video monitor, light pen, and software developed by ARI.”
Corrective lenses were attached to the light pen, which was mounted

on a dummy rifle along with an electronic switch attached to the trigger.
Major features of early software included automatic zeroing, a variety of scaled
targets and backgrounds, an exercise to teach the effects of wind and gravity,
auditory and visual feedback on the location of hits and misses, and programs to
diagnose errors in marksmanship fundamentals.

Over 20 developmental hardware
tests, training and cost effectiveness
evaluations, and informal field investigations

Seven Types of were conducted during the 1980s.’ For

example, MACS was not only evaluated for
WENGE aC use in BRM, ARM, and unit rifle

marksmanship training programs, but its
Feedback application within U.S. Army ROTC, U.S.
Army National Guard, U.S. Navy, and U.S.
Air Force training programs was examined
as well.*** More experimentation has been
conducted with MACS than with most other
training devices and simulators for rifle
marksmanship training. Several consistent
trends from this body of research have been
found. In particular, MACS training
effectiveness appears to be highest for
those individuals having a low initial level of
ability. In addition, its overall usefulness
appears greatest in less extensive training
programs having limited training resources.
Finally, MACS usage is associated with
consistent reductions in the percentage of
shooters failing to achieve minimum
performance standards and with significant
reductions in remedial ammunition
expenditures during training.

Compared to other training devices
and simulators, MACS remains relatively
low in cost, partly from its use of off-the-
shelf hardware. The most recently
purchased systems have cost under $2,000
per copy.” A second reason for its low cost
is that it doesn't simulate the noise and
recoil associated with firing live ammunition.
Thus, MACS is considered to be a part-task
trainer, well-suited for preparatory

16



26. Department of the Army (1984). Teaching rifle marksmanship: Part two (DA Videotape TVT 7-2). Fort Benning, GA: U.S. Amy Infantry Center
“Educational Television.

27. Smith, S., & Osbome, A. D. (1985). Experimental evaluation of the Superdart projectile location system (ARI Research Note 85-73). Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA160650)

28. Schendel,-J. D., & Williams, G. P. (1982). Guidelines for use of Weaponeer during basic rifle marksmanship training (ARI Research Product 82-
68). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA139623)

29, Schendel, J. D., Heller, F. H., Finley, D. L., & Hawley, J. K, (1985). Use of the Weaponeer Marksmanship Trainer in predicting M16A1 rifle.
marksmanship qualification performance. Human Factors, 27, 313-325.

80. Schroeder, J. E. (1986). Light pen marksmanship trainer (U.S. Patent No. 4,583,950 issued April 22, 1986).
31.

Schroeder, J. E. (1984). A multipurpose arcade combat simulator (ARI Technical Report 629). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
‘Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA156795)

~ 82. Hagman, J. D., Moore, H. G., Eisley, M. E., & Viner, M. P. (1987). Use of the multipurpose arcade combat simulator to sustain rifle marksmanship
in the reserve component (ARI Research Report 1452). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(ADA190911)

Evans, K. L., Marshall, A. H., Wolff, R. S., Broom, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (1990). Design of a joint service multipurpose arcade combat simulator
(ARI Research Product 90-05). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA221133)

partment of the Army Pamphlet 350-38 (1998). Standards in Weapons Training (STRAC Manual). The most recent version of this document
may be found on the intemet at www.atsc.army.mil (see Chapter 5).

35. Evans, K. L. (1989). Effects of recoil on rifle marksmanship simulator performance (ARI Technical Report 828). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA206984)

36. Broom, J. M.,,Champion, D. F., Greene, W. H., Martere, R. F., Purvis, J. W., & Sills, E. G. (1989). Multipurpose arcade combat simulator (MACS)
basic rifle marksmanship (BRM) program (ARI Research Product 90-01). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences. (ADA214459)

37. Purvis, J. W., and Wiley, E. W. (1989). Trainer's guide: Multipurpose arcade combat simulator (MACS) basic rifle marksmanship (M16 rifle) (ARI
Research Product 90-03). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA217593)

38: Eisley, M. E., Hagman, J..D., Ashworth, A. L., ut., & Viner, M. P. (1990). Training effectiveness evaluation of the squad engagement training
system (SETS) (ARI Research Report 1562). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(ADA226406)

39. Hagman, J. D. (1998). Using the engagement skils trainer to predict rifle marksmanship performance. Military Psychology, 10(4), 215-224,

40. Hagman, J. D. (2000). Basic rifle marksmanship training with the laser marksmanship training system (ARI Research Report 1761). Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA380109)

41. Hagman, J. D., & Smith, M: D. (1999). Weapon zeroing with the laser marksmanship training system (LMTS) (ARI Research Report 1744).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA369654)

42. Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (in preparation). Predicting rifle and pistol marksmanship performance with the laser marksmanship training system
(LMTS). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

43. Dyer, J. L., Smith, S., & McClure, N. R. (1995). Shooting with night vision goggles and aiming lights (ARI Research Report 1678). Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA297284)

44. Dyer, J. L., & Young, K. M, (1998). Night vision goggle research and training issues for ground forces: A literature review (ARI Technical Report
1082). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA347071)

45. Dyer, J. L., Young, K. M., Watson, S. A., & McClure, N. R. (1996). Night vision goggle field-expedient visual acuity adjustment procedures: A
preliminary experiment (ARI Research Report 1692). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(aDA310099)

46. Dyer, J. L., & Brooks, B. (1996). Adjusting NVGs in the field. Countermeasure, 17(11), 10-11.

47. Dyer, J. L. (1999). Training lessons learned on sights and devices in the Land Warrior (LW) weapon subsystem (ARI Research Report 1749).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA371583)

48.

Cox, M. (1999). The new infantry rifle: It's on the way. Will it deliver? Army Times, 60(10), 12-13.
49.

&

Cox, M. (1999). There is no place to hide: Air-bursting rounds take out targets behind cover. Army Times, 60(10), 14.
50. Cox, M. (1999). High-cost ammo could change training. Army Times, 60(10), 16.
51.

Pleban, R. J., Eakin, D. E., & Salter, M. S. (2000). Analysis of mission-based scenarios for training soldiers and small unit leaders in virtual
environments (ARI Research Report 1754). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA373762)

U.S. Army Research Institute 33



10

Graphic Training Aids. Graphic training aids include items
such as charts, diagrams, posters, slides, and transparencies that

can be used in a classroom or on a firing range. Before the new BRM
program was implemented, ARI provided written and verbal input to
marksmanship instructors and to the Training and Audiovisual Support Center
(TASC) at Fort Benning. This input led to the production of a set of graphic training aids
to support each of the new program's 14 periods of instruction.' Some of the
marksmanship topics taught with graphic training aids were the Four Fundamentals of
Rifle Marksmanship, the Zero Target, Correct Sight Picture, the Effects of Gravity on
Bullets, and Adjusted Point of Aim. Using materials developed at Fort Benning as a
standardized guide, other ATCs were able to produce them locally. A similar process
was used in developing a set of graphic training aids for the ARM program.”

Instructor Training Materials. Two reference guides were developed to provide
training guidance to rifle marksmanship instructors. In addition to providing extensive
consultation to USAIS during its substantial revision of Field Manual 23-9, the Basic
Rifle Marksmanship Trainer's Guide was prepared, evaluated, refined, and then
fielded throughout the Army.” A more comprehensive reference published as Field
Circular 23-11, the Unit Rifle Marksmanship Training Guide was devoted to both basic
and advanced marksmanship skills, as well as to unit collective training.” * In
conjunction with U.S. Army Infantry Center Educational Television personnel, a set of
two videotapes were produced to help trainers understand the instructional principles
underlying the new program and to help them develop better diagnostic and coaching
skills.*”

BRM Shooter's Book. This pocket-sized
book was developed for use by initial entry
soldiers.” Its purpose was twofold. First, it
provided each soldier with a handy reference to
read and study, giving ready answers to most
questions that could potentially arise during

‘7 each period of BRM instruction. Second, it
; allowed soldiers to record their individual
aN marksmanship performance and _ progress
during training. Reduced copies of all BRM
paper targets were included so soldiers could
record the locations of their hits and misses.
Scorecards were provided for all periods in

which pop-up targets were used. It was thought
BASIC RIFLE that more effective remedial and reinforcement
MARKSMANSHIP training could be given to soldiers when they
SHOOTER’S BOOK had kept accurate records in their shooter's
book.”



qualification scores.*"”

Due to in

Cancel & Return | Save & Return

At the request of the Army’s proponent for rifle marksmanship
training (USAIS), ARI evaluated the effectiveness of LMTS for

conducting preparatory marksmanship training in the BRM program at
Fort Benning.” The LMTS was found to be highly effective for this purpose. In
addition, ARI has investigated the use of the LMTS in weapons zeroing and has
recently examined the relationship between LMTS performance and live-fire

ARI's software tool for predicting live-fire scores from training device scores has
been updated to include LMTS performance as a predictor.

door range

closures and the long distances that must be traveled to use outdoor range facilities,
the U. S. Army Reserve is hopeful LMTS training will prove to be an effective
substitute for some live-fire training.

eon. : Data Sat 95 Rows

ips }2f3 psa} Me aol[ [crews [Device [Live Fire]

Ene eee : | [Soldier |Score [Score [aul
Rifle Marksmanship |i Exereiwe [Record Firel > 1 | 26.00' 18:
3 : : | |2 _ 12.00' 2B
LMTS | Exercise (25m Alt C | |3 i 24.00 30)
: : i |4 | 5.00 14,
25m Alt C Lovation® |Orchard Range MH 5 | 20.00 23
: Pra | |6 | 20.00 17,
NAA, Brigade 116th Cavalry |? | 30.00: 26
[le 280017

| Company JAC 119 | 31.00 361

: Insert Row | Delete Row

jee date on which you are entering the data. (e.g. MW/DDIYY) (Required)

20

ARI’s software tool for predicting record fire scores from LMTS scores.



SHOOTING STRAIGHT:
20 Years Of Rifle Marksmanship Research

ARI has produced a rich history of rifle marksmanship research and related
research products spanning more than two decades. Based on growing concerns that
tifle marksmanship training was not producing qualified marksmen for U.S. Army units,
ARI began a systematic examination of basic, advanced, and unit marksmanship
training programs in 1977.'. After developing and implementing a series of improved
marksmanship training programs in the early 1980s under the joint sponsorship of the
U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) and the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM),’
ARI researchers began to increasingly focus their attention on issues related to
marksmanship simulation and training devices.’ With an eye towards supporting the
new training programs, new devices and simulators were either evaluated or developed
in the.1980s and early 1990s. In 1992, ARI research began to address problems
associated with night firing and night operations in general. Over a period of seven
years, the NIGHTFIGHTER program identified the most problematic combat tasks
performed. at night and addressed those problems through the conduct of training
experiments and the development of research products.’

U.S. Army Research Institute 1



training device evaluation can help to minimize the
inevitable period of adjustment after fielding.

Marksmanship . trainers
always: want to have the: best
training devices available to do

" their job. Unfortunately, © the
perfect marksmanship | simu-
lator has yet to be designed. If
it existed, it would ‘probably
have-the best features of the
three devices: just mentioned.
Yet; even the most: advanced
marksmanship device today,
the-EST. 2000, . cannot. do
everything. .. For. example, it
presently has no capability for
thermal imagery, it, cannot
accommodate’ moving _ firing A soldier prepares to engage virtual targets in the

points, and it does not offer Soldier Visualization Station.
dynamic scenarios in which

targets realistically react to the

specific actions of firers. In contrast, a completely different line of R&D is beginning to
tackle some of these shortcomings. Specifically, research in virtual reality environments
is beginning to achieve limited success in simulating force-on-force tactical
engagements for dismounted forces.“ Within this decade, the training development
community will likely:need to decide whether it is more cost effective to spend its limited
resources on making existing devices more virtual, or whether marksmanship training
features should’ be added to the virtual systems being developed. Training
effectiveness research should have a large role in that decision.

A simulation training strategy must also seek a proper balance between simulated
exercises and live firing. For practical reasons, some units are even seeking to replace
live qualification. with simulated qualification. At present, it is unclear whether such a
position is prudent or foolhardy. Nevertheless, answers that are part of an overall
training strategy need to:be sought and validated, recognizing that a single answer may
not fit the training needs of everyone.

U.S. Army Research Institute

31



marksmanship and dry fire training applications, where levels
of performance feedback are typically low.’ Consistent with
research findings in the areas of classical conditioning and simulator
fidelity, subsequent experimentation found that MACS performance did not
change when a recoil component was added to the system.” This result
. Suggests the accurate reproduction of recoil may be unnecessary in rifle
marksmanship simulation, as long as live firing is a substantial part of the overall
training strategy.*

Particularly noteworthy are the numerous instructional features embedded within
MACS software." *.” For instance, MACS software provides an initial skills test to
electronically zero the system and determine the most appropriate starting point for the
‘soldier. There are nine distinct training levels, which vary in difficulty and the amount of
performance feedback provided. Specific performance standards were established for
each level, such that soldiers do not automatically progress to more difficult tasks
without first demonstrating their mastery of more basic ones. Performance feedback is
tichest at the lowest levels of difficulty, then gradually withdrawn as soldiers progress to
more difficult levels. Seven major types of performance feedback are provided.

A variety of other MACS software features are available to instructors, including
optional wind effects, moving targets, a "call your shot" feature, and programs to check
a soldier's understanding of sight alignment, aiming, and grouping techniques. Five
generations of MACS software were developed in the 1980s. The last generation of
MACS software has been translated into several programming languages to support
training on more contemporary hardware platforms. Currently, the Fielded Devices
Division of the U.S. Army Training Support Center (Fort Eustis, VA) is developing a new
version of the MACS system. It is called MACS 2000.

Engagement Skills Trainer

Unlike Weaponeer or MACS,
the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST)
can accommodate the simultaneous
firing of up to 12 soldiers. Thus, it can
provide both individual rifle
marksmanship training and some
squad-level collective training. The
EST uses a combination of analog
and digital video, synchronized image
projection, laser hit detection, and
microcomputer technology to display a
variety of target arrays and courses of

_ fire on an 8 ft high x 30 ft wide
cine screen.” Like the Weaponeer, the
EST is. considered to be a full-task
trainer, simulating both recoil and

_ Engagement Skills Trainer (EST)

U.S. Army Research Institute

17



soldiers achieve a satisfactory hit probability in emergency
deployment situations without having to zero with live
ammunition. . ARI also wanted a procedure that, when used prior to live
zeroing, would help. more soldiers hit the 25m zeroing target with their initial
rounds. The data showed that when soldiers used a “mechanical zero” setting,
many, failed to get their initial shot group on the 25m zero target. Thus, it was
impossible for them to know what directional adjustments to make.

ARI’s recommended dry-fire technique was essentially the reverse of live 25m
zeroing procedures. A soldier aimed constantly at the center of a target using iron
sights as during daylight. A buddy wearing NVGs then adjusted the aiming light so the
beam hit a predetermined point on the target. To support this procedure, ARI
developed special targets allowing the soldier to get a precise point of aim and the
buddy to determine exactly where the aiming light's beam should fall.

A soldier at Fort Bragg engages a silhouette target using an aiming light and NVGs.

Since 1995 the Army has used a dry-fire procedure as the preferred method of
Zeroing aiming lights. This procedure involves the use of a borelight that works with all
small arms. A series of offset targets has been developed by the Army to
accommodate the various weapon-device combinations currently in the field. ARI
worked extensively with this borelight in during subsequent training assessment
research.

The other aspect of the initial work with aiming lights involved the other key
component of the system, namely the NVGs. If you can’t see a target or the target is
not clearly defined, an aiming light does not help. Target detection is a function of NVG
technology and how well soldiers adjust or fine-tune their NVGs. The quality of the
image seen is affected by the adjustments made to the goggles. When you hear the

U.S. Army Research Institute

23



LMTS laser
transmitter with
attached mandrel.

Recently, ARI has examined the
potential role of the Laser Marksmanship
Training System (LMTS) in providing rifle
marksmanship sustainment training to U.S.
Army Reserve units at their home stations.”
The major components of the LMTS are a
laser transmitter, the mandrel to which the
transmitter is attached, laser-sensitive
targets, and a laptop computer. Unlike the
Weaponeer, MACS, or ETS, soldiers use

LMTS electronic target.

their assigned unit rifles with the LMTS. Each laser transmitter has two distinct modes
of operation. In one mode, vibrations from a rifle's firing mechanism activate the
transmitter when dry firing. A laser-sensitive target then provides shot location
feedback. In another mode, the transmitter emits a continuous beam. Precise aiming
point location feedback is then provided on a reflective version of the 25m zeroing

target.

U.S. Army Research Institute

19



32

References

1.

rp

»

=

”

>

N

»

10.

1

12,

13,

14.

15.

16.

21.

23.

24,

Evans, K. L., & Osbome, A. D. (1988). The development and implementation of basic, advanced, and unit M16A1 rifle marksmanship training
programs (ARI Research Report 1491). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA204659)

Smith, S., Osbome, A. D., Thompson, T. J., & Morey, J. C. (1980). Summary of the ARI-Benning research program on M16A1 rifle marksmanship
(ARI Research Report 1292). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA109467)

Evans, K. L. (1988). Development and evaluation of the multipurpose arcade combat simulator (MACS): A research summary (ARI Research
Report 1488). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADB130099)

Dyer, J. L., & Ford, P. (1998). See you on the objective: ARI program NIGHTFIGHTER (ARI Special Report 37). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army.
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADB241696)

Zeidner, J., & Drucker, A. J. (1988). Behavioral science in the Army: A corporate history of the Amy Research Institute. Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Klein, R. D., & Tiemey, T. J., Jr. (1978). Analysis of factors affecting the development of threat oriented small arms training facilities (AR| Technical
Report 78-B2). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADB026375)

‘Smillie, R. J., & Chitwood, T. E., Jr. (1977). Literature review of Amy training: M16A1 rifle, TOW, and Dragon weapon systems (ARI Research
Note 86-11). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA168190)

Maxey, J. L., & George, J. D. (1977). Analysis of M16A1 basic rifle marksmanship training (ARI Research Note 85-10). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA150088).

Maxey, J. L., & Sweezy, R. W. (1977). instructional approaches for individualizing basic rifle marksmanship training (ARI Research Note 88-05).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA150302)

Maxey, J. L., & Dempster, J. R., Jr. (1977). Survey of M16A1 basic rifle marksmanship: Current procedures and practices (ARI Research Note 85-
98). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA162949)

Evans, K. L., Thompson, T. J., & Smith, S. (1980). FORSCOM/U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit M16A1 rifle and .45 caliber pisto! marksmanship
training evaluation (ARI Research Report 1263). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(ADA109470)

U.S. Army Forces Command (1979). Unit marksmanship training program of instruction: How to do it marksmanship guide. Fort McPherson, GA.
‘Smith, S., Thompson, T. J., Evans, K. L., Osbome, A. D., Maxey, J. L., & Morey, J. C. (1980). Effects of downrange feedback and the ARI zeroing

target in rifle marksmanship training (ARI Research Report 1251). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences. (ADA100958)

‘Thompson, T. J., Smith, S., Morey, J. C., & Osbome, A. D. (1980). Effectiveness of improved basic rifle marksmanship training programs (ARI
Research Report 1255). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADAO96954)

Osbome, A. D., Morey, J. C., & Smith, S. (1980). Adequacy of M16A1 rifle performance and its implications for marksmanship training (AR|
Research Report 1265). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA100960)

Evans, K. L., & Schendel, J. D. (1984). Development of an advanced rifle marksmanship program of instruction (ARI Research Product 84-16).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA160268)

’. Hunt, J. P., Parish, J. R., Martere, R. F., Osbome, A. D., & Evans, K. L. (1987). The development and evaluation of moving target engagement

training programs with the M16A1 rifle (ARI Technical Report 758). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences. (ADA190847)

3. Hunt, J. P., & Evans, K. L. (1986). The development and evaluation of a moving target engagement training program with the M16A1 rifle.

Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Society, 1, 285-289.

|. Schendel, J. D., and Johnston, S. D. (1983). A study of methods for engaging moving targets. Human Factors, 25(6), 693-700.

‘Osbome, A. D., Evans, K. L., Lucker, H. A., & Williams, G. P. (1985). Development of a rifle marksmanship training program for units (ARI
Research Product 85-24). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA170997)

U.S. Army Infantry Schoo! (1984). Unit rifle marksmanship training guide (Field Circular 23-11). Fort Benning, GA: Author.

Osborne, A. D., & Smith, S. (1985). Unit rifle marksmanship training guide (AR| Research Product 85-12). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADB105422)

Osbome, A. D. (1986). Analysis of M16A2 rifle characteristics and recommended improvements (ARI Research Note 86-19). Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA168577)

U.S. Army Infantry School (1982). Basic rifle marksmanship trainer's guide. Fort Benning, GA: Author.

Department of the Army (1984). Teaching rifle marksmanship: Part one (DA Videotape TVT 7-1). Fort Benning, GA: U.S. Army infantry Center
Educational Television.



14

precise location of each projectile, whether a hit or a miss (up to
5m from the target), is then visually displayed to the shooter at the

firing point. Using Australian soldiers, ARI conducted an experimental
evaluation of the training effectiveness of the Superdart system, before such
technology was commercially available in the U.S.” Soldiers receiving enhanced
feedback via the Superdart system achieved significantly higher levels of marksmanship
performance than soldiers receiving only the usual hit-miss feedback associated with
pop-up target engagement.

Subsequently, the U. S. Army equipped a field fire range at Fort Jackson with this
technology, where it has been used in the downrange feedback portion of BRM training.
At Fort Jackson, initial entry soldiers receive immediate feedback on_ their
marksmanship performance, without having to actually walk downrange. Over the
years, ARI has advocated this kind of technology to provide both students and
instructors with the precise and timely performance feedback necessary for the effective
acquisition of marksmanship skills. ARI has also recognized its value as a
measurement instrument for evaluating the performance of weapons, ammunition,
equipment, tactical employment techniques, and training strategies.

The Superdart system detector bar st | A soldier engages tar
the base of a pop-up barget. Superdart projectile location system.

Weaponeer

The Weaponeer is the granddaddy of all rifle marksmanship simulators and it was
the first to be involved in ARI research. It is considered to be a full-task trainer, as it can
simulate the noise and recoil of firing. Although the original Weaponeer presented only
stationary targets, later models included moving targets as well. On its operator
console, a replay of up to three seconds of barrel movement before firing can be
displayed. This feature allows an instructor to diagnose errors in a soldier's application
of marksmanship fundamentals.


fied nedo Alaina iba iaasi uate

officially approved the revised BRM program in 1980. It was
subsequently implemented at all ATCs by 1982. The new training
provided a substantial gain in performance, using only 60 hours of
formal instruction and 386 rounds of ammunition per soldier. Following
implementation, the average soldier could hit almost 75% of stationary personnel
targets between 50m and 300m, compared to only 55% a few years earlier.”

Advanced Training for Infantrymen

Based on observation, participation, and informal instructor interviews, the ARM
training program existing in 1981 was found to have three major problems."' First, the
scope of the program was limited, including only automatic fire and night fire training.
Second, this training was largely inappropriate, from both instructional design and
combat realism viewpoints (e.g., soldiers could increase their scores on any automatic
fire scenario by firing in the semi-automatic mode). Third, performance feedback was
severely limited. Although soldiers did fire rounds downrange at night, they could not
see their targets, no scores were kept, and trainees never knew whether or not they hit
any targets. When night vision scopes were available, they were not zeroed to their
rifles.

In order to identify the most important marksmanship skills required of
infantrymen that had not been taught in BRM, an extensive analysis of Army Training
and Evaluation Programs (ARTEPs) for both the Infantry (ARTEP 7-15) and
Mechanized Infantry (ARTEP 71-2) was conducted." From this analysis of the expected
role of small arms in infantry missions, the tasks of quick fire, suppressive fire, and
moving target engagement were identified for inclusion in a revised ARM training
program at Fort Benning. The amount of automatic fire was greatly reduced, target
exposure times were shortened, and some of the automatic firing was performed while
wearing the protective mask. Night fire was improved through the use of artificial
illumination and the use of zeroed night vision scopes.

A revised ARM program consisting of five periods of instruction was implemented
at Fort Benning in 1982. It required 24 hours of formal instruction and 302 rounds of
ammunition per soldier. Compared with the previous ARM program, the revised
program provided more performance feedback to soldiers, through its more extensive
use of paper targets on 25m ranges. The previous ARM program had been conducted
almost exclusively on field fire ranges, which only provide “hit or miss" information about
targets engaged.



As weapons and simulation technologies continue to evolve, the need for
al rifle: marksmanship tesearch will remain throughout the decade. Chapter 4
plores future training issues and associated research needs in three broad
are ‘the improved integration of existing systems, the development of training
.programs for.new systems, and the need for an overall strategy to effectively harness
_ advances in simulation technology.

systems Integration

= A service rifle equipped only with iron sights is almost passe. Now soldiers use a
‘title on-which’a variety of separately-engineered optical devices is mounted. Thus, the
M16A2 rifle and M4 carbine have each increasingly become a "system of systems".
‘Unfortunately, the improved capabilities resulting from these additional systems have
«come. at a price, namely more difficulty in zeroing and in staying zeroed. Table 3
outlined: many of the incompatible design features among these optical devices, which
- colle ively make boresighting and zeroing tasks much more complex. These problems
are. further compounded when weapons must be separately | zeroed for tactical
nga e ment ‘simutation (TES) training (e.g., MILES or Simunitions®).

It is: becoming painfully apparent to most units that a greater percentage of
. available marksmanship training time is being spent on zeroing and boresighting tasks.
‘Because more time and ammunition are being spent for these tasks, it becomes
: increasingly important for each zero setting to remain relatively permanent, far longer
_ than just a single period of training. To overcome this problem, weapons racks need to
be redesigned so rifles can be safely stored with optical devices attached. Additional
space is also limited in many of today's arms rooms, so outdated rifle racks are only part
_of the. problem. AS illustrated in Table 3, the complete array of different adjustment
: procedures is really more than we can expect soldiers to remember. The need exists to
Incorporate all of the different boresighting, zeroing, and adjustment procedures into an

" _ updated job aid or document tailored to a soldier's weapon.

“* With the increasing number of devices and optics that a soldier must use, it is
important to. know whether skill with one transfers to the others. Is the transfer
sufficiently high so that training on only one is required, with only minimal training on the
others? Oris there little transfer, with the skills being sufficiently different, thus requiring
- substantial training on all? The need exists to address these questions, as they impact
“how: the Army trains and help us: better understand ‘the marksmanship.skills needed for
the different systems that soldiers must employ on today: s battlefield.

U.S. Army Research Institute 29



26

of 10m. It was not surprising that soldiers had trouble
remembering which adjustments went with which device and what
adjustments should be made when zeroing and boresighting. A
summary of these device design differences is shown in Table 3.

Table 3
System Adjustments for Windage, Elevation, and Distance During Zeroing and
Boresighting
Direction of Movement with Amount of Zero Target Square
CW Turn of Adjuster Movement of Covered with 1 “Click”
Barrel/Rounds | M16A2 Zero M4 Zero
at 25m w Target Target
1 “Click” “Square” “Square”
Windage = Elevation (10x9mm) (14x1 3mm)
PAC-4C 10 mm 100% 71%
Left side of —
M4 =
PEQ-2A
Aimpoint = 10mm 100% 71%
Left side of ee
M4
PEQ-2A
illuminator = 10mm 400% 71%
Left side of ——
M4
cco = 4mm 40% 28%
—
Right or left Up or down
TWS Medium | push of 4-sided | push of 4- 12.5mm 125% 89%
WFOV switch. sided switch. | ——
Right or left Up or down

TWS Medium J push of 4-sided | push of 4- 7.5mm 75% 54%
NFOV switch. sided switch). | —_——«—

Note. CW stands for clockwise. Distances given for zeroing at 25m. Boresight distances
at 10m would be proportionately smaller. The amount of movement within a square is
illustrated only for the PAC-4C. For the borelight, a clockwise turn moves the barrel to
the right and up.



Chapter 1
Program Development

Rifle marksmanship training in the U.S. Army is conducted in three separate,
though conceptually related phases: Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM), Advanced Rifle
Marksmanship (ARM), and unit rifle marksmanship training.’ BRM training focuses on
teaching common rifle marksmanship skills needed by every soldier. All initial entry
soldiers receive BRM training, which is conducted at every Army Training Center (ATC).
‘A minimum performance standard against stationary personnel targets, measured on a
prescribed qualification course of fire, must be met by each soldier. ARM training
focuses ‘on more advanced skills, such as the engagement of moving targets. This
training is given only to Light Weapons Infantrymen as part of Infantry One-Station Unit
Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, GA. Unit marksmanship training has a twofold
Purpose. First, it attempts to maintain soldier proficiency in the marksmanship skills
acquired: during. BRM and ARM. Each soldier must annually meet a minimum
performance standard on a qualification course of fire. Second, units must selectively

_ develop and maintain other marksmanship skills based on the nature of their assigned
missions (@.g., quick fire techniques for use in urban operations).

_ Basic Problems Identified

Following a gradual decline in rifle marksmanship performance over several
years, the average soldier in the late 1970s could hit only 55 percent of stationary
personnel targets from distances between 50m and 300m.’ ARI began to tackle this
problem by defining the rifle defeatable combat threat,’ by examining previous
marksmanship research,’ and by investigating existing and alternative training
procedures." ° These initial efforts defined the rifle defeatable threat as being briefly

Table1 exposed personnel targets,
both stationary and moving,
Summary of Problems Identified in BRM Training within a range of 300m. It
was also clear that BRM
training was not adequately
preparing soldiers to meet
this threat. Through ARI's
participation in and observa-
tion of the BRM programs at
four ATCs, problems were
identified in four areas of
training.” ° These problems
are summarized in Table 1.

U.S. Army Research Institute



The marksmanship research featured in this report is generally
presented in chronological order, recognizing that a small amount of
overlap actually existed among some of the individual research projects.
Chapter 1 describes ARI efforts in the area of program development, including the
creation of course materials like paper targets, graphic training aids, and written
guides for both students and instructors. Chapter 2 presents research and product
development work in the areas of marksmanship simulation and training devices.
Chapter 3 highlights marksmanship research and development associated with the
NIGHTFIGHTER program. Finally, Chapter 4 discusses marksmanship problems and
associated research questions the Army will likely face in the first decade of the new
millennium.

Until now, the entirety of ARI research related to rifle marksmanship had never
been summarized in a single publication. Although this report serves that purpose, it
does not describe every single marksmanship research project conducted by ARI.
Rather, it presents only those projects that have made the greatest contributions to the
Army, still exerting their influence in the training of today's soldiers. Readers
interested in a more exhaustive history should consult the references listed at the end
of the report, especially the first four, which are summary reports in their own right.



Early ARI research focused
on helping instructors diagnose
shooting errors using the replay
feature of the Weaponeer. A guide
for Weaponeer instructors was
developed from information and
data obtained through interviews,
field observation, and experimental
research.” ARI research concluded
the Weaponeer could be used to
quickly and effectively diagnose
shooting problems, though high
demand for the limited numbers of
Weaponeers purchased made them
impractical for widespread use in
the conduct of remedial training. At

wet fod
‘me seats

that time, only nine simulated shots could be fired on a Weaponeer for each initial entry
soldier, given the number of soldiers to be trained and the number of simulators
available. Thus, ARI recommended its use as a diagnostic tool, but not as a substitute
for any live firing. Later research with the Weaponeer examined moving target
engagement methods and the relationship between performance on the Weaponeer
and performance during actual rifle marksmanship qualification.” *

Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator

ARI began developing the Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS) in
1982, in the era of the first microcomputers. The key discovery in this development
process was that a light pen fitted with a converging lens system could be focused to
read the raster scan on a video monitor at distances from 4 to 20 ft. This led to the

An early version 0} ACS for the MI6A1 rifle.

U.S. Army Research Institute

realization that relatively
inexpensive trainers could be
designed for a_ variety of
weapon systems, by attaching
a light pen to a weapon and
then engaging microcomputer-
controlled targets on a video
monitor. In 1986 this training
concept was awarded a U.S.
patent.”

The very first MACS
prototype for MI16A1_ rifle
marksmanship training was
configured with a commercially
available microcomputer, a
pair of external disk drives,

15



beyond 25m. Another field experiment addressed these
“problems by evaluating the effects of a revised zeroing target and
downrange feedback training on the record fire scores of 2,124 basic

trainees.*. ‘The intent of the revised zeroing target was to simplify the
zeroing process, while making it more meaningful to the soldier. Downrange
feedback training involved firing at paper silhouette targets on a modified field fire
range.at 75m and 175m distances. After firing a shot group at each of these targets,
soldiers walked downrange and placed spotters in the bullet holes, enabling instructors
on the firing line to see. which individuals needed additional coaching. Compared with
standard training, the revised zeroing target and downrange feedback training each led
to significant increases in:record fire scores. As a result, it was decided that these two
features would form an integral part of a projected new BRM program for the Army.”

‘Improved BRM Training is Introduced

~ Incorporating potential improvements identified through earlier research, a
revised BRM training program was developed and subsequently tested in 1979 with
1,151 male and female soldiers at Fort Jackson, SC.“ This program differed in four
major ways from the standard BRM training existing at that time. First, it used a revised
25m zeroing target that was easier to understand.” Second, scaled 25m silhouette
target exercises. were introduced to help increase the overall amount of performance
feedback provided." Specifically, a slow fire target having six scaled silhouettes was
designed to give trainees additional practice in marksmanship fundamentals prior to
field firing... A timed fire target having ten scaled silhouettes was also designed to
provide practice in the rapid application of marksmanship fundamentals prior to practice
record fire. Third, downrange feedback exercises were used.” Fourth, instructors
emphasized a simplified set of four marksmanship fundamentals: steady position,
aiming, breath control, and trigger squeeze.

Before this program was introduced, instructors emphasized over 20 teaching
points to soldiers, including eight "steady hold" factors. This amount of information was
too much for most soldiers to remember on the firing line and many of these teaching
points ‘had little influence on whether soldiers hit or missed a target. For example,
controlled test firings with 60 M16A1 rifles drawn at random from the weapons pool at
Fort Benning established that one of the most emphasized teaching points, sight
alignment, had little influence on where rounds landed." In fact, improper sight
alignment procedures were found to cause no more than six inches of error at 300m. In
contrast, each of the four marksmanship fundamentals taught in the revised BRM
“program was critical to soldier success. Failure to properly perform any one of the four
would likely cause a target to be missed.

Soldiers receiving the revised BRM training program at Fort Jackson achieved
significantly higher record fire scores than those that did not.* During a period of
additional refinement and testing, the revised BRM program was then provided to more
than 8,000 initial entry soldiers at Fort Benning, with equal success. . As a result, the
Assistant Commandant of the USAIS, as proponent for rifle marksmanship training,

U.S. Army Research Institute 5



~ Chapter 3

Night Fighting

: The 1990s saw an increased emphasis on night operations within the Army. An
integral part of this effort was research to improve the dismounted soldier's ability to see

and hit targets at night. Today night equipment, including night vision goggles (NVGs),

aiming lights, and thermal-sights, is becoming relatively common within the Infantry and

other branches:‘of the Army.. Initially, ARI conducted research on aiming lights and

©. NVGs.* *.. Later, marksmanship training and performance with both aiming lights and
_ thermal sights were assessed.” This chapter summarizes those research efforts.

“Shooting with Aiming Lights and Night Vision Goggles

A common perception about aiming lights is that all you need to do is point and
“shoot. Although aiming lights do provide a point and shoot capability, unless soldiers

i are properly trained, most likely they will point and miss.

: ~The. Equipment. The beams of the aiming lights we examined are not visible to
.» the human eye; they can only be seen through NVGs or other image intensification (I°)
‘devices. Hitting targets requires that both the aiming light and the NVGs be properly
Fs adjusted. Consequently, ARI took a systems approach in evaluating training
requirements, looking at -both types of equipment. Specifically, ARI examined
alternative means for. 25m live-fire zeroing and alternative means for effective dry-fire
zeroing with aiming lights. This research also determined the impact of NVG acuity on
marksmanship with aiming lights and compared the effectiveness of different field-
expedient techniques for adjusting the visual acuity of NVGs.

Both NVG and aiming light technology have changed considerably since their
initial introduction. During the period of our night fighting research in the 1990s, NVGs
progressed from the AN/PVS-5 binocular model with second-generation I’ technology,
to the AN/PVS-7A/B head-mounted biocular models with third-generation technology, to

“the current. helmet-mounted AN/PVS-7D biocular and AN/PVS-14 monocular models

with improved third-generation technology.” The end result of this NVG evolution has
~béen a lighter goggle, one that is more comfortable to wear, and one that provides a
‘better image under poor light conditions. All soldiers used either the 7Bs or the 14s in
‘this research.

Aiming lights have:also:improved, from the AN/PAC-4A to the AN/PAC-4B, and
most recently, to the AN/PAC-4C and AN/PEQ-2A. Newer models have incorporated
steady beams instead of pulsating beams.. Their effective ranges have also increased
from 150m to 300m and beyond, depending on ambient light conditions at night. The
AN/PEQ-2A has the added feature of an illuminator. ARI conducted research with each
of these aiming lights during the 1990s.

U.S. Army Research Institute

21



} U.S. Army Research Institute
* tor the Behavioral and Social Sciences

a

mond al
ee, 2  aigig 7 Ne



suggested trapping may work better for relatively close targets
moving at faster speeds, while tracking may work better for more

distant targets moving at slower speeds. The participants in the
experiment preferred to use the method that gave them better results. Later
experimentation under live fire conditions was inconclusive, though soldiers
preferred to be taught both methods of moving target engagement.”

Unit Training

Unit rifle marksmanship training must consider both
individual and collective firing proficiency.’ The
individual portion of the unit marksmanship
program was designed to insure skill retention
and progressive improvement, while the
collective portion of the program focused
on the application of those skills in a
group tactical environment.” Unit

marksmanship programs must

also be flexible, to support the

particular training environments of
various units.” Because time, facilities, and ammunition available for training vary
among Active and Reserve Component units of the Army, unit training programs must
be responsive to such variation.

Building upon improvements made in the BRM and ARM programs, selected
components of a unit training program were successfully pilot tested in 1981 and 1982
at Fort Bragg, Fort Riley, and Fort Benning.'® Following a two-day instructor training
program, a 24-hour unit marksmanship program was conducted. On a 25m timed fire
exercise using scaled silhouette targets, substantial increases in performance were
measured after only the first eight hours of training.’

The collective skills portion of unit marksmanship training was less standardized
than the individual firing portion, due to differing mission requirements across units. To
support customization of unit training, ARI developed a Unit Rifle Marksmanship
Training Guide that contained over 40 separate sections on a variety of marksmanship
training activities.""* It was designed so that individual sections could be selected and
implemented by a unit as its training schedule permitted. It was published by the USAIS
as Field Circular 23-11 in 1984.”

Equipment Research

In designing a rifle marksmanship training program, it is essential that both the
positive and negative operational characteristics of the service rifle, as a man-machine
weapon system, be fully understood.’ For this reason, ARI conducted a systematic and
comprehensive equipment research effort concurrent with the early stages of its
program development activities. This equipment research focused on the adequacy of


Moving Target Engagement

Of the five subjects taught in the revised ARM training program,
more research has been devoted to issues surrounding moving target
engagement than any other. This
relatively greater emphasis was partly
due to the fact that an ongoing range
modernization program would soon
enable soldiers to engage moving
personnel targets with live fire. Rifle
marksmanship simulators of the era
were also beginning to feature moving
targets for the first time.

Previous doctrine (Field Manual
23-9 of 1974) outlined four different
points of aim for laterally moving
personnel targets. Determining which of
these four lead rules to use required
soldiers to estimate the range and speed
of the target. This approach appeared
too complex for most soldiers to acquire
with limited training.’ In the few seconds
a moving target might be exposed, one
would have to detect the target, estimate its range, estimate its speed, select the proper
lead rule from memory, and then apply it properly while tracking the target.

In an attempt to simplify these procedures for moving target engagement, nine
different lead rules were subjected to a trigonometric analysis to determine the
theoretical locations of bullet impact with each lead rule." * Various combinations of
target speed, angle of movement, range, front sight post width, and projectile velocity
were examined. A lead rule requiring the shooter to place the trailing edge of the front
sight post at the target's center was found to work fairly well for all targets out to 200m.
The advantage of this lead rule is that it automatically increases one's lead as the range
to the target increases. Later experimentation with soldiers confirmed the theoretical
advantages of the single lead rule concept under live fire conditions.” *

Additional research focused on comparing two methods for engaging laterally
moving targets: tracking and trapping.”* Tracking involves moving the barrel of the rifle
to match the speed and direction of the target, as closely as possible. A lead is
maintained throughout the firing process. In contrast, trapping involves steadily holding
the barrel ahead of the target's anticipated path, and then firing the moment the proper
amount of lead is seen through the sights. In an experiment based on rifle
marksmanship simulator performance, trapping was found to be a better approach for
those with a relatively low level of marksmanship ability, while tracking was found to
work better for those having a relatively high level of ability." This experiment also

U.S. Army Research Institute



28



When: soldiers miss targets with iron sights, the
immediate reaction of a trainer is to check their application of the
four marksmanship fundamentals (see Chapter 1). With the advent of
aiming devices, optics, and borelights to the world of small arms, there are
many more potential reasons why a soldier could be missing targets. The common
core of probable causes has expanded beyond just the four fundamentals, and there is
now a unique set of possible causes associated with each device. Trainers need to ask
a host of diagnostic questions to determine why soldiers are missing targets. To
effectively diagnose: shooting problems, soldiers, trainers, and leaders must now fully
understand each technology, how to use each device, and the complete collection of
steps and procedures that result in effective rifle marksmanship performance, both
during the day and at night.

Diagnostic Questions
for Trainers

ALL SYSTEMS

Device mounted
properly?
Boresight distance
correct?

: Correct offset used?
Good, tight
boresight zero?
Good batteries?
If remounted,
on same notch?
4 fundamentals?
Good 25m zero?

27



Moving Towards a Solution

Beginning in 1978, a series of field experiments was conducted to evaluate
potential solutions to some of the problems listed in Table 1. Initially, three
different experimental training programs were compared, using airborne soldiers
from a FORSCOM unit preparing for their annual rifle qualification. Soldiers in the
training program that featured greater performance feedback, increased instructor
quality, and increased instructor quantity achieved significantly more hits on a
culminating record fire scenario than other soldiers." This training program was
subsequently published by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit as a recommended
interim marksmanship training program for FORSCOM units.”

Two of the major problems identified in BRM were that soldiers didn't understand
the zeroing process and inadequate feedback was provided about shots fired at ranges

ARI Develops an Easier Way to Zero

old 25m zeroing target, called the Canadian Bull, gave soldiers no intrinsic clues about what they shoul
Ze aiming point was like no other target they would ever encounter and its large gri

target.
hit closer'to the: silhouette's center. Grid lines were numbered, so soldiers could easily tell]
f vertical and lateral adjustment were needed.

line, a 4em circle was positioned at the center of the silhouette target. This circle |

formance standard for consecutive three-round shot groups. Based on minutes of angle,

t st distant silhouette target on the record fire range (i.¢., 300m). Thus, the

marks: ipa stently place shots in the 4cm circle of the new 25m zeroing target was

roughly equivalent to that needed to hit 300m targets on the record fire course with no crosswind. Although

the ARI zeroing target has since been redesigned by USAIS personnel to better accommodate the ballistics of
’ the M16A2 rifle and M4 carbine firing new ammunition, all of its instructional features have remained intact.



sound. A new
version of the EST is
currently being developed 30 \
for the Army. It is called EST , 7 wa
2000 (ECC International, Corp.). ot LL Ld am Tell lel,

Screen

An_ investigation of an early
version of the EST concluded it could L110 —

i i i i] qv q
Paving tsquare remain statonary To a Ad Ads deb de

Projector

further explore its potential role in U.S.

i
Army National Guard training, ARI then R eo eo 0
examined the relationship between EST Soeser \ oven nec

scores and annual rifle qualification Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) Configuration
scores.” Using one group of soldiers

whose EST scores and qualification
scores were measured within a 24-hour
period, a fairly close relationship was

found between the two measures. The TABLE 2

strength of this relationship enabled a EST-Based Tool for Predicting Soldier Probability of
tool to be developed that can predict Record Fire Qualification at the Marksman (>23),
qualification performance based on EST Sharpshooter (>30), and Expert (>36) Levels
scores. This prediction tool is shown in Predicted Mean ff Probability (%) of LiveFire Score
Table 2. LiveFire Score § 223 230 236

Recently, software development
efforts have greatly extended the scope
of the prediction tool beyond the EST. It
can now calculate predictions for any
live-fire event based on scores from a
number of different training devices.
After downloading this software from
www.ari.army.mil, trainers can now make
local predictions for first-run_ live-fire
events based on performance data they
obtain from their own ranges and
devices. ARI’s prediction tool appears
particularly useful for identifying those
who are ready to qualify and those who
aren't.

Ler rer bb-S1 BS 38ssesa

ARSERRBRAA URN ERARRSNES
LetrpSrBISssSrBirarercrss

‘Seanaeeugeny:
edegseeigrriteereccecers

18


24

iboats bist instal Seelanwastale

phrase “I can’t see anything with these goggles,” you know
that soldier does not know how to adjust them properly.

The aviation communities within the Army, Navy and Air Force use indoor
“test lanes” or special pieces of equipment to obtain good visual acuity with NVGs.
Such equipment and facilities are unavailable to soldiers in the field. ARI compared
objects typically found in a field environment to determine which provided the best
visual acuity readings for soldiers. “ Objects such as a vehicle, a light trail against a
dark background, or a star worked best. These high-contrast objects better enabled
soldiers to know when a NVG image was the sharpest that could be attained.

To determine the effects of NVG visual acuity on marksmanship with aiming
lights, soldiers fired their NVGs with both good and poor visual acuity settings.“ With
good visual acuity settings, the hit probability was significantly higher than with poor
visual acuity settings. A continuing training problem with NVGs is to provide an
objective means for the soldier to determine when he has the best possible visual acuity
(diopter) setting on his NVGs.

Training Assessments. ARI's most recent work with aiming lights and NVGs
has been in the context of assessing training on government furnished equipment for
platoons soon to be equipped with the Land Warrior system.“ The AN/PVS-7B and
AN/PVS-14 NVGs, and PAQ-4C and PEQ-2A aiming lights were used, as well as a
borelight to “zero” the aiming lights. Three assessments were done over a two-year
period. Boresighting aiming lights was found to work, when soldiers achieve a good
boresight, adjust their NVGs properly, and use a stable firing position. More effective
boresighting techniques evolved with each assessment (e.g., how to best stabilize the
weapon, which boresight offset targets work best, and which procedures reduce overall
boresighting time).

As our training assessments were being conducted, the USAIS was developing
qualification standards for aiming lights. The goal was to have the night standard be the
same as the day standard. However, it is well known that targets are difficult to detect
with NVGs under poor ambient light. Some range configurations were found to produce
very little target contrast, consequently lowering markmanship performance. ARI's
training assessment results ultimately impacted the proposed qualification scenario
developed for use with aiming lights and NVGs. In particular, the Army modified its
qualification scenario and night performance standard to be more consistent with NVG
capabilities, range configurations, and the ambient light conditions under which
qualification firing would most likely be conducted.

Shooting with Thermal Sights
Thermal sights are not new to the Infantry, being integral to antitank weapons and

the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. But they are new to most Light Weapons Infantrymen.
These soldiers must now be taught how to make all the necessary adjustments to their



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One - Program Development

ARI Develops an Easier Way to Zero ..
Improved BRM Training is Introduced..
Advanced Training for Infantrymen..
Moving Target Engagemernt.......

Unit Training ..............
Equipment Research ...
Training Support Products .........c.cccssssssssssescsssessscsesessecstsvecscstevstseees

Chapter Two - Training Devices and Simulation

Superdart Projectile Location SyStem ........:.ccsssseseeseseseesesssesescees
Weaponeer te
Multipurpose Arcade Comb:
Engagement Skills Trainer..................

Laser Marksmanship Training System...

Chapter Three - Night Fighting

Shooting with Aiming Lights and Night Vision Goggles
Shooting with Thermal Sights
Soldier and Trainer Issues

Chapter Four - Research Questions

Systems Integration
New Systems Training..... we
Simulation Training Strategy ..........ssssccsesssesessseseseseseseseerseseeeeveessees

References... ceccccccccsccsssessessssessesessessssussessesutevsesseseeseceesecens

ODANDAAAROW

21
24
25



Moving Target Engagement Training Aids. The
Aid to Improved Marksmanship (AIM) book was developed by
ARI to teach and reinforce aiming skills, particularly adjusted aiming
points for moving targets and for the effects of wind and gravity. The AIM
book consists of multiple sets of parallel photographic targets, each set printed
on separate pages in the book. The right hand target in each set is covered by a flap.

i Soldiers position a clear plastic

sheet, on which a replica of the

rifle's front and rear sights is
superimposed, over the left hand
target. After deciding the best
point of aim to use for that target,
the soldier lifts the flap over the

right hand target. This exposes a

dot on the right side of the plastic

sheet, showing where a_ bullet
would have theoretically impacted
with the aiming point chosen.

The Dry Fire Moving Target Engagement Trainer (DRY MOVER) was developed
to teach soldiers how to smoothly track and lead moving targets prior to live firing. This
portable and relatively inexpensive device consists of two scaled three-dimensional
targets, each situated in front of a curved shield and mounted at the end of an aluminum
rod. The rod is seated on a rotating shaft driven by a variable speed, reversible AC
motor. As many as 15 soldiers can be arranged in a semi-circle (5m radius) around the
device during training. Target exposure times can be controlled by changing the
position of the targets relative to the curved
shields. Depending on the rod's direction of a
rotation, targets are seen as moving from {
right to left (clockwise) or left to right i
(counterclockwise). Two DRY MOVERs were i
fabricated by the TASC at Fort Benning to !
support the new ARM training program j
(TASC No. TAD-239). !

U.S. Army Research Institute ll



Chapter 2
Training Devices and Simulation

ARI has long recognized the difficulty of providing precise and timely performance
feedback to soldiers in rifle marksmanship training. To partially address this problem,
ARI began to investigate the potential benefits of a variety of marksmanship training
devices and simulators in the early 1980s. Since that time ARI research efforts have
focused largely on five training systems: the Superdart projectile location system
(Australasian Training Aids), Weaponeer (Spartanics), Multipurpose Arcade Combat
Simulator (ARI), Engagement Skills Trainer (Firearms Training Systems), and Laser
Marksmanship. Training System (BeamHit). To various extents, these five systems
continue to play a role in Army marksmanship training programs today.

Superdart Projectile Location System

When positioned at the base of a target on a live firing range, the Superdart
system electronically detects and locates supersonic projectiles passing overhead. The

LOCATION OF MISSES AND HITS
(LOMAH)

mn
7
“dt

va

i

i

2|er}es} 0}

Ey
3
|

eleig|+je
eS
ES

‘TARGET AND DETECTOR BAR VIDEO DISPLAY UNIT

Positioned at the base of a silhouette target (A) on a pop-up mechanism (B), the Superdart system’s
detector bar (C) senses a supersonic projectite (D) passing overhead. The projectile’s shockwave (E) is
triangulated from three sensors (F, G, & H), while a fourth sensor (1) helps to calculate projectile
velocity. Locations of hits and misses are presented on a video display unit at the firing point. Ricochet
hits and misses are detected if their velocities remain supersonic.

U.S. Army Research Institute

13



Kenneth L. Evans, Jean L. Dyer, and Joseph D. Hagman
U. S. Army Research Institute

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited

ARI Special Report 44
October 2000

comes DONS 12



|

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE
October 2000 Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

May-August 2000

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Shooting Straight: 20 Years of Rifle Marksmanship Research

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

62785

6. AUTHORS

Kenneth L. Evans, Jean L. Dyer, and Joseph D. Hagman

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

5d. TASK NUMBER

204

Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

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

P.O. Box 52086

Fort Benning, GA 31995-2086

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Special Report 44

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

The U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) has developed numerous research products for rifle marksmanship training over the past 20
years. This report highlights ARI marksmanship research efforts during this period of time, focusing on those contributions that
continue to influence soldier training today. ARI marksmanship contributions have included program evaluation, instructional
development, the design of training materials for students and instructors, systems research, training device development, and
training device evaluation. Future marksmanship research questions are discussed in the areas of system integration, new systems

training, and simulation training strategies.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Training Rifle Marksmanship Simulation Training Devices Night Operations

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 49. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT
16. REPORT 17, ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

20. NUMBER
OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON
(Name and Telephone Number)
Dr. Ken Evans

(706) 545-2565



Initial ARI Research. As aiming lights were being

introduced to units, increasing attention was given to the difficulty
in zeroing them to weapons, a problem identified in initial Army tests.
The basic problem with traditional 25m live-fire zeroing procedures is that
the beam of an aiming light “blooms” when viewed through NVGs. Because this
"bloom" covers up the silhouette in the center of the 25m target, a precise point of
aim is almost impossible to achieve when zeroing. To help solve this serious problem,
ARI investigated variations to existing 25m zeroing procedures, as well as dry-fire
Zeroing alternatives.*

The solution to the 25m zero
problem was to provide a target that
allowed the soldier to obtain a
definitive point of aim. The technique
that worked the best was to attach the
zero target to the tan side of an E-
silhouette and use two strips of black
tape to divide the silhouette in half
vertically and horizontally. Typically,
the best lighting condition was
achieved by illuminating the target with
a standard Army flashlight, which
- diffused the bloom or halo of the

EAN tow ELEVATION NOR TO THE B/3, SETTUG, aiming light. When zeroing, the aiming
AE SEALE ABLE SOME AROSE eevee light was aligned with the target so it
PS Ug OE tat ae fell at the perceived intersection of the
vertical and horizontal lines formed by
the black tape. The effectiveness of
this technique was confirmed by firing
at targets from 50 to 300m on a range
equipped with projectile location
technology (see Chapter 2).

In later work by the Army, it was
found that a 3cm hole in the center of
the zero target was also effective.
When soldiers aligned their aiming
lights with the 3cm hole, the bloom
disappeared, indicating they were
aiming at the silhouette's center of
mass.

ARI also explored various dry-
ARI 25m Zeroing Target for Aiming Lights. fire procedures as potential substitutes
for live 25m zeroing. The goal was to
develop a procedure that would help

22


Foreword

Any soldier who has received rifle marksmanship training in the past 20 years,
and that's just about everyone, has benefited from the products of ARI research,
probably without even being aware of it. This report highlights the many contributions
we have made to marksmanship research since 1977. These contributions have
included the development and evaluation of new training programs, along with a host
of instructional materials for Army trainers. Our scientists have either developed or
evaluated most of the marksmanship simulators and training devices in use today. In
recent years, we have investigated the complex operational and training problems
surrounding night fighting, as well as the relationship between simulator performance
and live-fire qualification scores. Using a software tool developed by ARI, trainers can
now calculate predicted scores for live-fire events based on scores from a number of
different training devices.

Some of our marksmanship research products continue to be used today, two
decades after they were originally developed. ARI products have continued to
influence the design of follow-on training materials by other organizations, as new
weapon systems and equipment have been fielded. Further, ARI has not lost sight of
the marksmanship training challenges the Army will face as it enters the new
millennium. The most significant marksmanship training problems we see ahead are
discussed at the conclusion of this report.

KG) fhe

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director



30

New Systems Training

Scheduled for initial fielding in 2007, the Objective Individual Combat
Weapon (OICW) could radically affect the development of future doctrine and
training within active Infantry units and Infantry OSUT. Simply stated, the OICW
combines a 5.56mm carbine and a 20mm weapon that fires air-bursting fragmentation
rounds, delivered using a complex fire control system.* “° This fire control system
incorporates a laser range finder and ballistic computer to calculate the range to a target
and to transfer targeting data to the electronic fuse built into the 20mm round. In
addition, the OICW's sighting system will have a video tracking capability for moving
targets and a thermal module for night operations.

Although the OICW may eventually reduce the need to train selected ARM, M203
grenade launcher, and M249 squad automatic weapon tasks, the overall training
resource burden associated with OICW fielding will be high, at least initially. Due to the
greater relative costs of its 20mm ammunition, simulation will likely have an even more
important role in the OICW's overall training strategy than it has in current small arms
training.” Developing effective and affordable systems for marksmanship simulation
and tactical engagement simulation will be a challenge. Further, procedural tasks
appear more complex in the
OICW than in current weapon
systems. Overall, OICW tasks
appear to be more cognitive and
less psychomotor in nature, with
numerous situational (if-then)
contingencies. The amount of
training needed to rapidly
execute such tasks under
conditions of extreme stress
may be much greater than
presently realized.

Simulation Training Strategy Objective Individual Combat Weapon.

Three new or upgraded marksmanship training devices are expected to be
introduced within the near future. These devices are the MACS 2000, EST 2000, and
LMTS (see Chapter 2). Each has its own unique set of advantages within an overall
training program. Though a part-task trainer, MACS probably has the best instructional
design features and doesn't require the constant presence of an instructor. EST
provides training on the widest range of marksmanship tasks, including collective ones.
Finally, the LMTS appears well-suited to provide preparatory marksmanship training on
a relatively large scale. Despite everyone's best intentions, the introduction of any new
training device is almost always accompanied by problems like software errors, lack of
trainer familiarity, and initial uncertainty about the best way to incorporate its use within
an existing training program. Focusing on issues such as these in the latter stages of


thermal sights. In contrast to using aiming lights, targets

equipped with thermal blankets are much easier to detect with
thermal sights.

ARI training assessments
conducted with thermal sights involved
the use of a borelight to boresight the
thermal weapon sight (TWS) to a rifle,
followed by live 25m zeroing.” If
boresight procedures were done
correctly, the TWS was properly
adjusted, and the soldier was a good
marksman, few shot groups were
required to achieve zero. It was
noteworthy that the probability of hit
achieved with the TWS on the rifle
qualification course at night was very
similar to that achieved by the Close
Combat Optic (CCO) during the day.

Soldier and Trainer Issues

The ARI training assessments
were the first time four different aiming
or optical devices, plus the borelight,
_ had been trained simultaneously with

A silhouette target equipped with a thermal the same soldiers.” Prior to that time,

blanket, as seen by a thermal camera. each device had been examined

independently. Two major lessons

emerged from these assessments. One

lesson was that inconsistency in device design for windage and elevation adjustments

created confusion for the soldier, led to errors, inefficient training, and wasted

ammunition. The other lesson was that the diagnosis of shooting problems has become

more complex for soldiers and trainers, because the number of potential causes for
problems has increased almost exponentially.

With respect to their design, each device has adjusters or knobs that provide for
windage and elevation adjustments. For example, if bullets are hitting high on the 25m
zeroing target, an elevation knob on each device must be turned a particular amount
(i.e., "clicks") and direction (i.e., clockwise or counterclockwise) so subsequent rounds
will hit lower and closer to the target's center of mass. Unfortunately for trainers and
users, the devices were not designed to accomplish these adjustments in the same
manner. In addition, soldiers are faced with two 25m zero targets, one for the M16A2
rifle and one for the M4 carbine. However, these targets. are not identical, with grid
squares on the M4 target being larger than grid squares on the M16A2 target. Soldiers
must also remember the amount of movement a "click" produces at a boresight distance

U.S. Army Research Institute

25



M16A1_ rifle performance and its implications for

marksmanship training.” Findings from this research guided
the design of the BRM, ARM, and unit training programs in several
important ways. | In particular, they helped to determine which human
performance variables: were crucial to hitting targets and which were not.
They also guided the establishment of instructional standards and helped to validate

a new-and easier method for zeroing at 25m. Later, another research effort examined
features of the M16A2 rifle and described their implications for marksmanship training.”
It also provided numerous recommendations for improving the design of the service
rifle.

Training Support Products

The process of implementing new methods of conducting basic, advanced, and
unit rifle marksmanship training was an enormous undertaking, involving much more
than simply providing new programs of instruction to Army trainers.’ This section
highlights a diverse array of ARI products developed to support the new training
programs and to help insure the success of the implementation process after we had
left. A more exhaustive listing of these products has been published previously,’ as
have ratings of all previously existing marksmanship training support items.” ARI work
_telated to marksmanship training devices and simulators is presented in Chapter 2.

Targets. ARI designed more than a dozen paper targets to support the new
M16A1 rifle marksmanship training programs.’ Though not shown to scale, some of
them are pictured in this report. These targets were officially adopted by the proponent,
assigned National Stock Numbers, and became available to ATCs and all units through
normal supply channels in the mid-1980s. More recently, these targets have been
modified for use with the M16A2 rifle and M4 carbine, though most of their instructional
features have changed very little over time.

U.S. Army Research Institute



12