, 10 b 82 lee 1 0 91

2s 25 1? 461 9, 6 3 85. 1g. 1 0 93

3, 21 t0 51 10. S 2 87 aus a 1 94.

11 a~85 1 4 *28 22. 1 0 95

!j. 14 7- '1-6 12. 5 27 91 24. It 5 100

--- -16 8 73 15, 1 0 92

m 3!S1 4 G D AT A

CODE FRfQ CODE PHE.Q CoI)E FR4EW~

9999. '

5,346 $TO EIRR *'622 fqEuIAN 3.'129

-P!DF. - 0.000.- 3TD OEV .6.0*9 VARIANCE. 36*830

KURT031S 2.887 SI(EVNESS 1.830 MAIYGE 24*000

MITUL- -1000-- -4AXIMUM.- -... 0000

-YALID.CASFS- 207 M.ISSING CA3ES. 46 .

62
STATISTICAL PALKAGL FOR 104L SOCIAL SCILNLLES 5P5S' - Lt~ASL 6.94

FILE TANK CCkE A-1O Pi L)AT U 20i Of4i C 77)

ADJ Cr'm AOJ CUM' hO, CUre

-;OgE __FREWPCT PCT COOE FRLQ OLT PCT ILOVE FNLU PCT PCT

0. 1 3 3 13. 2, 1 67 27. 1 0 89

to 18 9 12 14. a 1 7 28. 2 1 89

as 6 a 20 is* 2 .' I 8 29, 1 0 90

3. 13 6 26 10. 5 a it 30o 4 d Vie

Lki 2 -- fi. j7 172 33. JS 1 93

So 13 6 38 18. 6 3 75 36. 6 3 90

be 12 6 44 19, 1 0 75 3/o. 1 0 97

7. 6' 3 46 20. a 1 76 39.* 1 0 9?

at 0 3 A9 22. 1 0 17 460 4 1 99

9. 4 2 51 22o 3 1 j8 60. 0100o

I Q~jL _.. - . 5a ~ 2 41__ _A7 . 86'sa 61, 1 0 100

It* 0 3 57 25, 3 1 do

12. to 9I 60 a6. 1 o b8

M I SS ING A T A

CODE -FRE41I CODE ._ FREG ý(OOE PNFEQ

12EA j627 3 To ERR .35 6 MEDIAN 8.875

MODE 1.000 8To 0EV 12.076 VARIANCE 145.631

KURT0S13 11952 SKE"NESS 1*401 RANGE 61.000

"InMU~M L Q MAXJMsjy _ .10O .

VALID CASES .209 MISSING CASES 2.

63
37411STZCAL PAC'(AGV FOR~ ?ni SOCIAL SCZLN~CES SP33fl - ELEAUt 6.0ol

IIILF T?*'K (COLATIONi DAL a 2o urc in'

WAR 19?

ADJ cum I AOJ Cum - .CODE -FREW~ PCT PCt COOL, P'REQ PCT Pct O U PfuPTPcum AODt 

0, 

to 20 

6 

to 

3 3 14. 1 70 30. a 1 91

a. 17 a 1a is: 2 6 ? 31. £ 0 91

1. 11 5 20 

21 166 2 6 8 3J, a 92

1., to 9 

17. 1 0 9 15 a 9,e

so 12 a 1 

40 

189 

19. 

6 _3 12 3, 4 i 94

6g 14 7 47 

2 1 7.3 30. 1 0 95

7. 

20. 

it,'o 

2 1 74 39. 1 0 's I~ is. 8, 4 2 so j 91 22, a 75 ~ 0 96 90 1 5 24. 20 12 86 600, ~ i9 11 &- 5. j16. 2 0 88 19 0990 

142. 

13. 

21 

1 

10oe 

0 66 

2. a1 a 09 99, 0 29 0 90o go 

CODE FREWJ CODE FREQ CODE FREW

-'9999, 2

MD 

MtAtI ~ TD tR1 1.o904.j9 24,000 3tD 0V FYi 1 74.7 VAMNgtdCt ddI.25 KURTOS545 70349 4j

MIýI10U4m 

SgEWNESS 2.261 MANGE 900 000 MAXI~qMUM 9.

VALID CASES 29 MISSING CASES 2

64
STATIST ICAL PAIKAc(i VOr tHt SOCIAL SCI-tNCLS SPSS" - ELLASL b.v4

FILE TANI CCEATION DATE a 20 CEC 17)

VYAR96

AOJ CUm AOJ CUM ADJ CUM

CODE FLA P.LTLPCT ..... -FL9 f.Dl., PCT.P CT CODE FIEU PCT PCT

0. 2 1 1 220 2 1 33 41. a 1 81

1. 2 1 2 23, 4 2 3b 42. it 1.88

.. . 3 ... . 37 18 b3 "4, 1 0 88

3. 2 1 4 25. 7 3 56 Wit 1 0 89

a,. k 2_ 6. 3 60 46, 1 0 89

6. 8 4 10 270 7 3 63 48. h i 9a

as. .. 2 . i as 283 . 13 64 bb 1 0 92

10. 2 1 12 29. 2 1 6S 5q, 1 1 93

- Is. Z 1 13 30. 6 3 68 60, 6 3 9o

1. 8 4 17 32. 5 e 71 bo. 1 0 97

.. .. J A A**- __1 -3 __0 71 bb, 1 0 91

ISO 0 2 21 34, 6 3 14 70. 1 0 98

. 1...6. 2 1 .22 35, 3 1 75 71, 1 0 98

17. 1 1 23 36. lb 7 53 78. 1 0 99

- 10.1- . 6, .27 .37. 3 1 84 92, 1 0 99

19. 4 2 29 38. 1 0 85 96. 1 0 100

2.A .•,-_3 .. - 86 99, 1 0 100

21. 2 1 32 40o 1 0 86

CODE E~4 CODE- FREGGD FHtEQ

99990 3

M27N . •7,47 5TO ERR 18167 MEnIAN 24.338

MODE 24.0CO STO DEV 16.834 VARIANCE 283.369

.URT0SIS 3.240 SKwNS$ .. 1,390 IANGL 990000

MINIMUM *OCO MAXIMUM 99.000

VALID CASiS 208 1ISSING CAStS 3

65
"0TATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR TME SOCIAL ICI&NCLS 3P3$" - RELLASL 6,04

FILE TANK CCRETIONi DATE -- DEC 77)..

ADJADJ CU JCUAJ CU

CO.....9DE FREW PCT P; OE FREQ PCT FCT LOOk. FHEU eCT PCT

O. 43 21 2 6, 10..57 7 Tb, s a 91

1t 27 13 35 9, 5 2 79 160 i 1 94

-....- -- .. 20 10 4S 10. 6 3 82 199 1 0 95

3. is ? ba lie I -as5 20, 1 1 96

t a 4 S6 12, 8 4 09 21, a 1 97

So •. 0 4 .. .24. 3 too . .6t8 9 69.. 14, 2 1 90

7. 6 3 72 15. 1 0 91

CO.. .. .... - .. $I 581 N G .... _A T

CODE FREW CODE- FRLQ tODE FRE0

9999. 11

NMEAN_ _ _ "_ STD.ERR 942? - -MEDIAN 3.167

MODE .000 STO 0EV 6,035 VARIANCE 36.424

_KURTOaSS -1091~SJ.4O - RANGE 249.000

MINIMUM *000 MAXIMUM 24.000

VALID CASES 200 MISSING CASES it

66
-TATISTICAL PACIAGL F OR 1T SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSM R $ELLASE boQ4

FILF TARK (CREZAT ION DATE 20 DEC 77)

.-VAR200 ... . . .. ADJ CUM ADJ CUM AOJ CUM

.i~..F~!LCC A Pi.ý-!U~ PCT.~ 100E FREW, PCT PCT

..... 1.4 7 1 .. 7 , 69 27, 4 2 92

1. 24 12 19 13. 1 0 69 28. 1 0 92

2 a 21 10 29 14 .s 3 1 71 29. 1 0 93

3. 14 7 36 15. 2 1 72 30. 2 1 9'.

*40 3 -A37-. 2 __. 73 _32f 2 1 95

5, 2 1 38 18. 12 6 78 33. 1 0 9S

... IS_ 15 7. 46 19,. 3 - 1 80 36, b 2 98 7. 6 3 49 20. 3 1 81 41. 1 0 96

.. 13, 6 55 a1. 2 I 82 42, 1 0 99

90 8 a 4 5q 22 1 0 83 44. 1 0 99

18 84 3 2 133 4 609 1 0 100

It* 5 2 65 24, 12 6 90 68. 1 0 100

M I S S I N G DA T A

CODE.FCOEQ CDE FREu CODE FREU

9999. 7

MEAN 1 STO ERR 804 MEDIAN 79731

MODE 1,000 STO DEV 11,483 VARIANCE 131.854

RTDS$.... 3o656 SKEWINESS .... 6. 6 RANGE 68,000

MINIMUM 0000 MAXIMUM 68000

VALID CASES 20'* - mISSI CASES 6 7

67
STATISTICAL PACKAGL VON TNk SOCIAL 8C1UNCES SPS$" - NELEASL **u4

FILE TANi CCNEATION J ATL A 20 UEC 77)

__VAIZOI A... . ... ... . ... . .

AOJ cum AOJ CUM AOJ CUM

CODE ,F[ PCT PCT CODE PRNL PCT PCT LUOL 9f4L PCI PCI

1. 7 7 13. .. 2 1 67 27, 1 0 90

1. 2b 12 19 1u, 3 1 69 28, 1 0 91

a&, 2.. 20 10 29 15 ... 6 3 72 29, 1 0 91

3. la 6 35 16, a 1 13 30. 4 i 93

. .9 1 74 31, .. 1 0 94

5. 3 1 41 la, 10 5 78 32. 3 1 95

13 o 47 . 19. 3 1 80 33. 1 0a 9

7. b 6 a 0 20. 3 1 a1 3. 4 de 96

4.1.. A3_..6. 5s o21a '1 0 82 38. 1 0 96

9. 4 2 -58 23. 2 1 83 42. 1 0 99

1'. _ L__ _ . . _, .. ... . 4 .2 . 44a 1 0 99

lie 4 2 62 a5s 3 1 69 60. 1 0 100

_ . .4.42 . ... _ _ .... 4 66 2. t . 2 1 90 60o I 0 lO1

M1SSING DATA

. [ S.• ...... ... .. CODE _YQ CODE FRfU

AN 116 ........ TER .. ..... 'e..- mEDIAN 7,577

MODE 1,000 __SID 0Ev 11*585 _VARIANCE _L340219

KURTOSS 3.... 3 SKENESS 105861 ANGE 6.9000

MINIMUM .0.. .J., @.. o o . ..........

__AU_ _CAtS3 2Q. _ MISSING CASES 7

68
STATZSTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSN - RELEASE 6.04

FILE TANK (CREATION VATL 20 DEC 77)

0J CU?4 AoJ CVU ADJ CUM

CODE FREQ P I•IO PCT COOE t ..... - DE... FRE. PCT PCT

.. 3 3 . . 17&- . . .. 1, 59 34. 1 1 89

1 15 a 11 18 12 6 bs 36. 4 2 91

L . 4. . 7 a . 19 .a 4 . 267 _37, 2 1 92

3. $ 4 22 20. 2 1 60 38, Z 1 93

4. 3 2 23 21, 3 _4 . 2 . 94

5o 4 2 Za 22. 2 1 71 43. 1 1 95

10 IS _30 23 1 71 .... 44. a 1 96

7. 9 5 35 24, 9 5 76. 48. 1 1 96

12_ . 41 25 . 3 2 77 50, 1 1 97

9. 4 2 43 26. 3 2 79 56. 1 197

10, 3 2 4'4 272 S5 381 1 1 90

11. 2 1 45 28. 3 2 83 60. 1 1 90

S 1 550 _ 19 84 61. 1 1 99

13. S 3 53 30, •4 2 86 72. 1 1 99 . . 1.. 53 31g . . 2_ 1 87 80. 1 1 100

150 6 3 56 32. 3 2 8a

16, 4 2 58 33. 1 1 .

P 1 I S I N G DA T A

~Q0 ~ ~ C9 i- CODE- FREG

MEAN 16.286 STO ERR 1.036 MEDIAN 12*450

MODE __ _1 aoo_- STDO DLV 14,619- VARIANCE- 4e131214

KURTOSIS 2,438 SkEWNESS 1.398 MANGE 80.000

VALTO CASES t99 MISSING CAS[j s 1

69
STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCE3S SPSSH RELEASE 6,04

FILE TANK CCREATON -DATE - 0 D-C 17)

ADJ CUm. AOJ CUP' AOJ CU"

492asit5 74. 863 3 IS. 1 1 95

1. 36 18 43 8, 7 4 86 16. 2 1 96 25 Z 11 56 *9 , _Z -.8 :9 1 1 97 30 12 6 62 t0, 6 3 91 20. 1 1 97

4. 15 S 69 111 5 3 93 2... 3 100 . 9 5 74 12. 2 1 94 _

6.L..2 .. 6 Q 14 1 95

CODE REMG DATA

FRQ --- CUODE- FREG - _ OOK FRE9

9999. , 1 _. . . . . . . .

* MAN 3,55 -ST ER - 3,1 MEDIAN' 20060

.STO DV .-.. 5,06 VARIANCE 25.871

KURTOS1 4a,890 3KEONE3S 2.11-2 RANGE 24.000

MINIMUM .M..AXIMUM. 2,,000

_VALIl..A. ... . . '4SSmGC. AS _13 ..

70
STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THL SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSII RELLASL boUiI

fILE TA.NK CcRE ATION OATE..a 20 D EC ?7)

ADJ CUM AJCUM OJCU

"O~UL, F~t PE F'Cf PT CODE, -1ftV. PCT PCT CUI)E FIRE0 PCT IFCT

0. 14 7 1 lie 1 '4 71 24, 7 4 9

1. 37 19 26 12. 9 5 82 .250 a 1 96

2. 2:i 13 38 13. 2 1083 260 1 1 91

is 114 7 45 1'4, 1 1 83 29. 1 1 97

I. 16 8. bý3 15. 2 1 814 3ot 1 1 98

5. 6 3 56 16, 2 1 85 32* 1 1 98

6. 14 7..63 L8,~ 8 4869 33, 1 1 99

7, 6 j 66 19, 2 1 90 30. 1 1 99

a, a 4 70 20, 1 1 91 38. 1 lo10

9. 2 1' 71 21. 1 1 91

A . a 3 74 _23C.- 1 92

MISS-iI NG D AT A

CODE FREWJ CODE Ff~EQ CoOI FREG

MEAN '1*.17 $10 ERR *sit MEDIAN 40094

-MODE 1,000 3TO 0EV 8O VA9NIANCE 64.965

KURTOSIS 1,945 SAEWNESS 10560 kANGE 38.000

MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM.......8,000

VALID-USES[ _199 -- MISSING CAS-E&S 12

71
STATISTICAL PACKAUL ýNU TMt SUCIAL 3CILNCLS SPSS - RELLLASU ,p4

-IL -AN _ C ACEATION UATCEUZ6O LL 71)

VAR205

AOJ Cilm ADJ CUM ADJ Cum

_Q.f PCT PCT COD... -tiRo PCT PCT COOL FREO PCT PCT

O 1 7 7 It, 6 3 16 2s, 2 1 95

.o 40 20 a? 120 12 6 62 26. 1 u 96

2. 26 13 40 14, 2 1 a3 29. 2 1 97

3. 13 6 47 ISO 2 1 84 30, 1 0 97 -.... . _ -.53 _16, . _ 2 86 32. 1 0 96

be a 4 S7 18, 9 4 90 3b5 1 u 96

. 9e 9 ' 4 62 19, 1 0 91 Joe I a 99

70 9 4 66 20. 1 0 91 386 1 0 99

. . .. 2. 1 .67 21, 0 92 ad, 1 0 t00

9. 7 3 71 23, 1 0 92

1.... .. 7• 24q_ 4_ 2 94

M I S S I N G 0 A T A

'.. CODE FREW CODE FRLQ CODE F'Eg

_9999s-. 11.

MEAN 7.25 .STO ERR .605 MEDIAN 3.962

.-MODE .. 1,000 b1n OfV 8o5b8 VARIANCE 73.241

KURTOSIS 3,•q1 SKE*MESS 1.803 RANGE 48.000

MINIMUM .000 MAXI•M 48soOUO

_YAL-D CASES _40Q9 .. MI9SSING CASES it.

72
3 ATISTICAL PACK AGE FOR THL SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSM KtLEASE 0.04

VFILE TAýNW (CCEATION 0A1'',e6 U0~EC 77)

-YAR206

ADJ Cum ADJ CUM AOJ CUM9

I.G.~ LT C9YC QL_.RtQJ PCT PCT COUk. Pi*.W ICT PCI

0~ 4 8 4 3. 1 6 2~. 2 186

1* 14 7 it 14. 2 1 63 28. 3 2 87

2c 17 9 20 ISO 2_. I1 64 290 2 1 88

30 6 4 24 16. 5 3 66 30, 4 2 9v

0 7 _7~ 1 32 a8 1 91

5. 3 31 19. 2 1 72 33. 1 1 91

be6. 16 a 39 .20. 4 _2 74 360 9 5 96

7. 9 5 43 21. 3 2 76 37. 1 1 96 , _ 47 22, 1 176 39. 1 97

9. 4 St 23. 2 1 7? 41. 2 1 98

j ~ 53 5 ~ ~ ~ 2 683 43. 1 98

lie 5 3 56 26. 1 1 84 a8 1 99

* 12. 11 61 26, _z 1- 85, 71. 1 1 100

M I SSINhG D AT A

CODE_ FREQ .R. C.D CODE FE

MEN13,44 ST ER.86 _MEDIAN -90286

-MODE a,000 STO, DEV 12,241 - VARIANCE 14.0

KURTOSIS 1,788 SiAEON~ESS 1,251 RANGL 71.0000

VALjC.A8SFS -199 MISSINGCA$ES 12

73
APPENDIX D

OUTLINE OF THREE DAY TRAINING PROGRAM

75
OUTLINE OF THREE DAY TRAINING PROGRAM

PRETRAINING CONDITIONS: Given soldiers who are properly motivated and

possess the physical and mental aptitudes required of NOS liE and qualified tank commanders and drivers, gunners and loaders can be trained to

perform the following operations in three days of training:

OBJECTIVES:

DAY 1

GUNNER. The gunner will be able to perform the following operations in

an M6OAl during day or night.

I. Given an operational CVC helmet, the gunner will connect it to the

Gunner's Control Box in an M6OAl, adjust the volume of the incoming signal

and communicate on intercom.

2. Given a protective mask, the gunner will mask, connect to the Gunner's

M3 Heater in an M6OAI and check operation of the heater.

3. Given a direction from the commander to prepare the gunner's station

for operation, the gunner will:

a. Manually elevate and depress the main gun.

b. Manually traverse the turret.

c. Prepare the Gunner's Telescope for operation with the HEP reticle.

d. Prepare the Gurner's Periscope for operation.

e. Place the turret in power operation.

f. Turn the Ballistic Computer on and adjust the illumination of

the dials.

g. Operate the Azimuth Indicator.

h. Operate the Elevation Quadrant.

4. Given a direction from the Tank Commander to prepare-to-fire, the gunner

will perform the gunner's duties in the Prepare-to-Fire checks.

S. Given .a precision fire command for SABOT or HEAT from a stationary

tank to a stationary target, the gunner will:

a. Turn main gun switch ON.

b. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.

c. Index the proper ammunition in the Ballistic Computer.

d. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Periscope within

10 seconds during daylight and 15 seconds at night.

e. Announce ON THE WAY and squeeze an appropriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

77

~ ~ - - --
6. Given a blttlesight fire command from a stationary tank to a

stationary target, the gunner will:

a. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.

b. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Periscope within

8 seconds during daylight and 12 seconds at night.

c. Announce, ON TME WAY and squeeze an appropriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

7. Given a fire command and an unidentified target, the gunner will

announce, CANNOT IDENTIFY within 8 seconds.

8. Given a HEP fire command and a range, the gunner will:

a. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.

b. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Telescope within

10 seconds during daylight and 15 seconds at night.

c. Announce ON THE WAY and squeeze an app-opriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

9. Given a fire command for range card lay to direct fire and range

card data with no ammunition charge, the gunner will be able to fire a

round within 45 seconds.

DAY 2

10. Given a SABOT or HEAT fire command to a moving target, the gunner

will apply the appropriate lead, track the target and fire from the

gunner's Periscope when given the command.

11. Given a IIEP fire command to a moving target, the gunner will apply

the appropriate lead, track the target and fire from the Gunner's

Telescope when given the command.

12. Given a first round miss the gunner will sense the round, announce

his sensing and apply BOT to stationary and moving targets.

13. Given a subsequent fire command, the gunner will apply the mil

change and the target form methods of adjustment with the periscope and

the range technique with the telescope.

14. Given a fire command to conduct area poxnt or suppressive fire with

the coax to a stationary target from a stationary or moving tank, the

gunner will:

78
a. Index JIEP on the Ballistic Computer.

b. Turn the coax switch ON.

c. Identify the target and announce IDENTIFIED.

d. Take up the proper sight picture and fire a burst within S seconds

during daylight and 10 seconds at night.

e. Walk fire onto the target.

i. Execute the "Z" pattern of fire for area coverage.

15. Given a misfire of a 105mm round, the gunner will perform the gunner's

portion of misfire procedures.

16. Given a stoppage of the coax, the gunner will perform the gunner's

portion of the stoppage procedures.

17. Given a 105mm round, the gunner will hand it from the ground to a

crew member standing or the tank.

DAY 3

18. Table VII Modified (subcaliber and main gun). Six main gun rounds were

fired during the day and 4 were fired at night.

DAY 1

LOADER. The loader wil.l be able to perform the following operations in

an M60A1 during daylight or darkness.

1. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will turn the

tank communications system ON or OFF at the AM 1780.

2. Given a CVC helmet, the loader will attach it to the Loader's Radio

Control Box, adjust the volume of the incoming signal and transmit on

the.tank intercom system.

3. Given a protective mask, the loader will mask, attach to the tank gas

particulate filter system and check operation of the M3 Heater in response

to or direction from the tank commander.

4. Given one 1iEP, SABOT and HEAT round, the loader will identify each

round by shape and color.

S. Given one belt of 7.62mm and one belt of .50 caliber ammunition,

the loader will be able to identify the 7.62mm ammunition.

6. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will dismount

the M219 machine gun from the tank.

79
7. Given a M219 machine gun and a direction from the tank commander,

the loader will mount the coax in the tank.

8. Given a M219 machine gun and a direction from the tank commander,

the loader will perform immediate action on coax.

9. Given two belts of 7.62mm ammunition and direction from the tank

commander, the loader will link the belts together.

10. Given a belt of 7.62mn ammunication and a direction from the tank

commander, the loader will fill the bananna box.

11. Given a belt of 7.62mm ammunition and a direction from the tank

commander, the loader will load the coax machine gun.

12. Given a loaded coax machine gun and a direction from the tank

commander, the loader will unload and clear the machine gun.

13. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will ground

guide the driver.

14. Given 105mm rounds through the loader's hatch, the loader will

properly stow the ammunition in all stowage areas.

1S. Given the command to prepare-to-fire from the tank commander, the

loader will perform the loader prepare-to-fire procedures.

DAY 2

16. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will manually

open the main gun breech.

17. Given a fire command for a main gun battlesight engagement, the

loader will within 3 seconds:

a. Clear the path of recoil.

b. Place the main gun safety switch to Fire and announce UP.

c. Secure another round of the same type and reload as required

until commanded to cease fire.

18. Given an empty open breech, and a main gun fire command from the

tank coumander, the loader will within 5 seconds:

a. Select the proper type of ammunition.

b. Load the round into the breech.

c. Clear the path of recoil.

d. Place the Main Gun Safety Switch to Fire and announce, UP.

e. Secure another round of the same type and reload as required

until commanded to cease fire.

80
19. Given an announcement of MISFIRE from the gunner, the loader will

perform the loader misfire procedures.

20. Given a coax fire command, the loader will:

a. Insure that the coax is loaded, the safety is in the fire

position and announce UP.

b. Standby the coax prepared to apply immediate action.

21. Given direction from the tank comnander, the loader will change

barrels on the coax within 15 seconds.

22. Given the announcement of STOPPAGE by the gunner, the loader will

perform immediate action on the coax.

23. Given a direction by the tank commander, tke loader will fire the

coax manually.

24. Given a loaded main gun and a direction from the tank commander to

load a different type of ammunition, the loader will unload, restow and

reload the new type of ammunition within 20 seconds.

25. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will scan the

loader's area of responsibility and identify targets by type, direction

and range within 400 meters.

26. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will operate

the turret vent blower.

27. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will dispose

of coax brass.

DAY 3

28. Table VII

81
APPENDIX 2

MAIN GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TARLE

83
MAIN GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

Battlesight Scale

Points 75 72 69 66 63 60 SS SO 45 40 35 28 21 14 7 0

Time 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20

Precision.Scale

Points 75 72 69 66 63 60 S6 52 48 44 40 35 39 2S 20 17 14 11 8 S 0

Time 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

85
APPENDIX F

MACHINE GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

87
MACHINE GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

Machine Gun Opening Time/Point Table

Suppressive Fire

S'I

Points 20 19 18 17 16 is 12 9 6 3 0

Seconds 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is

Points 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 1 0

Seconds S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s

89
APPENDIX G

SLH4ARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EUJIPMENT FAMILIARITY

91

\/
0

-'.4

Cu

'.4 4v 

4)

'44 '~00

cr

t~~~4Ln~(1 C' 4 'L 0 .

uj~ cc- TL N u )%

-4 Cu #~ 4 -. 1404 

I-s Nm 0 .O

Ou -44 0 '0'C- 00 - 11, C) t'n c M o %0 00 flO 0 r- uCO Cz 1; .4W . 1 C 

CL.0-V 0~ t n OO 0WO 0 0)0 0n

ua 0.

=u M ti '0'.- 09 `9O- l)L 00 Mu -- 4 '4 0 - NO 

to~tl atU)p 4 nL 0 1/) 

C: 4 ~V- CO -4 41)0

C4u

0~~~~~~~ Ot)4)~~ _U.0'. #4 1)4)

4).C

Cu c4 A CD J (D )0 01

4 ).C 4.0 C

C: o

0 to .0 .0 0 #4 Vf~e4 mUC../3rq-4 r. > )

.,q g E 410 41 Cf,-I 4-JO 4J U 4.44 4J 0 Cu 3 et

CL <30 . # - - 0)0u

W~'>-$.a Cu ~ 930 u C 
APPENDIX H

SIUMARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY - DAY

9s
C4

)( 4 Go0 ai jAG 

,.0,0 04t (O4eI co I- LA

P-.J 1r4 C4 LA0 qr (4 (40 A

C~ O4lf - 169tO 

r= . C4In*.4 C C40. C4 LA- n L N n0 0nL L

*-. "r' It

0.m (UA 1 .44tOf ý 

C4 'l0 0 LfLfnf~ ;Al mo

U._

LA C4 C - 1.4 O

cicc

I=O t 4 c %0 w4 9ý 0 0000

o Go-%

$44

.~4 NM -4 0 .,4- co '

0 0 cin -13

Ct.4 4 _..4 -0

0)~ 0 4-A

$41~ z z Z0. 9:

.4 i %>~4 if f 0. r_ 0.

-$4 .4C: ~ ---.4 ,4 r.4 >*-4

z. 41.. 41-4.- -4 4J 4J -1

~4J4J0 0- ( 4 +A0 4- 0 -- ec

WU(UZ)- c'cI)Z~ I-. 97I cc2
APPENDIX I

SUMMARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY - NIGHT

99

/
0.0

U4.

44

MUU CD~O LM i o

rn00 0 0

C -C 0 V O L iU~ .in "r4O 1- t1gU

0. '40

".4F

Ln. 0 coN40qro u0 4 0.) if eq .0 . 0 Cc - Lf 

-~ 4 4 . . 4 0 0 4

4N t

CCU

.40 "'r- Ln O O N 0 n -*d 00%00 00O e~q 01

0' NOO% 0 ULO0u 0 140 LA Cfen r 41 0 ~ a j 4 S m Nl CU ~ CU' ~ ~ ~ ~ . C44* .O

o . 4 - 4 . ' 4- 8

0& O 0 0 020

Cl '" -VNO 00 -# Go

'4N -0 rO' u

M~ -4_4 "

CUCU. 4 '1 '0 '04- O 41 0 *4L fl0 ' * 0 09:* 0

C6

~00 Do~ 0 0 t r U,,

4.>

*~~~0 1~ .
DISTRIBUTION

ARt Distribution List

4 04W0 (MIRA) 2 NOIJSACOEC. Ft Ord, ATTN LAtWu

2 HOOA IOAMI CSZ1 I HOUSACOEC. Ft Ord. ATTN. ATEC-:'(- E -Hunt Faciltie.

I HOOA IDAPE PerF 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATTN Libary

I HQOA (DAMA-ARI I USAPACDC. Ft SBenjamuun Haritson, ATTN; ATCP-IHR

I HOCIA OAPE HRE PO) IUSA Comrm- Elect Sch, IIIMonmouthu.AT- . ATSN-EA

I HOOA (SGRO IM I USAEC.Ft~oomoutt' ATTN AMSEL-CT tIop

I #4OOA tOAMI OGT rl I USAEC, Fr teovouth,.ArmN AMSEL-PA- P

HOOý DAP PoM' PA) I USAFC. Ft Morim. ijth, ATTN. AMSFL--SIt-CB

IHGOA IDACl4-PP? At I USAEC. Fit Monmouth, ATTN- C. Fatoe~ Dewr

IHOCA fDAPE ARE) I USA MateriahSirs Anal Agcy. Aturn`r.,n. ATTN- AMXSY-P

I HMOA tDAPE MPO C) I Ecigwood Arsen... Ahordieon. ATTN- S.'.REA- HL. -H I HOOA IDAPE DWI I USA Otn Cir & Scht. Aherirtep ATTN: ATSL -TEM -C

IHODA tf)APE-HRL) I2 USA Ht~m Soge Lab. Aberdeen, ATTN L~bryffl-r

I 84004 (DAPE CP'S) I USA Comotat Arms. Tng Si, Ft Benning. ATTN. Ad Supevrisor

I I400A (t)AFO 14FAI I VtS, infantry Wime Rsch Unit. Ft SeMonolo. ATTN: Chiief

I HOCA IOARD ARS P1 I EISA tnlantrv Sd. Ft 8.rsiong. ATTN: STEBC-TE -T

I kO.'.A (OAPC-PAS A) I USASMA, Ft Bliss. ATTN- ATriS--LRC

I 14ODA fOUSA OR; I USA Air D).f Sch. Ft Blits. ATTN. ATSA .CTD ME

I HOOA (DAMO-ROR) IUSA Air Def Set'. Ft Bliss. ATTN: Tech, Lib

I HODA (OASG) I USA Air Or'f Sd. Ft Sliss. ATTN: FILES

1 H0OA!OAIO-Pt I LISA Air Oaf 9d. Fit Shiv. ATTN: STEBO-P0

I Chief. Corjult? Div (DA-OTSGI. Adioloh-. MO I USA Cmrvd II Genvers! SO Coill.g. Ft Lpaenwwoh. ATTN: Lib

I Nil Asst Hum Res. ODDR&E, DAD (E&LS) I USA Cmnd 8& General Sit College. Ft Leaivenworth, ATTN: AlSW-SE- L

I HO0 USARAL. APO Seottle, ATTN ARAGP At I USA Cold II Genierat SOf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Ed Advisoir

11 NO Firit At".~ ATTN AFKA-01 T1 I USA Co~mbined Armsr Ceorit Dewr Act. Ft Leibipiiworttl. ATTN: DetiCde

2 NO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Hamattn I USA Combined Alnll; Cmbt Dow Act, Ft Laaevenworlth. ATTN CCS

I Dir, Artri Stf Studiet Ofc. ATTN. OAVCSA IOSI I USA Combined rnrms Crnbt Dew Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCA^A

I Ofr.Ch~ef of Sth. Stud,"s Ohc I USA Cam') tied Arms. Cmtit Onv Act, Ft Leavernlorth, ATTN: ATCACt'i- -

I OCSPtER. ATTN: CPS CCP I USA Combinerd Aims Cmtbt Dow Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: AdCACC C

:The A'my Lib. Pentagon. Al ITII. ASS Chint I USAFCOM. Niqrit Viion Lat, Ft Selvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SO

I The Army Lib Pie,,agoi, ATTN, ANRAL 3 USA Comoute. Sys Crrd. Fe Bevnnir. ATVN Tech. Library

1 Oft. Ant Sect of the Army IR&DI I USAMEROC. Ft Befvoir, ATTN STSFS- 00

I Tech Siajcori Ofc. OJtCS I USA Eniq Set.. Ft Delvo'. ATTN Library

I USASI.. Arlington, ATTN; tARt) T I USA Taoo.7~replhic Lao. F. cSefvoir. ATTN: ETL -TO-S

1 USA Rs.$9 Ofc. Durtiam, ATTN: L:teSciences Oir I USA Towopgmhic Lab. Ft eilioir. A7TN STINFO Center

2 USARIEM. Natick. ATTN: SGIA0 UC-CA 1 USA Tripograomic Lab. Ft deuo-r, ATTN: ET..-GSL

I UJSATTC. Ft Clayton1 ATTN: STETC.MO A I USA Imnt~iitionce Crr & Sot

. Ft Huadtiuca. ATTN: CTD-MS

I USAIMA. Ft ,aim. ATTN- ATSU CTO.OM 1 USA tntetl~qeinet C'r & S&t. Ft Huacthuca* ATTN: ATS-CTDO-MS

I USAIMA. Ft Sraitg. TTN. Marrtuat Lits I USA intelligence C". II Sct.. Ft 4uac'iiea. ATMN ATSI-TE

I us wC Ct &S.I McCletlla. ATTN Lib I USA tnteliigence Ctr & Scn. Ft Huichiuce. ATTN: ATSt-TEX-GS

1 US WAiC Ctr & Suit. Ft McClellan. ATTN: Tog DOr I USA tntelligonow Ctr II Sc1h. Ft Huactiuca. ATTN: A-.SI-CTS--OR

t LUSA O.tr.perSeti. Ft Lao, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA tntallitionce Ctr & Scfr. Ft Huistiuco, ATTN: ATSt-CTGD-T

11 Intell-geiice Miteriat Dow Oft. EWL. Ft Holabird I USA totrfligence Ct. & Set,. Ft Hi~act ica. ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS

I USA SE S~ratSch Ft Gordonr. ATrN ATSO.EA I USA Inrteligence Ctr &Sch. Ft Huv,,uca. ATTN. OAS/SRD

I USA Chaplxii Ctr & Scfh Ft Hamilton. ATTN: AI'SC-TE.FIO 1 USA t..telhoence Ctr & Set.. Ft Huschucaj ATT`N ATSI-Th:M

I USATSCH. FtEtit ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intr~tiwice Ctr & Sh.. Ft Htachiuce, ATTN- Library

1 USA War C.tk'qn. Cart ste Barractkt. ATTN! Lub I CDRl. HO Ft rtuachucs. ATTN: Tech Ref Owr

2 WRAtR. Neuriwivetiatrv Div 2 CODR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd. ATTN- STEEP-MT-S

a OLt. SOA, Moilemy I CDR Pnflj.:t MASSTER. ATTN: Teth Itno Center

1 UISA Ckxonert Ana*I Aq.'v. Seirhwv!li ATTN. MOCA WOC !Htt MASSTER, USATRADOC. LNO

1 USA C.,ucer, Aral Agcy. Bethitsrla ATTN: MOCAAIR I Resntrch Institute, HO MA~SSER, Ft Hood

I USA Coicapt Anal Agcy. etiinesd., ATTN. IAOCA.JF I USA Recruiting Cmd. Ft Sherdian. ATTN: IJSARCPM-P

I USA Artic Test Ct,. APC Seattle. ATTN STEAC.MO-ASL I Senior Army Adv.. USAFAGOD!TAC. Elqii AF Aux Flid No. 9

1 USA Artic lest Cit. APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTF.PL.TS I HO USARPAC. DCSPER, APO SF 966358. ATMN GPPE-SE

I UISA Aii,rsnt Cend Redstnnrx A~ienal. ATTN: ArSK.TEM I Stimson Lib. Aca'temy o! Healthf Scenowv Ftr SeenMauston

I itSA . 'inament Cold. Rock tIslri, ATTN AMSAR TDCX 1 Marine Corpt Intt.. ATTN: Dean-MCI

I F'AA NAt C Atlantic City. ATTN Lbuxi4y I HOUSMAC. Commandant ATTN. Code MTMT 51

a1 FAA i't.Ar.,nii'.-~ Al 1'lJ tsni E-nq, 5, !I I )USMC. Cv.iiiA r t. ,l C xle Mist. - 2

1 rAA Aenivtir iC..o't ATTtj: 14AC 44,.) 2 *"iCG Academy Neiw Lo,,'ion ATrN. Admiisgion

2 USA rId Arty Set.. Ft Sill. ATTJ Library 2 U:X *, Academy, No% Lon~on AT-i 1v Library

1 VSA Armoir SrI. Know. ATTN Library 1 USC-ý Training Ctr, NY. ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sro. Ft Knox, ATTN ATSBOl-E 1 LiSCG Training Ctr. NY, ATTN: Educ SvcO~r

I UJSA Armor Sdl. Ft Krnow. ATTN. \~TSR.nlT.TF * I M'SG, Psyci,,,t Rhes Sr, DC. ATTN': CP '.62

1 USA Armor Sd., Ft Knot. ATTM: A tSS C-AID I HO( IIId-Range Or, MC DE 1. CIL2111 co. ATTN: P&S Div

103
1 US Marine Carps Lesisian Oft, AMC. Aloxandria, ATTN* AMCGS.-F I Dof & Civil lost of Enviro Medicine, Canada

11 USATHADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATRO-ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATIN: into Sys Of

S USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATPR-AD 1 MIiWPitsrpylologisk Tj.neft. Capeshagan,

I USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN. ATTS-EA I Military Afttache. Felloh E m m. ATTN. Doc See

I USA Forme Cmd. Ft McPherson. ATTN-. Library I USSISCIS Mt, C.EAp.A.-Aran@I. Toulo../Navl Fr ancs 2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rucker, ATTN: STEBG-PO 1 Pvin scientific 014, APrA Humn EasyMRath Chv. Ministry

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library of Deforme, New Delhi

I USA Agcy for Aviation Sallety, Ft Rucker. ATTN: Educ Advisoir I Pairt Fisch Ofc tibeary, AKA. Isreal Defense , orcot

I USA Aviation Sch, Ft Ruckur, AM~: PO DowreiO 1 Minitterit van Dafiwa*, OQOPJKL Afd Sociaal

I HOUSA Aviation Sys Crod, St Louis, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR lallslqghoiaWi Zakaoi, Thle Hqwue Nother lands

2 LISA Aviation Sys 1Ws Act.. Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTg-.T

I USA Air Del Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Mobility Richi & 0ev Lab. Moffett Fidl, ATTN: SAVOL-AS

I USA Aviation Sch. Rev Tog Mgt. Ft Rlualer, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

I USA Aviation Sch, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-O-A

11 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN-. A4AXCD-TL

I HO. DARCOM. Alexandria. ATTN: COR

I US Military Academny, West Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

I US Military Academy, Watt Point, ATTN: Oft of Mtilt Ldrshp

I US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN4: MAQA

1 USA Standardization Op. UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE-QC

I Olc of Naval Rich*, Arlington. AMT: Code462

3 Oft of Naval Risch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

I Dlic of Naval Rich. Arlington. ATTN: Code 450

IOft: of Naval Rtcfs. Arlington, ATTN: Code 441

I Naval Aerospe Med Res Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Acasa Sd. Div

I Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code LS1

I Naval Aerospi: Med Ret Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code LS

1 Chief of NasPers, ATTN: Peirs.OR

I NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr

11 NairOceanographic, OC. ATTN: Code 6251, Chain ~Techs

1 Center of Naval Anal. ATTN: Doc Ctr

I NelvAirSysCorn, ATTN: AIR-6313C

1 Nov, BuMed, ATTN: 733

I NorhelicopiterSubSouai 2. FPO SF 96601

I AFHRL (FT) William AFB

1 AFHRL ITT~) Lowry APR

I AFHRL (AS) WPAFB. OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks APR t AFHRL (OOJN) Lacklend AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSD)

t HOUSAF (DPXXA)

I AFVTG (RD) Randolph APR

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFS, OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB. OH, ATTN: ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTDI Randolph APR

I USAF AeroMest Lib, Brookts APR (SUL-4). ATTN: DOC SEC

I AFOSR (NL), Arlington

I AF Log Crnd, McClellan AF1e, ATTN: ALCi'DPCRS

I Air Force Academy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bal Scn

5 NayPert &e 0ev Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy Mod Nauropsycfsiatric Risch Unit, San Diego

I Nav Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: Res Lab

I Nav TrngCen. San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000- Lib

I NawPostGreSch, Monterey. ATTN: Code 55A&

1 NsvPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NovTrngEqijipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN: Manpower Admin

I US Dept of Justice, DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Our of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

I Nat Clearing House for MH-lnfc. Rockville

1 Denver Federal Ctr. Lakewood, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofes. Cjinborra

I Scienlifir Advsr, Mil Sd. Army HQ, Russell Ofci. Canberra

1 M~l anit Air Attache, Austrian Enthassy

I Ceir dle Recherche Des Faselirs. Humasine do Ia Defense

Natinarulus, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington I CiAir Staff, Royal Canadian AF. ATTN: Peots Stif Anal Or

3 Chieif, Canadian Dof Rich Staff, ATTN: C/CROSIW)

4 British Def Staff, British Embassy, Washington

104