Human Factors Evaluation of Land Warrior, Version 1.0 

by Andrea S. Krausman, Angela C. Boynton, William H. Harper, 

Samson V. Ortega, Jr., and Rhoda M. Wilson 

ARL-TR-3205 July 2004 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
i 

NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-3205 July 2004 

Human Factors Evaluation of Land Warrior, Version 1.0 

Andrea S. Krausman, Angela C. Boynton, William H. Harper, 

Samson V. Ortega, Jr., and Rhoda M. Wilson 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 July 2004 

2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 Human Factors Evaluation of Land Warrior, Version 1.0 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716AH70 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 Andrea S. Krausman; Angela C. Boynton; William H. Harper; 

 Samson V. Ortega, Jr.; Rhoda M. Wilson (all of ARL) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3205

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory conducted a human factors 

evaluation (HFE) of the Land Warrior system as part of the Land Warrior Safety Test conducted by Aberdeen Test Center at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in March 2002. The primary objective was to identify human factors issues associated 

with the Land Warrior system. Five assessments were conducted as part of the HFE: glove compatibility, shooting 

performance, weapons compatibility, mobility and portability, and range of motion. Several issues were identified, and 

recommendations to alleviate the potential problems and increase overall system effectiveness are discussed. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 equipment compatibility; human factors; land warrior; Soldier-machine interface 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Andrea S. Krausman 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT 

 SAR 

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES 

 140 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 410-278-5933 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii

Executive Summary 1

1. Background 7

2. Objectives 9

3. Participants 9

3.1 Orientation and Volunteer Agreement ............................................................................9 

3.2 Medical Record Reviews and Medical Status Form .....................................................10 

3.3 Demographics and Anthropometry ...............................................................................10 

3.4 Vision Screening ...........................................................................................................10 

3.5 Training .........................................................................................................................11 

4. Glove Compatibility Assessment 12

4.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................12 

4.2 Participants ....................................................................................................................12 

4.3 Apparatus.......................................................................................................................12 

4.4 Procedures .....................................................................................................................13 

4.4.1 Training .........................................................................................................................13 

4.4.2 Assessment ....................................................................................................................13 

4.5 Experimental Design .....................................................................................................13 

4.5.1 Independent Variables...................................................................................................13 

4.5.2 Dependent Variables .....................................................................................................13 

4.5.3 Matrix ............................................................................................................................14 

4.5.4 Subjective Measures......................................................................................................14 

4.6 Results ...........................................................................................................................14 

4.6.1 Alphanumeric Task Completion Time..........................................................................14 
iv 

4.6.2 Subjective Measures......................................................................................................15 

4.7 Discussion .....................................................................................................................19 

4.8 Recommendations .........................................................................................................20 

5. Shooting Performance Assessment 20

5.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................20 

5.2 Apparatus.......................................................................................................................21 

5.3 Procedures .....................................................................................................................21 

5.3.1 Training .........................................................................................................................21 

5.3.2 Experimental Trials .......................................................................................................21 

5.4 Experimental Design .....................................................................................................22 

5.4.1 Independent Variables...................................................................................................22 

5.4.2 Dependent Variables .....................................................................................................23 

5.4.3 Evaluation Matrix..........................................................................................................23 

5.5 Results ...........................................................................................................................23 

5.5.1 M4 Daylight Firing........................................................................................................23 

5.5.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing........................................................................................25 

5.5.3 M4 Night Firing.............................................................................................................27 

5.5.4 M249 Day Firing...........................................................................................................28 

5.5.5 M249 Night Firing.........................................................................................................30 

5.6 Discussion .....................................................................................................................31 

5.6.1 M4 Daylight Firing........................................................................................................31 

5.6.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing........................................................................................31 

5.6.3 M4 Night Firing.............................................................................................................32 

5.6.4 M4 Day Firing...............................................................................................................32 

5.6.5 M249 Night Firing.........................................................................................................32 

5.7 Recommendations .........................................................................................................32 

6. Weapon Compatibility Assessment 33

6.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................33 

6.2 Apparatus.......................................................................................................................33 

6.3 Procedures .....................................................................................................................33 

6.3.1 Training .........................................................................................................................33 
v 

6.3.2 Experimental Trials .......................................................................................................33 

6.4 Results ...........................................................................................................................34 

6.5 Discussion .....................................................................................................................39 

6.6 Recommendations .........................................................................................................39 

7. Mobility Evaluation 39

7.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................39 

7.2 Apparatus.......................................................................................................................39 

7.3 Procedures .....................................................................................................................40 

7.3.1 Training .........................................................................................................................40 

7.3.2 Experimental Trials .......................................................................................................40 

7.4 Results ...........................................................................................................................40 

7.5 Discussion .....................................................................................................................43 

7.6 Recommendations .........................................................................................................43 

8. Range of Motion Assessment 43

8.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................43 

8.2 Participants ....................................................................................................................43 

8.3 Apparatus.......................................................................................................................43 

8.4 Procedures .....................................................................................................................44 

8.4.1 Goniometry....................................................................................................................44 

8.4.2 Assessment ....................................................................................................................46 

8.5 Experimental Design .....................................................................................................46 

8.5.1 Independent Variables...................................................................................................46 

8.5.2 Dependent Variables .....................................................................................................46 

8.5.3 Evaluation Matrix..........................................................................................................46 

8.6 Results ...........................................................................................................................46 

8.7 Discussion .....................................................................................................................48 

8.8 Recommendations .........................................................................................................49 

9. Future Work 49

10. References 51

Appendix A. Volunteer Agreement Affidavit 53
vi 

Appendix B. Demographic and Anthropometric Data 59

Appendix C. Vision Screening Data 67

Appendix D. Input Device Questionnaire 69

Appendix E. Glove Compatibility Time Data 71

Appendix F. Questionnaire Data 73

Appendix G. Shooting Performance Means 75

Appendix H. Raw Weapon Compatibility Data 93

Appendix I. Obstacle Course Completion Time Data 117

Appendix J. Equipment Configuration Descriptions 119

Appendix K. Procedures for Joint Motion Measurement 121 

Distribution List 129 
vii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Land warrior system (version 1.0)...................................................................................8 

Figure 2. Sample alphanumeric text entry task.............................................................................13 

Figure 3. Mean completion time for text entry task......................................................................15 

Figure 4. Mean responses for question 1. .....................................................................................16 

Figure 5. Mean responses for question 2. .....................................................................................16 

Figure 6. Mean responses for question 3. .....................................................................................17 

Figure 7. Mean responses for question 4. .....................................................................................17 

Figure 8. Mean responses for question 5. .....................................................................................18 

Figure 9. Mean responses for question 6. .....................................................................................18 

Figure 10. Hit percentage for each firing position for M4 daylight firing....................................24 

Figure 11. Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction for M4 daylight hit percentage data.........24 

Figure 12. Sight x Target Range interaction for M4 daylight hit percentage data. (This effect 

failed to reach significance at the .05 level.) ...........................................................................25 

Figure 13. Firing Position x Weapon Position interaction on hit percentage for reduced 

exposure firing. (This effect failed to reach significance at the .05 level.).............................26 

Figure 14. Significant Target Range x Target Exposure Time interaction on hit percentage 

for reduced exposure firing......................................................................................................26 

Figure 15. Significant Target Range x Target Exposure Time interaction on hit percentage 

for M4 night firing. ..................................................................................................................27 

Figure 16. Significant Sight x Target Range interaction on hit percentage for M4 night 

firing.........................................................................................................................................28 

Figure 17. M249 day firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Exposure Time 

interaction. ...............................................................................................................................29 

Figure 18. M249 day firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Range interaction. ............29 

Figure 19. M249 night firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Range interaction...........30 

Figure 20. M249 night firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Exposure Time 

interaction. ...............................................................................................................................31 

Figure 21. Soldier raising buttstock to get MTWS eyecup in correct position to open................34 

Figure 22. BALCS pushes helmet and head forward. ..................................................................35 

Figure 23. BALCS and assault pack force head down and prohibit Soldier from aiming 

weapon at target. ......................................................................................................................35 

Figure 24. Zoom wheel in grenadier configuration is difficult to access in normal firing 

position.....................................................................................................................................36 

Figure 25. Sling obscuring view through DVS in grenadier configuration..................................37 
viii 

Figure 26. M249 gunner having difficulty opening MTWS eyecup. ...........................................37 

Figure 27. For the M249, when Soldiers switched from the MTWS to iron sights, the 

retainer clips for the MTWS obstructed the view....................................................................38 

Figure 28. For the M249, Soldiers have to reach to pistol grip to access UID.............................38 

Figure 29. Mean obstacle course completion times for Soldiers wearing the BDU, LW, and 

LW with BALCS ensembles....................................................................................................41 

Figure 30. Mean obstacle course completion times for the rifleman, grenadier, and SAW 

gunner in BDU, LW, and LW with BALCS ensembles..........................................................41 

Figure 31. 360 degree stainless steel goniometer. ........................................................................44 

Figure 32. Planes of motion and axes of rotation. ........................................................................45 

Figure 33. Directions of motion....................................................................................................45 

Figure J-1. LW “rifleman” LBE. ................................................................................................119 

Figure J-2. BALCS body armor..................................................................................................120 

Figure J-3. JSLIST......................................................................................................................120 

Figure K-1. Head flexion. ...........................................................................................................121 

Figure K-2. Head extension. .......................................................................................................122 

Figure K-3. Head rotation..........................................................................................................122 

Figure K-4. Head lateral bending................................................................................................123 

Figure K-5. Shoulder flexion. .....................................................................................................124 

Figure K-6. Shoulder extension. .................................................................................................124 

Figure K-7. Should and upper arm abduction.............................................................................125 

Figure K-8. Shoulder adduction..................................................................................................125 

Figure K-9. Hip flexion...............................................................................................................126 

Figure K-10. Hip extension.........................................................................................................126 

Figure K-11. Standing trunk flexion...........................................................................................127 

Figure K-12. Standing trunk extension.......................................................................................127 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary anthropometric data........................................................................................11

Table 2. Glove presentation order.................................................................................................14 

Table 3. Land warrior system. ......................................................................................................42 

Table 4. Land warrior system and BALCS with plates. ...............................................................42 

Table 5. Mean total ROM for 13 joint motions (in degrees). .......................................................47 
ix 

Table B-1. Demographic data.......................................................................................................59 

Table B-2. Land Warrior Version 1.0 Safety Test - Anthropometric Measurements of 

Individual Soldiers...................................................................................................................63 

Table C-1. Summary of Soldier Vision Examinations. ................................................................67 

Table D-1. Post-test questionnaire................................................................................................69 
x 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1 

Executive Summary 

The Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL) conducted a human factors evaluation (HFE) of the Land Warrior (LW) System as part of 

the Land Warrior Safety Test conducted by Aberdeen Test Center in March 2002. The primary 

objective was to identify human factors issues associated with the LW system. Five assessments 

were conducted as part of the HFE: glove compatibility, shooting performance, weapons 

compatibility, mobility and portability, and range of motion. Participants were 12 infantry 

Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. All Soldiers were 11 

series infantry military occupational specialty. Before the assessments, all participants were 

trained to wear and operate the various components of the LW system. 

ARL examined the compatibility of the LW soldier control unit (SCU) input device with various 

gloves worn by Soldiers and identified any input device design characteristics that may impact 

user performance. Seven Soldiers participated in the assessment. Participants donned the LW 

system (without the M45 mask) and performed an alphanumeric text entry task with the LW 

input device during five conditions: (1) bare handed, (2) bare handed in a dark room, (3) 

wearing a leather utility glove, (4) wearing a 25-mil nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 

glove with liner, (5) wearing a trigger finger mitten with liner. Each text entry task was 60 

characters long and consisted of random words and numbers. Participants used the input device 

and a soft keyboard presented on their helmet-mounted display (HMD) to perform the text entry 

task. Three of the seven participants also performed the text entry task with the LW system with 

the M45 mask during two conditions: (1) bare handed and (2) wearing the 25-mil NBC glove. 

After completing each text entry task, participants completed a questionnaire, giving their 

opinions about the physical effort required to use the LW SCU and the ease with which they 

could enter text and numbers. Dependent measures were task completion time (seconds) and 

questionnaire responses. 

Results show that task completion time with the trigger finger mitten accounted for 

approximately 68% of the variance in task completion time. Performance was 44.4% slower 

than when the participants were bare handed and wearing the 25-mil glove, and 41.4% slower 

than when they wore the leather utility glove, which indicated that thick, bulky gloves may not 

be suitable for use with wearable input devices. Questionnaire data show that participants 

thought the SCU device was more difficult to use when they wore the trigger finger mitten 

because the thickness made it difficult for them to feel the control buttons on the input device 

and required them to use two hands to perform the text entry task. Task performance time was 

not affected by the chemical protective mask. However, participants noted that the HMD did not 

rest against the lens of the mask and they had to hold the HMD in place, making the text entry 

task a two-handed task. 
2 

Participant comments made during the course of the assessment indicated that there was a 

problem with dirt accumulating inside the input device, which made it difficult to position the 

cursor on the screen. They also mentioned that the backspace and clear buttons are situated next 

to each other on the soft keyboard, which made it easy to accidentally clear any entered text. 

The findings of the glove compatibility assessment suggest that bulky gloves make input device 

usage problematic. Alternatives to the LW input device should be considered to ascertain if 

other designs may be more compatible with bulky gloves and may alleviate the problem of dirt 

accumulation in the device. Other design changes should be explored including modifying the 

HMD so that it rests against the lens of the mask and separating the clear and delete buttons on 

the soft keyboard to prevent information from inadvertently being deleted. 

The shooting performance assessment determined the ability of participants to aim and fire the 

M4 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) weapon systems in day and night 

conditions with direct and indirect sighting methods, and the assessment identified any 

compatibility issues between the weapons systems and the LW system. There were five firing 

conditions: M4 daylight firing, M4 reduced exposure firing, M4 night firing, M249 daylight 

firing, and M249 night firing. The dependent measure was target hit percentage (targets hit 

divided by targets presented). 

Twelve Soldiers participated in the M4 daylight firing assessment. Soldiers used the M4 with 

the M68 reflex sight (also known as close combat optic) and the daylight video sight (DVS) 

viewed on the HMD, to fire at targets at ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters, at 

target exposure times of 3, 5, and 8 seconds. Soldiers fired from the standing unsupported, 

kneeling unsupported, foxhole supported, and prone unsupported firing positions. Results of the 

M4 daylight firing show that shooting performance with the current M68 reflex sight (59% mean 

hit percentage) was better than shooting performance when the DVS was used (40% mean hit 

percentage), especially at the shortest target exposure time. 

Eight Soldiers participated in the M4 reduced exposure firing assessment. Soldiers used the M4 

with the DVS viewed on the HMD to fire at targets at ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 

meters at targets exposure times of 8, 12, and 16 seconds. Soldiers fired the weapons from 

behind a wall in both the standing and kneeling firing positions. Results show that Soldiers were 

able to hit targets when viewing through their HMD, without exposing much of their body. The 

overall hit percentage for targets from 50 to 300 meters was 36%, but a considerable amount of 

time was needed to acquire and engage the target, and the targets had to be relatively close. 

Eight Soldiers participated in the M4 night firing assessment. Soldiers used the M4 with the 

medium thermal weapon sight (MTWS) directly and the MTWS viewed on the HMD, to fire at 

targets at ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters, at target exposure times of 5 and 8 

seconds. Soldiers fired from the standing unsupported and foxhole supported firing positions. 

Results show that Soldiers had much more difficulty firing with the thermal image presented on 

the HMD than when looking into the MTWS. The mean hit percentage was 36% with the 
3 

MTWS with inherent display and 12% with the MTWS displayed on the HMD. This may have 

been attributable to some problems with the “video out” on the MTWS. 

Three Soldiers participated in the M249 daylight firing assessment. Soldiers used the M249 

SAW with the M145 machine gun optic and the DVS viewed on the HMD, to fire at targets at 

ranges of 200, 300, 400, and 500 meters at target exposure times of 6, 8, and 10 seconds. 

Soldiers fired from the foxhole and prone firing positions. Results showed that Soldiers 

performed better when using the M145 machine gun optic (47% mean hit percentage) than when 

using the DVS viewed on the HMD (28% mean hit percentage), particularly at the shorter target 

exposure times. The direct view optic of the M145 may have provided a clearer picture, 

allowing for easier target acquisition. 

Three Soldiers participated in the M249 night firing assessment. Soldiers used the M249 SAW 

with the MTWS (Omni version) viewed directly and on the HMD, to fire at targets at ranges of 

200, 300, 400, and 500 meters at target exposure times of 6, 8, and 10 seconds. Soldiers fired 

from the foxhole and prone firing positions. Results show that Soldiers performed better when 

using the MTWS in the direct view mode (46% mean hit percentage) than when the image was 

viewed on the HMD (36% mean hit percentage). 

Results of the shooting performance assessment suggest that Soldiers performed better when 

using the current direct view configurations than when firing with the HMD to acquire and aim 

at targets. Further research should be conducted to determine the factors that contribute to the 

degraded performance when Soldiers fire through the HMD. 

The weapon compatibility assessment was conducted to determine how the LW system 

(including the ballistic armor load carriage system [BALCS]) and assault pack affect the 

Soldier’s ability to hold, aim, control, and operate the M4 carbine (with and without the M203) 

and the M249 SAW. Six Soldiers participated in this assessment. Two Soldiers were configured 

as riflemen (with M4 carbine), two Soldiers as grenadiers (with M4 carbine and M203), and two 

Soldiers as M249 gunners (with M249 SAW). Four different LW clothing conditions were 

evaluated: LW with the fighting load carrier (FLC); LW with FLC and BALCS body armor 

(including detachable neck protector); LW with FLC, BALCS, and assault pack; and LW with 

FLC and assault pack. Participants assumed a standing, kneeling, and prone firing position using 

iron sights, M68 reflex sight, M145 machine gun optic, MTWS, or DVS, and determined if they 

could properly hold the weapon, aim the weapon, and operate the weapon and LW system. 

Participant comments were the dependent measure. 

Most of the compatibility issues of the LW system and the weapon systems were attributable to 

the interference of the BALCS and assault pack with the helmet and the difficulty opening the 

MTWS eyecup. Often, in the prone firing position, the interference between the BALCS, assault 

pack, and the helmet prohibited the Soldier from sighting the weapon on the target. The eyecup 

on the MTWS was difficult to use in most firing positions and required Soldiers to push the 
4 

spectacles against the eyecup 3 or 4 times in order to get the full image. This problem was more 

pronounced in the prone firing position. 

The buttstock positions of the weapons were also affected by the BALCS and the assault pack. 

As more straps and body armor cover the shoulder area, it becomes more difficult to find a place 

where the buttstock will seat properly. 

Other problems noted by participants include the fact that the LW controls require the Soldiers to 

move their hands from their normal weapon firing positions. For the M249, the user interface 

device is on the pistol grip on the forestock. Most M249 gunners put their hand on the buttstock 

of the weapon. In this case, they must move their hand to the front of the weapon to access the 

controls. For the grenadier, the zoom wheel is situated in a position that is difficult to reach from 

a normal forestock hand position. These findings suggest that additional research and design 

work is necessary to solve this problem without eliminating adequate ballistic protection. 

The objectives of the mobility assessment were to determine if there are any gross mobility 

issues with the LW system and to identify human factors and safety issues with the system. 

Twelve Soldiers participated in this assessment. Four Soldiers were configured as riflemen, four 

Soldiers as grenadiers, and four Soldiers as M249 SAW gunners. Three clothing conditions were 

evaluated: battle dress uniform (BDU), BDU with the LW System, and BDU with the LW 

System and BALCS with plate inserts. The Soldiers were instructed to complete the obstacle 

course as quickly as possible without compromising their safety. Soldiers were given a 30-

minute rest break between obstacle course runs. Course completion time was the dependent 

measure. 

The mean course completion time was 245.7 seconds for the BDU condition, 444.6 seconds for 

the BDU with the LW condition, and 559.8 seconds for the BDU with LW with BALCS 

condition. As the load increased from BDU to LW to LW with BALCS, so did the time to 

negotiate the course. In addition, the mean time to complete the course was shortest for the 

rifleman, slightly longer for the grenadier, and longest for the SAW gunner, because of the 

increased load that the grenadier and SAW gunner Soldiers are required to carry. 

Three additional problems were identified during the assessment: the SCU and the cable 

between the body and the weapon were prone to snag on obstacles, and the bulkiness of the 

BALCS caused problems with mobility and slowed the Soldier. 

Results of the mobility assessment suggest that modifications of the SCU and weapon cable 

would help prevent interference and breakage. Also, research into flexible and lighter body 

armor could greatly increase the mobility of the dismounted Soldier. 

The objective of the range-of-motion assessment was to evaluate Soldier range of motion (ROM) 

when the Soldiers wore four equipment configurations: BDU, BDU with LW rifleman loadbearing equipment (LBE), BDU with LBE with BALCS, and BDU with LBE with joint service 

lightweight integrated suit technology (JSLIST). Twelve Soldiers participated in the assessment. 
5 

The dependent variables were total range of motion (in degrees) for head flexion, extension, 

rotation left, rotation right, lateral bending left and lateral bending right; shoulder flexion, 

extension, abduction and adduction; upper arm abduction; hip extension and flexion; and 

standing trunk flexion and extension. 

Results indicate that of the 15 joint motions examined, 13 were significantly affected by 

equipment configuration. The BDU with LBE with JSLIST configuration appeared to place the 

most restrictions on Soldier ROM, with total ROM values for 13 of the joint motions being 

significantly lower than those of the BDU (baseline) configuration. Total ROM values for nine 

of the joint motions under the BDU with LBE with BALCS configuration were found to be less 

than those of the BDU (baseline) configuration, making it the next most restrictive. With only 

five total ROM values being significantly lower than those of the BDU (baseline) configuration, 

BDU with LBE was the least restrictive configuration. 

For the BDU with LBE with JSLIST configuration, the total ROM values affected by equipment 

configuration were 18% to 37% less than corresponding values under the BDU (baseline) 

configuration. Head motions under the BDU with LBE with JSLIST configuration were 

primarily restricted by the hood of the JSLIST jacket. However, the canister of the mask was 

found to interfere as well, making contact with the subject’s upper torso during head flexion. 

Reduction in total ROM for all the upper body motions, as well as hip flexion and extension, 

appeared to result from a lack of stretch in the garment’s fabric. The bulkiness of the jacket 

fabric also contributed to the reduced total ROM for shoulder abduction and upper arm 

abduction, which forced the arm out and away from the body to a starting position value of 

approximately 25 degrees. 

In comparison to total ROM values obtained under the BDU (baseline) configuration, values 

under the BDU with LBE with BALCS configuration were 17% to 47% less. Based on 

observation, reduction in total ROM values for the upper body motions can primarily be 

attributed to the bulkiness and lack of flexibility of the plates and vest that comprise the body 

armor. Shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were also restricted by the shoulder straps 

of the LBE. Grenade and ammunition pouches on the front of the LBE also contributed to 

reduction in shoulder adduction total ROM. As with the BDU and LBE with JSLIST 

configuration, total ROM values for shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were 

additionally reduced because of an increased starting position value (approximately 25 degrees), 

which resulted from the bulky body armor and the general purpose pouch on the side of the LBE, 

which forced the arm away from the body. 

With respect to the total ROM values obtained under the BDU with LBE configuration, those 

found to be significantly affected by equipment configuration were 19% to 22% less than 

corresponding values obtained under the BDU (baseline) configuration. As with the BDU with 

LBE with BALCS configuration, shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were observed to 

be restricted by the shoulder straps of the LBE, and shoulder adduction was observed to be 
6 

restricted by the grenade and ammunition pouches. Shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction 

total ROM were also reduced as a result of the general purpose pouch on the LBE that forced the 

arm out and away from the body, thus increasing the starting position value to around 21 

degrees. 

These findings suggest that additional work is needed to reduce the effect of equipment 

configuration on ROM. Increasing the size of the hood and enlarging the armholes of the 

JSLIST jacket may allow freer movement of the arms and head. Modifications of the shape, 

size, and position of the mask canister would allow for less restrictive movement of the head and 

neck. ROM restrictions associated with the BALCS may be alleviated by the use of several 

smaller plates instead of a few large plates, especially in the shoulder area. The inclusion of 

elastic in the shoulder straps of the LBE may mitigate restrictions of upper arm ROM, and 

alternate locations for grenade, ammunition, and general purpose pouches on the LBE may 

reduce interference with arm movements. 
7 

1. Background 

The Land Warrior (LW) is the Army’s “high tech” integrated Soldier-system designed to equip 

the dismounted Soldier for the future battlefield. The LW system will enable a Soldier to fight 

better at night and in all types of weather, communicate instantly with fellow squad members, 

and send real-time intelligence data such as photos and enemy position coordinates or 

concentrations of friendly forces (Garamone, 1998). 

The idea of an integrated Soldier-system was first conceived in 1991 by an Army study group. 

In response, the Army initiated the Soldier integrated protective ensemble program (SIPE), 

whose goal was to integrate the Soldier with technology, thereby increasing lethality and 

survivability. Demonstrations of the SIPE program helped identify technologies that could be 

transitioned to the ensuing LW system (Spencer, 2000). The LW system consists of five 

subsystems: 

1. The integrated helmet assembly (IHAS) features a helmet-mounted monocular display with 

flip-up design, thermal weapon sight (TWS), and video camera. The audio headset 

includes a chinstrap-mounted microphone and speakers mounted into the helmet 

suspension system. 

2. A modular weapons system with the primary user weapons being the M16A4 rifle, M4 

carbine, M240B machine gun, and M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW). Each weapon 

is fitted with a rail system to hold the following components: TWS, reflex or close combat 

optic (CCO), multi-function laser, video camera, and infrared aiming light. 

3. Protective clothing and individual equipment, which consists of a soft armor ballistic 

protective vest with optional ballistic plates and load-carrying equipment. The modular 

packs consist of an approach pack, sustainment pack, and butt pack. 

4. A wearable computer and radio, which features a global positioning system receiver, 

capture and transmission of video imagery, a squad radio with type 1 encryption, and a 

Soldier radio with type 3 encryption. 

5. Computer software, which provides digitized map displays, overlays, signal operating 

instructions, and controlled messaging. The software allows images from the TWS and 

video camera to be transmitted to the IHAS and throughout the chain of command. 

An LW-equipped Soldier is shown in figure 1. Several prototype LW systems underwent 

operational testing in 1996. Following the test, Soldiers commented that the system enhanced 

situational awareness, was user friendly and easy to learn, reduced Soldier workload, and 

improved squad communications. However, they recommended that the system be made lighter, 

have a more powerful battery, have better controls, and be made more rugged (Spencer, 2000). 
8 

Other technical and human factors issues that have been identified include equipment comfort, 

equipment compatibility, and inadequate load-carrying design (Government Accounting Office, 

1999). Specifically, during field tests, Soldiers had problems raising their heads to fire their 

weapons from the prone position because the pack attached to the load-carrying harness rode up 

and pressed against the back of their helmets. Results of the operational test were used to modify 

the LW system in preparation for developmental testing, which began in 2001. 

Figure 1. Land warrior system (version 1.0). 

This report documents the findings of five human factors assessments, conducted at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland, in May 2002, as part of the LW developmental test. During the test, 

the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

assisted Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) personnel in performing the human factors evaluations in 

order to identify potential human factors issues associated with the LW system and to offer 

recommendations to improve overall system performance. 
9 

2. Objectives 

The objectives of this evaluation were to 

1. Determine the compatibility of the LW soldier control unit (SCU) with common Soldierworn gloves. 

2. Collect shooting performance data with Soldiers wearing the LW system while firing the 

M4 carbine, M249 SAW, and M240B machine gun in various firing conditions and with 

various sights (e.g., M68 reflex sight or CCO, daylight video sight (DVS), TWS). 

3. Determine the compatibility of the LW Version 1.0 with various weapon configurations. 

4. Identify any design characteristics or features that may impact mobility and portability 

from a human factors engineering (HFE) perspective and determine user acceptance for 

mobility and portability. 

5. Identify components of the LW ensemble that impact Soldier range of motion (ROM). 

In order to accomplish these objectives, five separate assessments were performed: glove 

compatibility, shooting performance, weapons compatibility, mobility and portability, and ROM. 

3. Participants 

Twelve Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, participated in 

this evaluation. All Soldiers were 11 series military occupational specialty (MOS) infantry. 

Soldiers in this MOS series are normally required to carry pack loads, road march, and fire 

weapons as part of their duties. Participants’ weapons qualification experience was a marksman 

rating or above for an M4 carbine or M16A2 rifle. 

3.1 Orientation and Volunteer Agreement 

The Soldiers were assembled and given an orientation about the purpose of the evaluation and 

their participation. They were briefed about the objectives and procedures for conducting the 

LW Version 1.0 safety trials. They also were told how the results would be used and the benefits 

that the military could expect from this investigation. In addition, the Volunteer Agreement 

Affidavit (DA Form 5303-R) (see appendix A) was explained and its contents were read aloud to 

the Soldiers. Next, the Soldiers were asked to complete and sign a volunteer agreement affidavit. 
10 

3.2 Medical Record Reviews and Medical Status Form 

The Soldiers’ medical records were not reviewed before this investigation. However, the 

investigators asked the Soldiers if any had a medical profile or history that would jeopardize 

their safe participation in this investigation, and all replied “no”. The Soldiers also completed 

and signed a medical status form. A review of the medical status forms indicated that none had 

present injuries, none had recent surgery, and none were on profiles of any type. 

3.3 Demographics and Anthropometry 

Demographic and anthropometric measurement data were taken for each Soldier. These 

measurements were made in accordance with those described in the anthropometric 

measurement handbook (Clauser, Tebbetts, Bradtmiller, McConville, and Gordon, 1988). The 

measurements were converted to percentile values as shown in the 1988 Army Anthropometric 

Survey (Gordon et al., 1989). A summary of the anthropometric data is shown in table 1. The 

demographic and anthropometric data taken for each Soldier are shown in appendix B. 

The dimensions of overall body size and proportions used to determine the anthropometric 

differences or similarities between populations are defined as the basic body descriptors, which 

are weight, stature, acromial height, and sitting height. The mean body descriptor measurements 

for this Soldier population indicate that they were slightly heavier and taller than the Soldier 

population recorded in the 1988 Army Anthropometric Survey (Gordon et al., 1989). 

3.4 Vision Screening 

A Titmus1 vision tester (Model OV-7M) was used to measure visual acuity (right eye, left eye, 

and both eyes), stereo depth perception, and color vision. Ocular dominance was measured with 

the unconscious sighting method of Miles (1929). To identify ocular dominance, each Soldier 

positioned the wide end of a truncated paper cone over both his eyes. He was then instructed to 

use both eyes and to focus upon the experimenter’s nose. The experimenter identified each 

Soldier’s dominant eye by observing whether his right or his left eye was aligned with the 

opening at the narrow end of the cone. 

The results show that all Soldiers had normal color vision and that 11 had normal or corrected to 

normal visual acuity (20/20 Snellen equivalent or better in each eye). Eleven Soldiers displayed 

right eye dominance and one displayed left eye dominance. The results of the Soldiers’ vision 

examinations are shown in appendix C. 

 1

Titmus® is a registered trademark of Titmus Optical. 
11 

Table 1. Summary anthropometric data. 

Land Warrior Test Population (N=12) 

Body Measurement 

1988 

Anthropometric 

Survey 

Mean2 Sample 

Mean2 sd Percentile Range 

Weight1 (kg) 78.49 81.2 11.6 14th – 99th

Stature1 175.58 176.6 6.1 27th – 99th

Cervicale Height 151.94 152.4 5.8 21st – 98th

Acromial Height1 144.25 144.5 5.4 18th – 98th

Crotch Height 83.72 85.3 4.3 24th – 99th

Chest Breadth 32.15 31.7 2.5 2nd – 92nd

Chest Depth 24.32 26.0 2.9 18th – 99th

Neck Circumference 37.96 38.6 2.2 16th – 99th

Shoulder Circumference 117.52 119.9 7.6 2nd – 99th

Chest Circumference 99.14 98.8 7.1 3rd – 98th

Waist Circumference 88.24 88.1 7.7 14th – 98th

Waist Front Length (Omphalion) 41.45 40.4 2.1 1st – 88th

Waist Back Length (Omphalion) 46.06 47.5 1.7 5th – 74th

Sitting Height1 91.39 92.2 2.3 15th – 81st

Eye Height Sitting 79.20 80.4 2.3 19th – 89th

Acromial Height Sitting 59.78 59.5 2.5 13th – 93rd

Biacromial Breadth 39.70 41.6 2.5 24th – 99th

Bideltoid Breadth 49.18 49.4 2.9 2nd – 99th

Abdominal Extension Depth 23.91 23.9 3.0 5th – 99th

Bitragion Chin Arc 32.58 33.3 1.7 6th – 99th

Bitragion Coronal Arc 35.33 35.5 0.8 21st – 98th

Bitragion Crinion Arc 32.64 32.2 0.9 3rd – 82nd

Bitragion Frontal Arc 30.43 30.7 0.9 11th – 92nd

Bitragion Submandibular Arc 30.42 31.4 1.7 16th – 99th

Bitragion Subnasale Arc 29.20 30.1 1.3 10th – 99th

Head Circumference 56.77 56.9 1.7 11th – 99th

Hand Circumference 21.38 21.5 0.6 18th – 83rd

Head Breadth 15.17 15.3 0.4 24th – 95th

Head Length 19.71 19.7 0.8 5th – 98th

Menton-Sellion 12.19 11.9 0.7 1st – 91st

Ear Breadth 3.77 3.6 0.3 2nd – 89th

Hand Breadth 9.04 8.8 0.3 6th – 83rd

Hand Length 19.38 19.8 0.9 18th – 97th

Interpupillary Breadth 6.47 6.4 0.4 2nd – 97th

1

Basic body descriptors 

2

Weight in kilograms; all other measurements are in centimeters. 

3.5 Training 

The Soldiers were in an MOS where carrying loads, performing mobility and portability 

maneuvers (movement to contact and assault maneuvers), and firing rifles and machine guns are 

associated with their profession (Department of Army, 1999). All participants attended a prime 

contractor-provided training course about the safe assembly and use of the LW system. The 
12 

training program was tailored to provide those skills necessary for the safe use of the LW system 

during the weapons compatibility section of testing. The test participants were instructed and 

shown how to wear and operate the system, as configured for these evaluations. 

In addition, three noncommissioned officers in charge (NCOIC) from Fort Hood, Texas, were 

available for guidance and training. Subject matter experts from the U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command System Manager-Soldier (TSM-Soldier) were on site to provide guidance 

and training. 

During the training, Soldiers were taken on a familiarization march through the cross-country 

and obstacle courses and shown how to negotiate the obstacles properly and safely. After the 

initial marches, they practiced negotiating the obstacle course with the appropriate loads. In 

addition, the Soldiers were shown how to safely carry and employ all weapons and were taken to 

the ARL Small Arms Shooter Performance Research Facility and briefed about all standing 

operating procedures and safety requirements pertaining to the operation of the facility. 

4. Glove Compatibility Assessment 

4.1 Objectives 

The objectives of the glove compatibility assessment were to 

1. Determine the compatibility of the LW SCU input device with various gloves worn by 

Soldiers. 

2. Identify LW SCU input device design characteristics that impact user performance from an 

HFE perspective. 

3. Identify user comments and concerns regarding the LW SCU input device. 

4.2 Participants 

Seven Soldiers participated in this assessment. These Soldiers were a subset of the 12 Soldiers 

recruited from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Because of time 

constraints, only seven Soldiers were available for the glove compatibility assessment. 

4.3 Apparatus 

1. LW Version 1.0 SCU 

2. Soft keyboard 

3. Special Operations Forces personal equipment advanced requirements (SPEAR) modular 

integrated communications helmet (MICH) 
13 

4. Helmet-mounted display (HMD) 

5. Standard issue gloves: Leather utility, trigger finger mitten and liner, 25-mil nuclear, 

biological and chemical (NBC) and liner 

6. M45 chemical protective mask 

7. Miscellaneous equipment (stopwatch, questionnaire) 

4.4 Procedures 

4.4.1 Training 

During the contractor-provided training session, Soldiers were introduced to the various 

components of the LW system and were trained how to use the input device to create and send 

messages, answer forms, and navigate through menus. 

4.4.2 Assessment 

Before beginning the assessment, Soldiers were given a brief explanation of the experimental 

procedures. They then donned the LW system and began the experiment. During the 

experiment, the soft keyboard was displayed on the HMD, and the text entry task was attached to 

the wall in front of the Soldier at eye level. Each Soldier used the SCU to perform the task while 

bare handed and while wearing each of the different gloves. Soldiers were instructed that 

accuracy was important and that they should correct any errors. Task completion time was 

measured in seconds. After completing the task in each condition, they completed the 

questionnaire. Following completion of the questionnaire, Soldiers donned a different glove and 

performed a different text entry task. Each of the text entry tasks consisted of 60 characters (see 

figure 2). This procedure was followed until each Soldier completed all of the glove conditions. 

In addition, three Soldiers performed the text entry task bare handed in a darkened room, bare 

handed while wearing the M45 mask, and while wearing the 25-mil NBC glove and M45 mask. 

Figure 2. Sample alphanumeric text entry task. 

4.5 Experimental Design 

4.5.1 Independent Variables 

The independent variables were the various gloves and the M45 chemical protective mask. 

4.5.2 Dependent Variables 

The dependent variables were 

fresh sweet 348 paper law going flower 9 free 7558 cat happy
14 

1. Time to complete the alphanumeric text entry task and 

2. Responses from questionnaires. 

4.5.3 Matrix 

A within-subjects design was used. Each subject was exposed to all glove conditions. The order 

of glove presentation is shown in table 2. 

Table 2. Glove presentation order. 

Soldier ID Number Glove Order 

4, 7 4 1 3 2 5 

5, 11 1 2 4 3 5 

6, 12 2 3 1 4 5 

 8 3 4 2 1 5 

1 = Bare hand 4 = Leather utility 

2 = NBC 5 = Bare hand (dark room) 

3 = Trigger finger mitten 

4.5.4 Subjective Measures 

A questionnaire was developed to obtain the Soldiers’ opinions about the physical effort required 

to use the LW input device and the ease with which they could enter text and numbers (see 

appendix D). Participants completed the questionnaire after they performed the text entry task 

for each glove condition. They were instructed to select the response that best represented their 

opinion about the input device and were encouraged to provide additional feedback or comments 

at the bottom of the questionnaire. 

4.6 Results 

4.6.1 Alphanumeric Task Completion Time 

The task completion time data was used to perform a repeated measures analysis of variance 

(ANOVA). The results showed a main effect of glove, F (4,24) = 11.28, p <.0001. Tukey’s 

honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test revealed that task completion time when the 

trigger finger mitten was worn was significantly slower than the bare hand and other glove 

conditions. Performance of the text entry task was 44.4% slower than when Soldiers were bare 

handed and wearing the 25-mil glove and 41.4% slower than with the leather utility glove. The 

trigger finger mitten accounted for approximately 68% of the variance in task completion time. 

Observations made during the evaluation indicate that when participants wore the trigger finger 

mitten, they resorted to using both hands to complete the task. Mean task completion time for 

each glove is shown in figure 3. 
15 

Figure 3. Mean completion time for text entry task. 

Three participants also performed additional trials while bare handed and wearing the M45 mask 

and while wearing the butyl rubber chemical protective gloves and M45 mask. These trials were 

not part of the original plan but were added in order to determine if the mask would impact 

performance. Because of the additional time required, only three Soldiers were available to 

participate. Since only three participants performed the additional trials, an ANOVA was not 

performed for these data. Mean task completion times for the bare hand with M45 mask and 

butyl rubber chemical protective gloves with M45 mask are 152.04 and 153.03 seconds, 

respectively. Mean completion time data for all trials are shown in appendix E. 

4.6.2 Subjective Measures 

Each Solider was given a questionnaire after he completed the text entry task for each glove 

condition. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale consisting of six statements covering 

issues of effort, fatigue, comfort, and overall usability. Question 1 addresses the ease of entering 

text while the different gloves are worn. Questions 2 through 5 address fatigue and comfort. 

Question 6 concerns the overall usability of the SCU with the gloves. Results indicate that the 

trigger finger mitten made the text entry task more difficult to perform, and participants thought 

that the SCU was more difficult to use when they wore the trigger finger mitten. Subjective 

ratings for the trials performed while Soldiers wore the mask were consistent with the no-mask 

trials, indicating that participants did not think the mask affected their performance, which is 

consistent with the objective data and additional comments noted by participants on the bottom 

of the questionnaire. Results of the questionnaire are shown in figures 4 through 9. The means 

and standard deviations for these ratings are shown in appendix F. 

Mean Task Completion Time

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Barehand NBC Trigger

Finger

Leather Utility Bare (Dark) Bare+Mask NBC+Mask

Glove Condition

Time (seconds)
16 

Question 1

Entering text and numbers was:

1= Easy 3 = Neither easy nor difficult 5 = Difficult 

0

1

2

3

4

5

 Bare Hand NBC Trigger

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

 Bare +

Mask

 NBC +

Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 4. Mean responses for question 1. 

Question 2

Physical effort required to perform task was:

1 = Too low 3 = Just right 5 = Too high

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bare Hand NBC Trigger 

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

Bare + Mask NBC + Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 5. Mean responses for question 2. 
17 

Question 3

Finger, Wrist Fatigue:

1= None 3 = Medium 5 = Very High

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bare Hand NBC Trigger

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

Bare + Mask NBC + Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 6. Mean responses for question 3. 

Question 4

Finger, Wrist Pain:

1 = None 3 = Medium 5 = Very High

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bare Hand NBC Trigger

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

Bare + Mask NBC + Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 7. Mean responses for question 4. 
18 

Question 5

General Comfort:

 1 = Very 3 = Comfortable 5 = Very

 comfortable uncomfortable 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bare Hand NBC Trigger

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

Bare + Mask NBC + Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 8. Mean responses for question 5. 

Question 6

Overall the input device was:

1 = Very easy 3 = Neither easy 5 = Very difficult

to use nor difficult to use 

to use 

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bare Hand NBC Trigger

Finger

 Leather

Utility

Bare (Dark

Room)

Bare + Mask NBC + Mask

Glove Condition

Mean Response

Figure 9. Mean responses for question 6. 
19 

4.7 Discussion 

As mentioned previously, there were three objectives of the glove compatibility assessment. The 

first was to determine the compatibility of the LW input device with various gloves worn by 

Soldiers. Objective and subjective data collected during the assessment indicate that none of the 

Soldiers had difficulties completing the text entry task while bare handed, wearing the butyl 

rubber glove or the leather utility glove. However, wearing the trigger finger mitten resulted in 

significantly slower task completion times, which indicated that thick, bulky gloves may not be 

suitable for use with wearable input devices. The thickness of the trigger finger mitten made it 

difficult for Soldiers to feel the control buttons on the input device, which resulted in the use of 

two hands to complete the text entry task. Soldiers became very frustrated while wearing the 

trigger finger mitten and commented that if they were ever in a situation that required them to 

wear the mitten and use the input device, they would remove the mitten and use their bare hands. 

Further evaluations should be conducted to determine if other types of input devices are more 

suitable for use with bulky gloves. 

The second objective was to identify any input device design considerations that impact user 

performance. The cursor control portion of the input device is a small joystick mounted in a 

shallow casing, vulnerable to dirt collection inside. During the assessment, several Soldiers 

commented that the cursor control “stuck,” which made it difficult to move the cursor around the 

screen. This is an important issue when one is considering that the input device will be exposed 

to different environmental conditions (i.e., dirt, moisture). Placing a sleeve or covering over the 

exposed areas of the input device may help alleviate dirt accumulation inside the device. 

Another alternative may be to use an input device that is fully enclosed. 

The third objective was to identify user comments and concerns regarding the LW input device. 

Subjective data obtained from participants indicate that the trigger finger mitten made it difficult 

to perform the text entry task, required more physical effort to perform the task, and resulted in 

more finger and wrist fatigue and pain than the other gloves. Overall, participants thought that 

the input device was difficult to use when they wore the trigger finger mitten. Additional 

comments from participants indicated that their hands began cramping when they wore the 

trigger finger mitten. It is interesting that a few participants thought that the physical effort 

required was too low when the NBC glove was worn. The NBC glove is made of a soft butyl 

rubber, which may have enabled the participants to get a better grip on the device, thereby 

reducing the amount of physical effort required to use the device. 

Eyestrain from looking at the HMD was another concern noted by participants. Participants also 

commented that it was difficult to see the HMD when they wore the M45 mask because the 

edges of the mask made the images on the HMD blurry. To alleviate this problem, participants 

held the HMD in place, which means that both hands were used to perform the text entry task. 

Although this was not reflected in the task completion time data, using both hands would have 

serious implications for a Soldier in a combat situation. 
20 

The results of the glove compatibility assessment indicate that the standard issue NBC and 

leather utility glove did not significantly impact task performance with the LW input device, thus 

indicating that the input device may be appropriate for the LW system. However, because of 

input device design characteristics, usage may be limited to rather benign environments and 

those that do not require bulky hand protection. Although the mask did not significantly impact 

task performance time, compatibility issues with the mask should be addressed. A better 

interface between the HMD and mask is needed. Other display technologies, such as hand-held 

displays, should be considered. 

Participants also noted that the backspace and clear buttons are situated next to each other on the 

soft keyboard. One participant indicated that he inadvertently pressed the clear button instead of 

the backspace button and lost all the text that had been entered. Participants suggested that the 

backspace and clear buttons should be situated on opposite sides of the soft keyboard. 

4.8 Recommendations 

1. Reposition delete and backspace keys on soft keyboard so that they are not next to each 

other. 

2. The mouse input device should be modified (i.e., a collar should be placed around the 

device) to alleviate problem of dirt accumulation. Alternate input devices should also be 

investigated. 

3. The HMD should be modified so that it rests against the lens of a chemical protective 

mask. HMDs that offer better resolution may help alleviate eyestrain. Other display 

technologies, such as hand-held displays, should be investigated as alternatives to the 

HMD. 

5. Shooting Performance Assessment 

5.1 Objectives 

The objectives of the shooting performance assessment were to 

1. Determine the ability of the LW Soldier to accurately aim and fire weapons in day and 

night conditions. 

2. Determine the ability of the Soldier to aim and fire the weapon using the LW DVS camera 

or thermal sight when viewed through the HMD. 

3. Determine if there are any compatibility issues between the LW system and the M4 carbine 

or M249 SAW systems. 
21 

5.2 Apparatus 

1. LW System version 1.0 

2. M4 carbine 

3. M249 SAW 

4. M68 reflex sight, also called the CCO 

5. DVS 

6. M145 machine gun optic 

7. Medium thermal weapon sight (MTWS) 

8. MTWS (Omni version) 

5.3 Procedures 

5.3.1 Training 

All Soldiers had previously qualified for all weapons that they shot during this assessment. 

Soldiers received one day of weapon training and range familiarization. This training was 

conducted by Omega Training Group, Inc. 

5.3.2 Experimental Trials 

Before beginning the assessment, Soldiers were given a brief explanation of the experimental 

procedures. The weapons were boresighted and “zeroed” by the Soldiers. A common zero was 

used since individual differences in CCO zero and DVS zero are thought to be minimal and 

should not affect performance for the ranges examined. They then donned the LW system and 

began the experiment. Soldiers received one training trial with every weapon before starting the 

experimental trials. 

5.3.2.1 M4 Daylight Firing. Twelve Soldiers participated in the M4 daylight firing assessment. 

Soldiers used the M4 with the M68 reflex sight and the DVS viewed on the HMD, to fire at 

targets at ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters. These targets had exposure times of 

3, 5, and 8 seconds. Soldiers fired an 18-target scenario from the standing unsupported, kneeling 

unsupported, foxhole supported, and prone unsupported firing positions. 

5.3.2.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing. Eight Soldiers participated in the M4 reduced exposure 

firing assessment. Soldiers used the M4 with the DVS viewed on the HMD, to fire at targets at 

ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters. These targets had exposure times of 8, 12, and 

16 seconds. Soldiers fired the weapons from behind a wall in both the standing and kneeling 

firing positions. Soldiers fired around the left side of the wall, right side of the wall, and over the 

top of the wall while trying to expose as little of their bodies as possible. Soldiers were given a 
22 

full 30-round magazine and fired at an 18-target scenario. Soldiers were allowed to fire more 

than one round at a single target. 

5.3.2.3 M4 Night Firing. Eight Soldiers participated in the M4 night firing assessment. Soldiers 

used the M4 with the MTWS directly and the MTWS viewed on the HMD, to fire at targets at 

ranges of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters. These targets had exposure times of 5 and 8 

seconds. Soldiers fired from the standing unsupported and foxhole supported firing positions. 

Soldiers were given a full 30-round magazine and fired at an 18-target scenario. Soldiers were 

allowed to fire more than one round at a single target. The targets were heated to provide 

realistic thermal signatures. 

5.3.2.4 M249 Day Firing. Three Soldiers participated in the M249 daylight firing assessment. 

Soldiers used the M249 SAW with the M145 machine gun optic and the DVS viewed on the 

HMD, to fire at targets at ranges of 200, 300, 400, and 500 meters. These targets had exposure 

times of 6, 8, and 10 seconds. Soldiers fired from the foxhole and prone firing positions. 

Soldiers were given a 200-round belt and fired at a 12-target scenario. 

5.3.2.5 M249 Night Firing. Three Soldiers participated in the M249 night firing assessment. 

Soldiers used the M249 SAW with the MTWS (Omni version) viewed directly and on the HMD, 

to fire at targets at ranges of 200, 300, 400, and 500 meters. These targets had exposure times of 

6, 8, and 10 seconds. Soldiers fired from the foxhole and prone firing positions. Soldiers were 

given a 200-round belt and fired at a 12-target scenario. This assessment was performed during 

the day with the electrically heated targets. The Soldier’s non-aiming eye was covered to require 

the Soldier to use the thermal sight to acquire and aim at targets. 

5.4 Experimental Design 

5.4.1 Independent Variables 

5.4.1.1 M4 Daylight Firing. The independent variables were weapon sight (CCO and DVS), 

firing position (standing unsupported, kneeling unsupported, foxhole supported, and prone 

unsupported), target exposure time (3, 5, and 8 seconds), and range (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 

300 meters). 

5.4.1.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing. The independent variables were firing position (standing 

and kneeling), weapon position (left side of wall, right side of wall, over top of wall), target 

exposure time (8, 12, and 16 seconds), and target range (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters). 

5.4.1.3 M4 Night Firing. The independent variables were weapon sight (MTWS direct view and 

MTWS shown on the HMD), firing position (foxhole supported and standing unsupported), 

target exposure time (5 and 8 seconds), and target range (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 

meters). 
23 

5.4.1.4 M249 Day Firing. The independent variables were weapon sight sight (DVS and M145), 

firing position (foxhole supported and prone unsupported), target exposure time (6, 8, and 10 

seconds), and target range (200, 300, 400, and 500 meters). 

5.4.1.5 M249 Night Firing. The independent variables were weapon sight (MTWS direct view 

and MTWS) shown on the HMD), firing position (foxhole supported and prone unsupported), 

target exposure time (6, 8, and 10 seconds), and target range (200, 300, 400, and 500 meters). 

5.4.2 Dependent Variables 

The dependent variable for each of the shooting assessments was target hit percentage (targets hit 

divided by targets presented). 

5.4.3 Evaluation Matrix 

For each evaluation, a repeated measures design was used to expose each subject to each 

condition. The presentation of the conditions was counterbalanced to reduce any practice or 

order effects. 

5.5 Results 

Mean shooting data are presented in appendix G. 

5.5.1 M4 Daylight Firing 

In the M4 daylight firing conditions, the mean overall hit percentage was 50%. The mean hit 

percentage was 59% with the M68 reflex sight and 40% with the DVS. The hit percentage data 

were used to perform a repeated measures ANOVA. The results showed that the hit rate for the 

M68 reflex sight was significantly (F 1,11 = 39.2 p <.0001) higher than for the DVS. 

The mean hit percentage for each firing position is shown in figure 10. An ANOVA showed 

significant differences (F 1,11 = 39.2 p <.0001) between the different firing positions. Post hoc

Scheffé tests revealed that the hit percentages in the foxhole and prone firing positions were 

significantly higher than in the standing firing position. Also, hit percentages in the foxhole 

firing position were significantly higher than in the kneeling position. 

The mean hit percentage data for the Sight x Exposure Time interaction is presented in figure 11. 

A significant Sight x Exposure Time interaction was found on the hit percentage data (F 2,22 = 

8.05 p =.002). Post hoc Scheffé tests showed that the hit percentage difference between sights 

was greater for the 3-second targets than for the targets with longer exposure times. 

The mean Sight x Target Range interaction for hit percentage data is shown in figure 12. The 

ANOVA failed to show a significant effect for this interaction. 
24 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Standing Kneeling Foxhole Prone

Firing Position

Hit Percentage

Figure 10. Hit percentage for each firing position for M4 daylight firing. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

358

Exposure Time (s)

Hit Percentage

M68

DVS

Figure 11. Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction for M4 daylight hit percentage data. 
25 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 100 150 200 250 300

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

M68

DVS

Figure 12. Sight x Target Range interaction for M4 daylight hit percentage data. 

(This effect failed to reach significance at the .05 level.) 

5.5.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing 

In the M4 reduced exposure firing conditions, the mean overall hit percentage was 36%. The 

mean hit percentage was 38% in the standing firing position and 34% in the kneeling firing 

position. The mean hit percentages for weapon position (right side, left side, overhead) and 

firing position are presented in figure 13. Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on the 

hit data. The main effects of firing position and weapon position failed to reach significance. 

The ANOVA on reduced exposure firing hit data showed a significant interaction effect of 

Target Exposure Time x Range (F 10,70 = 3.58 p <.01) and is shown in figure 14. The main 

effects of target exposure time (F 2,14 = 33.4 p <.0001) and target range (F 5,35 = 37.1 

p <.0001) were also significant. 
26 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Left Overhead Right

Weapon Position

Hit Percentage

Standing

Kneeling

Figure 13. Firing Position x Weapon Position interaction on hit percentage for reduced exposure firing. 

(This effect failed to reach significance at the .05 level.) 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

50 100 150 200 250 300

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

8 Seconds

12 Seconds

16 Seconds

Figure 14. Significant Target Range x Target Exposure Time interaction on hit percentage 

for reduced exposure firing. 
27 

5.5.3 M4 Night Firing 

In the M4 night firing conditions, the mean overall hit percentage was 24%. The mean hit 

percentage was 36% with the MTWS and 12% with the MTWS shown on the HMD. The hit 

percentage data were used to perform a repeated measures ANOVA. The results showed that the 

hit rate for the MTWS direct view was significantly (F 1,6 = 13.8 p =.01) higher than for the 

MTWS shown on the HMD. 

The ANOVA on M4 night hit data showed a significant interaction effect of Target Exposure 

Time x Range (F 5,30 = 8.56 p <.0001) and are shown in figure 15. The main effects of target 

exposure time (F 1,6 = 50.7 p <.0001) and target range (F 5,30 = 27.2 p <.0001) were also 

significant. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

50 100 150 200 250 300

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

5 Seconds

8 Seconds

Figure 15. Significant Target Range x Target Exposure Time interaction on hit percentage for M4 night 

firing. 

An ANOVA on M4 night hit data also showed a significant interaction effect of Sight x Range 

(F 5,30 = 3.49 p =.013) and is shown in figure 16. 
28 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50 100 150 200 250 300

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

MTWS Direct

MTWS Through HMD

Figure 16. Significant Sight x Target Range interaction on hit percentage for M4 night firing. 

5.5.4 M249 Day Firing 

In the M249 day firing conditions, the mean overall hit percentage was 38%. The mean hit 

percentage was 47% with the M145 machine gun optic and 28% with the DVS shown on the 

HMD. Since there were only three subjects in these trials, ANOVAs were not performed for 

these data. The Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction for hit percentage data is presented in 

figure 17, and the Sight x Range interaction for mean hit data is provided in figure 18. 
29 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6 8 10

Target Exposure Time

Hit Percentage

DVS

M145

Figure 17. M249 day firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

200 300 400 500

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

DVS

M145

Figure 18. M249 day firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Range interaction. 

(s) 
30 

5.5.5 M249 Night Firing 

In the M249 night firing conditions, the mean overall hit percentage was 41%. The mean hit 

percentage was 46% with the MTWS direct view and 36% with the MTWS through the HMD. 

Since there were only three subjects in these trials, ANOVAs were not performed for these data. 

The Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction for hit percentage data is presented in figure 19, 

and the Sight x Range interaction for hit percentage data is provided in figure 20. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

200 300 400 500

Target Range (meters)

Hit Percentage

MTWS Direct

MTWS Through HMD

Figure 19. M249 night firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Range interaction. 
31 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6 8 10

Target Exposure Time (s)

Hit Percentage

MTWS Direct

MTWS Through HMD

Figure 20. M249 night firing mean hit percentages for Sight x Target Exposure Time interaction. 

5.6 Discussion 

In general, Soldiers performed better when using current equipment than when firing with the 

HMD to acquire and aim at targets. The reasons for the differences may be different for the 

different evaluations. In the day firing evaluations, the loss of field of view (FOV), resolution, 

and contrast when a camera system was used may have affected the performance. In the night 

evaluations, the loss of image quality for the HMD viewed systems or the fact that Soldiers are 

not as familiar with off-bore firing may have contributed to the degraded performance. 

5.6.1 M4 Daylight Firing 

The M4 day firing data show that Soldiers performed better when firing with the M68 reflex 

sight than when firing with the DVS. This difference is greatest at the shortest target exposure 

time. This decrease in performance when the DVS was used is not unexpected for these ranges. 

Acquiring targets through a sensor with a small FOV will take Soldiers longer. The resolution 

loss of viewing through a camera system may also affect performance. 

5.6.2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing 

The reduced exposure firing assessment was used to demonstrate a capability. Soldiers were 

able to hit targets when viewing through a camera system and without exposing much of their 

bodies. The data also showed that there was no difference in where Soldiers held the weapon 
32 

(right side of wall, left side of wall, or over the top of the wall). The overall hit percentage for 

targets from 50 to 300 meters was 36%. The analyses also showed that to hit these targets, 

Soldiers needed a significant amount of time and the targets had to be relatively close. Soldiers 

performed much better for the 12- and 16-second target exposures than for the 8-second 

exposure targets. This would suggest that the time to acquire, aim, and fire at targets takes 

longer than 8 seconds in many cases. 

One safety issue was noted during firing in the reduced exposure assessment. When Soldiers 

fired around the left side of the wall, the ejected cartridges occasionally flew back toward their 

faces. 

5.6.3 M4 Night Firing 

In the M4 night firing assessment, Soldiers had much more difficulty firing with the thermal 

image presented on the HMD than when they looked into the MTWS. This may have been 

attributable to some problems with the “video out” on the MTWS. The image presented to the 

HMD was not nearly as good as seen when one looked directly into the MTWS. 

5.6.4 M4 Day Firing 

In the M249 day firing assessment, Soldiers performed better when using the M145 machine gun 

optic than when they used the DVS, particularly at the shorter target exposure times. The direct 

view optic of the M145 may have provided a clearer picture, allowing for easier target 

acquisition. 

5.6.5 M249 Night Firing 

In the M249 night firing assessment, Soldiers performed better when using the MTWS in the 

direct view mode than when the image was viewed on the HMD. In this assessment, the 

problems of the MTWS output to the HMD had been resolved and the image on the HMD 

looked very similar to that shown on the MTWS display. The MTWS Omni version was used in 

this assessment. 

5.7 Recommendations 

Future work should be conducted to determine if the degradation in performance when Soldiers 

fired through the HMD is attributable to resolution, limited FOV, image contrast, limited training 

and experience, or a disconnection between the aiming of the weapon system and the movement 

of the images in the HMD. 
33 

6. Weapon Compatibility Assessment 

6.1 Objectives 

The objective of the weapon compatibility assessment was to determine the ability of the Soldier 

to hold, aim, control, and operate various weapon systems while wearing the LW system 

including the BALCS and assault pack. 

6.2 Apparatus 

1. LW system, version 1.0 

2. BALCS with detachable neck protector 

3. Assault pack 

4. Fighting load carrier (FLC) 

5. M4 carbine with and without M203 

6. M249 SAW 

7. M68 reflex sight, also called CCO 

8. DVS 

9. M145 machine gun optic 

10. MTWS 

6.3 Procedures 

6.3.1 Training 

All Soldiers had previously qualified on all weapons used during this assessment. 

6.3.2 Experimental Trials 

Before beginning the assessment, Soldiers were given a brief explanation of the procedures. Six 

Soldiers were selected to participate in this assessment. Two Soldiers were configured as 

riflemen (with M4 carbine), two Soldiers as grenadiers (with M4 carbine and M203), and two 

Soldiers as M249 gunners (with M249 SAW). Soldiers in each of these configurations evaluated 

all four different LW clothing conditions. Soldiers wore the LW with the FLC; LW with FLC 

and BALCS body armor (including detachable neck protector); LW with FLC, BALCS, and 

assault pack; and LW with FLC and assault pack. Once configured, Soldiers assumed a 

standing, kneeling, and prone firing position using iron sights, M68 reflex sight, M145 machine 

gun optic, MTWS, or DVS. The Soldier then determined if he could properly hold the weapon, 
34 

aim the weapon, and operate the weapon and LW system. Evaluators noted comments made by 

the Soldiers and took photographs to document issues that were discovered. 

6.4 Results 

The raw comments collected in the weapon compatibility assessment are presented in 

appendix H. In the rifleman configuration, most of the Soldiers’ comments were made when 

they wore the BALCS or used the MTWS. The issues noted with the MTWS were problems in 

opening the eyecup. Soldiers often had to place the spectacles against the eyecup several times 

before they could see the full FOV of the MTWS. Even in the standing firing position, Soldiers 

sometimes had to move the buttstock up on their shoulder to get the eyecup in the right position 

to open (see figure 21). Opening the MTWS eyecup was difficult when Soldiers were in the 

prone firing position and even more difficult when they were prone with the BALCS system. 

Generally, the BALCS interfered with the helmet, forcing the helmet and head downward (see 

figure 22). The addition of the assault pack further reduced head movement and added to the 

difficulty in getting a sight picture with iron sights, M68, or MTWS. When Soldiers wore the 

BALCS and assault pack in the prone firing position, using the DVS and viewing through the 

HMD was almost the only way to fire since the head was pushed down so far, the Soldier could 

not lift his head high enough to see the target (see figure 23). Soldiers had some difficulty 

getting the buttstock in the correct position when the assault pack or BALCS was worn. 

Figure 21. Soldier raising buttstock to get MTWS eyecup in correct position to open. 
35 

Figure 22. BALCS pushes helmet and head forward. 

Figure 23. BALCS and assault pack force head down and prohibit Soldier from aiming weapon at target. 
36 

For the grenadier configuration, most comments concerned the BALCS in the prone firing 

position, which did not allow the head to tilt back to obtain a view of the target. The MTWS 

eyecup was difficult to use in all conditions but much more difficult in the prone position with 

the BALCS. The problem with the BALCS was even worse when the assault pack was added. 

One Soldier stated that the DVS might be in the way slightly for loading the M203 round. Also, 

the zoom wheel for the DVS was not conveniently located and caused Soldiers to move their 

hands from the normal position on the forestock to operate it (see figure 24). Occasionally, the 

sling got in front of the DVS and obscured the view of the DVS (see figure 25). Soldiers also 

had some problems getting a good buttstock position when the BALCS or assault pack was 

added. 

Figure 24. Zoom wheel in grenadier configuration is difficult to access in normal firing position. 

For the SAW gunner configuration, there were many of the same comments as the other 

conditions. Again, the Soldiers had difficulty with the MTWS eye cup (see figure 26). Soldiers 

also had difficulty raising their heads to fire when they wore the BALCS or BALCS with assault 

pack. In the iron sight mode, the cable retainer clips for the MTWS were in the visual path (see 

figure 27). Soldiers had to remove the cable before they could fire with the iron sights. When 

using the DVS, Soldiers must take their left hands away from the normal firing position (holding 

buttstock) to operate the user interface device (UID) (see figure 28). 
37 

Figure 25. Sling obscuring view through DVS in grenadier configuration. 

Figure 26. M249 gunner having difficulty opening MTWS eyecup. 
38 

Figure 27. For the M249, when Soldiers switched from the MTWS to iron sights, the retainer clips for the 

MTWS obstructed the view. 

Figure 28. For the M249, Soldiers have to reach to pistol grip to access UID. 
39 

6.5 Discussion 

Most of the compatibility issues of the LW system and the weapon systems were attributable to 

the interference of the BALCS and assault pack with the helmet and the difficulty opening the 

MTWS eyecup. In many cases in the prone firing position, the interference between the BALCS, 

assault pack, and the helmet prohibited the Soldier from sighting the weapon on the target. The 

eyecup on the MTWS was difficult to use in most firing positions. Soldiers often had to push the 

spectacles against the eyecup 3 or 4 times in order to get the full image. This problem was more 

pronounced in the prone firing position. 

The buttstock positions of the weapons were also affected by the BALCS and the assault pack. 

As more straps and body armor cover the shoulder area, it becomes more difficult to find a place 

where the buttstock will seat properly. The buttstock tends to move out on the shoulder or higher 

on the shoulder with the addition of the body armor and straps. 

In several cases, the LW controls required the subjects to move their hands from their normal 

weapon firing positions. For the M249, the UID is on the pistol grip on the forestock. Most 

M249 gunners put their hands on the buttstock of the weapon. In this case, they must move their 

hands to the front of the weapon to access the controls. For the grenadier, the zoom wheel is 

situated in a position that is a difficult to reach from a normal forestock hand position. 

6.6 Recommendations 

Body armor and helmet interference in the prone firing position has been a problem for several 

body armor systems. Research and design work to solve this problem without eliminating 

adequate ballistic protection is needed. 

7. Mobility Evaluation 

7.1 Objectives 

The objectives of the mobility assessment were to determine if there are any gross mobility 

issues with the LW system and to identify human factors and safety issues with the system. 

7.2 Apparatus 

1. LW system version 1.0 

2. BALCS with detachable neck protector 

3. M4 carbine 

4. M4 carbine with M203 

5. M249 SAW 
40 

6. Mobility and portability course (known distance range) 

7.3 Procedures 

7.3.1 Training 

Soldiers received training in the proper way to negotiate each obstacle. Soldiers walked the 

course and negotiated obstacles before they ran in the evaluation conditions. 

7.3.2 Experimental Trials 

Twelve Soldiers participated in this assessment. Four Soldiers were configured as riflemen, four 

Soldiers as grenadiers, and four Soldiers as M249 SAW gunners. In the first trial, Soldiers wore 

only their BDUs. In the second trial, Soldiers wore their BDUs and the LW System. In the third 

trial, Soldiers wore their BDUs, LW system, and the BALCS with plate inserts. The Soldiers 

were instructed to complete the obstacle course as fast as they safely could. Soldiers were given 

a 30-minute rest break between obstacle course runs. 

7.4 Results 

Mean completion time data are presented in appendix I. The total course time data were 

analyzed to determine if the different ensembles affected the Soldiers’ ability to quickly 

negotiate the course. The mean overall time to negotiate the obstacle course was 416.7 seconds. 

The mean course completion time was 245.7 seconds for the BDU condition, 444.6 seconds for 

the BDU and LW condition, and 559.8 seconds for the BDU, LW, and BALCS condition. An 

ANOVA was performed on the total course time data. The results showed that there was a 

statistically significant difference in course completion time between the three conditions (F 1,11 

= 129.1 p <.001). Figure 29 shows the mean course completion times for these conditions. 

Figure 30 shows the mean course completion times for the different ensembles for the rifleman, 

grenadier, and SAW gunner squad positions. 

Notes were taken regarding any difficulties that Soldiers had in negotiating the course in LW 

equipment. The following is a list of issues that were reported by the Soldiers or noticed by the 

evaluators during these trials. Notes were not taken during the BDU-only condition. The notes 

for the LW condition are presented in table 3, and the notes for the LW condition with the 

BALCS are presented in table 4. 
41 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BDU Land Warrior LAND WARRIOR & BALCS

Clothing Ensemble

Obstacle Course Completion Time (s)

Figure 29. Mean obstacle course completion times for Soldiers wearing the BDU, LW, and LW with 

BALCS ensembles. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Rifleman Grenadier SAW Gunner

Squad Position

Obstacle Course Completion Time (s)

BDU

Land Warrior

LAND WARRIOR & BALCS

Figure 30. Mean obstacle course completion times for the rifleman, grenadier, and SAW gunner in 

BDU, LW, and LW with BALCS ensembles. 
42 

Table 3. Land warrior system. 

TP1 Rifleman Wire hung up on last obstacle. Soldier reported that cable to weapon shortened 

arm strides. Also felt that head movement was restricted. 

TP2 SAW Gunner Soldier reported that cables got hung up when slinging and unslinging M249 

TP3 Grenadier Soldier reported that helmet keeps hitting things because it is taller than he is 

used to. He said helmet is top heavy and sling is very restrictive. 

TP4 SAW Gunner Soldier reported that the system was heavy and the weapon cable got caught up 

in sling. SAW ammunition got caught on obstacle 13. 

TP5 Rifleman Soldier reported that the helmet wasn’t tightened properly and it gave him 

problems. 

TP6 SAW Gunner Soldier reported no problems. 

TP7 Rifleman Lost DVS cap. Soldier reported he couldn’t get weapon behind back enough to 

get over walls because of sling. 

TP8 Grenadier Ammunition pouch snagged on obstacles 13 and 16. Female portion of buckle 

on 40-mm round leg ammunition holder broke on wall (16) 

TP9 Rifleman Soldier reported that sling allowed weapon to hit him in the crotch. Helmet 

was too big and kept sliding down, reducing vision. 

TP10 SAW Gunner Soldier reported that weapon cord got tangled in his legs when going through 

windows. Soldier reported that sling was too short for weapon. Bipod legs 

kept coming out (low crawl and net). 

TP11 Grenadier Soldier reported that sling was bad. Soldier said it couldn’t be adjusted 

correctly and takes too much time to adjust. 

TP12 Grenadier Soldier reported that the system was heavy, normal load-bearing equipment 

(LBE) much lighter. Said that sling was not good. The 40-mm leg 

ammunition holder slid around. SCU hung up on net. 

Table 4. Land warrior system and BALCS with plates. 

TP1 Rifleman Soldier slipped on low window. Soldier tired. 

TP2 SAW Gunner Soldier reported difficulty getting over cargo net obstacle. Soldier said system 

was too bulky. Chin strap kept unbuckling. 

TP3 Grenadier Soldier reported that he hates all the wires. Weapon cable kept catching. Kept 

hitting top of helmet on things because it is higher than he expects. Getting 

over cargo net is difficult, SCU and upper 40-mm holder gets in way. 

TP4 SAW Gunner Weapon cable tangled in weapon. Soldier reported that sling is no good. 

TP5 Rifleman Soldier reported that getting over cargo net is difficult. BALCS has no 

flexibility. Hard to bend body to get over the top. 

TP6 SAW Gunner Soldier reported that sling caused problems and that he got his foot caught in 

weapon cable on the over-under obstacle. 

TP7 Rifleman Soldier reported that the system is bulky and it makes it difficult to get through 

obstacles. He said that it is hard to jump with all the weight. The bulk of the 

system forces you away from walls and makes it difficult to throw leg over. 

TP8 Grenadier Soldier reported that he couldn’t be effective; too much stuff. Soldier said that 

SCU snags on top of net and the BALCS is not flexible. 

TP9 Rifleman Helmet quick release was snapped around sling. Soldier reported that the 

helmet was not properly sized. 

TP10 SAW Gunner Soldier reported that the BALCS was bulky. Computer and net boxes catch on 

things. Mouse joystick broke off. 

TP11 Grenadier Soldier reported sling problems; can’t put weapon behind him. 

TP12 Grenadier Soldier reported that he had to unhook 40-mm holder leg strap to get over 

cargo net. Soldier reported that the SCU was catching on obstacles. Soldier 

thought SCU should not be in location where it will catch on things. 
43 

7.5 Discussion 

As expected, as the load increased from BDU to LW to LW with BALCS, so did the time to 

negotiate the course. Also, the mean time to complete the course was shortest for the rifleman, 

slightly longer for the grenadier, and longest for the SAW gunner. This outcome was also 

expected because of the increased load that the grenadier and SAW gunner Soldiers are required 

to carry. 

7.6 Recommendations 

Several aspects of the system seemed to be problematic and need additional design work. The 

cable between the body and the weapon was prone to snagging and was generally disliked by the 

Soldiers. Possibly a lighter cable or wireless connection would be a better solution. The SCU 

mounted on the chest tended to snag on obstacles. A lower profile unit or moving the unit higher 

on the chest might reduce interference and breakage. The bulkiness of the BALCS system also 

caused many problems with mobility and slowed the Soldier. This is not uncommon for body 

armor systems. Research into flexible and lighter body armor could greatly increase the mobility 

of the dismounted Soldier. 

8. Range of Motion Assessment 

8.1 Objectives 

The objective of this assessment was to examine Soldier ROM (with goniometric measurements 

from 15 different joint motions) when four equipment configurations were worn: 

1. BDU (baseline), 

2. BDU with LW rifleman LBE, 

3. BDU with LBE and BALCS, and 

4. BDU with LBE and JSLIST. 

A complete description of the LBE, BALCS, and JSLIST is provided in appendix J. 

8.2 Participants 

All 12 Soldiers recruited from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, were used in this 

assessment. 

8.3 Apparatus 

1. Two 360-degree metal goniometers 

2. LW LBE 
44 

3. BALCS body armor vests 

4. JSLIST coats and trousers 

5. SPEAR MICH with HMD 

6. Soldiers’ own BDUs 

7. Soldiers’ own M45 masks 

8.4 Procedures 

8.4.1 Goniometry 

The available ROM at a specific joint can be determined through goniometric measures (Norkin 

and White, 1985). These measurements are obtained with a device known as a goniometer. A 

goniometer can be constructed from plastic or metal and typically consists of a protractor-like 

body, a stationary arm and a moving arm. A measuring scale, situated on the body of the 

goniometer, reads from 0 to 180 degrees or from 0 to 360 degrees, depending on the type of 

goniometer used. The type of goniometer used in this study is shown in figure 31. 

Figure 31. 360-degree stainless steel goniometer. 

In goniometry, readings are first taken at the starting position (usually anatomic position or 0 

degrees) and again at the ending position of joint motion in one of the three cardinal planes 

(sagittal, frontal, or transverse) about the three corresponding axes (transverse, anterior-posterior, 

and longitudinal). The planes of motion and axes of rotation are diagramed in figure 32. 

Motions are generally described in terms of the directions shown in figure 33. During 

goniometric measurements, the body of the goniometer is placed near the joint center, while the 

stationary and moving arms are generally aligned with the longitudinal axes of the proximal and 

distal portions of the joint, respectively. The corresponding joint position is then read from the 

scale on the body of the goniometer. 

Stationary Arm

Moving Arm

Body
45 

Figure 32. Planes of motion and axes of rotation. 

Figure 33. Directions of motion. 

Transverse axis

Frontal plane 

Sagittal plane Longitudinal axis 

Transverse plane 

 Anterioposterior axis 

 Posterior Anterior 

Medial 

Lateral 

Medial

Lateral 

Inferior 

Superior Proximal 

 Distal 
46 

8.4.2 Assessment 

The effects of four equipment configurations on total ROM were assessed for 15 joint motions. 

With the exception of head rotation and head lateral bending, all measurements were made on 

the right side of the body only. For each participant, three successive measurements of starting 

and ending position were recorded for each of the possible joint motion-equipment configuration 

combinations. Total ROM (end position minus start position) was then calculated for each of the 

three successive measurements of each possible joint motion-equipment configuration 

combination and averaged. In order to reduce inter-investigator error, the same investigator 

measured the same motions over all four equipment configurations. The measuring procedures 

used for each of the 13 joint motions are outlined in appendix K. Average ROM values given in 

appendix K are those reported by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1965). 

Means and standard deviations for total ROM were calculated for each joint motion-equipment 

configuration combination. In order to identify statistically significant differences between the 

four equipment configurations, a univariate ANOVA was performed on the total ROM values 

calculated for each motion. For those motions found to be significantly affected by equipment 

configuration, a Tukey HSD post hoc test was additionally performed to identify differences 

between specific equipment configuration means. All statistical analyses were performed at a 

significance level of 0.05 with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 10.1 for 

Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). 

8.5 Experimental Design 

8.5.1 Independent Variables 

The independent variables were the four equipment configurations: BDU only, BDU with LBE, 

BDU with LBE and BALCS, and BDU with LBE and JSLIST. 

8.5.2 Dependent Variables 

The dependent variables were total range of motion (in degrees) for head flexion, extension, 

rotation left, rotation right, lateral bending left and lateral bending right; shoulder flexion, 

extension, abduction and adduction; upper arm abduction; hip extension and flexion; and 

standing trunk flexion and extension (15 total dependent variables). 

8.5.3 Evaluation Matrix 

A within-subjects design was used so that each Soldier was exposed to each of the four 

equipment configurations. To reduce order effects, equipment configurations were presented to 

the Soldiers according to a counterbalancing scheme. 

8.6 Results 

Mean total ROM values and results of the statistical analyses are presented in table 5. A 

statistically significant effect of equipment configuration on Soldier ROM was identified for all 
47 

measured joint motions except standing trunk flexion and standing trunk extension. Total ROM 

under the BDU and LBE with JSLIST configuration was found to be significantly less than that 

under the BDU (baseline) configuration for all joint motions except head lateral bending to the 

right; significantly less than that under the BDU and LBE configuration for all joint motions 

except head flexion, shoulder adduction and hip extension; and significantly less than that under 

the BDU and LBE with BALCS configuration for hip extension and all of the head motions, with 

the exception of head lateral bending to the right. Under the BDU and LBE with BALCS 

configuration, total ROM was found to be significantly less than that under the BDU (baseline) 

configuration for left and right head rotation, all the upper body motions, and hip flexion and 

extension; significantly less than that under the BDU and LBE configuration for all the upper 

body motions and hip extension; and significantly less than that under the BDU and LBE with 

JSLIST configuration for shoulder adduction. Head rotation left, shoulder abduction and 

adduction, upper arm abduction, and hip flexion total ROM values under the BDU and LBE 

configuration were also found to be significantly less than under the BDU (baseline) 

configuration. 

Table 5. Mean total ROM for 13 joint motions (in degrees). 

Equipment Configuration 

Measurement 

BDU BDU 

and LBE 

BDU and LBE 

with BALCS 

BDU and LBE 

with JSLIST 

Head Flexion 59 (13) 51 (9) 55 (9) 43 (11) α γ

Head Extension 50 (10) 49 (8) 46 (11) 34 (7) α β γ

Head Rotation- Left 75 (13) 65 (9) α 62 (10) α 47 (12) α β γ

Head Rotation- Right 69 (10) 63 (8) 62 (7) α 46 (12) α β γ

Head Lateral Bending- Left 43 (8) 43 (6) 41 (6) 35 (5) α β γ

Head Lateral Bending- Right 40 (6) 43 (5) 41 (6) 36 (6) β

Shoulder Flexion 148 (13) 140 (8) 121 (12) α β 121 (12) α β

Shoulder Extension 51 (10) 49 (6) 42 (7) α β 39 (4) α β

Shoulder Abduction 139 (17) 112 (13) α 88 (15) α β 89 (13) α β

Shoulder Adduction 51 (9) 40 (7) α 27 (9) α β δ 36 (7) α

Upper Arm Abduction 143 (18) 115 (16) α 91 (15) α β 91 (17) α β

Hip Flexion 91 (10) 80 (13) α 79 (11) α 67 (10) α β γ

Hip Extension 40 (7) 38 (9) 32 (6) α β 33 (6) α

Standing Trunk Flexion 52 (17) 52 (12) 53 (12) 51 (11) 

Standing Trunk Extension 33 (11) 32 (9) 28 (8) 27 (8) 

Note: values given as mean (s.d.) α

 significantly less than BDU configuration mean (Tukey HSD, p<0.05) 

β

 significantly less than BDU and LBE configuration mean (Tukey HSD, p<0.05) γ

 significantly less than BDU and LBE with BALCS configuration mean (Tukey HSD, p<0.05) δ

 significantly less than BDU and LBE with JSLIST configuration mean (Tukey LSD, p<0.05) 
48 

8.7 Discussion 

The objective of this study was to identify equipment effects on Soldier ROM. Of the 15 joint 

motions examined, 13 were significantly affected by equipment configuration. The BDU and 

LBE with JSLIST configuration appeared to place the most restrictions on Soldier ROM, with 

total ROM values for 13 of the joint motions being significantly lower than those of the BDU 

(baseline) configuration. Total ROM values for nine of the joint motions under the BDU and 

LBE with BALCS configuration were found to be significantly less than those of the (BDU) 

baseline configuration, making it the next most restrictive. With only five total ROM values 

being significantly lower than those of the BDU (baseline) configuration, BDU and LBE was the 

least restrictive configuration. 

Under the BDU and LBE with JSLIST configuration, those total ROM values found to be 

significantly affected by equipment configuration were 18% to 37% less than corresponding 

values under the BDU (baseline) configuration. Head motions under the BDU and LBE with 

JSLIST configuration were observed to be primarily restricted by the hood of the JSLIST jacket, 

but the canister of the mask was found to interfere as well, contacting the subject’s upper torso 

during head flexion. Reduction in total ROM for all the upper body motions, as well as hip 

flexion and extension, appeared to result from a lack of stretch in the garment’s fabric. The 

bulkiness of the jacket fabric also contributed to the reduced total ROM for shoulder abduction 

and upper arm abduction, forcing the arm out and away from the body to a starting position value 

of approximately 25 degrees. 

In comparison to total ROM values obtained under the BDU (baseline) configuration, 

significantly reduced values under the BDU and LBE with BALCS configuration were 17% to 

47% less. Based on observation, reduction in total ROM values for the upper body motions can 

primarily be attributed to the bulkiness and lack of flexibility of the plates and vest that comprise 

the body armor. Shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were also restricted by the 

shoulder straps of the LBE. Grenade and ammunition pouches on the front of the LBE also 

contributed to reduction in shoulder adduction total ROM. As with the BDU and LBE with 

JSLIST configuration, total ROM values for shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were 

additionally reduced because of an increased starting position value (approximately 25 degrees). 

This increased starting position value was observed to result from the arm being forced out and 

away from the body by the bulkiness of the body armor and a general purpose pouch on the side 

of the LBE. 

With respect to the total ROM values obtained under the BDU and LBE configuration, those 

found to be significantly affected by equipment configuration were 19% to 22% less than 

corresponding values obtained under the BDU (baseline) configuration. As with the BDU and 

LBE with BALCS configuration, shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction were observed to 

be restricted by the shoulder straps of the LBE, and shoulder adduction was observed to be 

restricted by the grenade and ammunition pouches. Shoulder abduction and upper arm abduction 
49 

total ROM were also reduced as a result of the general purpose pouch on the LBE forcing the 

arm out and away from the body, increasing the starting position value to around 21 degrees. 

Based on the results of this study, it appears that Soldier equipment can significantly affect 

dismounted warrior ROM for head, upper body, and lower body motions. Of the three types of 

joint motions examined, upper body motions appear to be most affected by equipment 

configuration. This is notable in that many Soldier tasks require use of the upper extremities, 

and any restriction in ROM might lead to degradation in performance of those tasks. The 

degradation observed in head motion ROM could potentially result in reduced situational 

awareness with respect to the Soldier’s immediate surroundings. Further investigation to better 

identify which aspects of Soldier equipment most significantly affect ROM is warranted. An 

attempt to define any existing relationship between reductions in ROM and degradation in 

Soldier performance should also be pursued. 

8.8 Recommendations 

1. Increased head ROM and freer shoulder movement might be achieved if the size of the 

hood were increased and the armholes on the JSLIST jacket were enlarged. 

2. Less bulky materials capable of providing required chemical and biological protection 

while allowing more flexibility and increased ROM should be identified and evaluated for 

the construction of JSLIST garments. 

3. Contact between the canister of the mask and the user’s torso during head motions might be 

eliminated through modifications of the size, shape, and position of the canister on the 

mask. 

4. ROM restrictions associated with the BALCS might be alleviated by the use of many 

smaller plates instead of a few large plates, especially in the shoulder area. 

5. The inclusion of an elastic component in the shoulder straps of the LW LBE might mitigate 

restrictions of upper arm ROM. 

6. Alternate locations for grenade, ammunition, and general purpose pouches on the LW LBE 

that would reduce interference with arm movements should be examined. 

9. Future Work 

The overall objective of this project was to identify human factors issues associated with the LW 

system (V 1.0). Several issues were identified and recommendations were made to alleviate the 

potential problems and increase overall system effectiveness. These recommendations or 

“lessons learned” should be applied to future warrior programs such as Objective Force Warrior, 
50 

which, like Land Warrior, is aimed at integrating technology with the Soldier. In addition, 

findings from this evaluation as well as other existing data should be compiled into a lessons 

learned database so that continuous improvements can be made and to avoid similar issues in the 

future. 
51 

10. References 

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Joint Motion: Method of Measuring and 

Recording. Chicago: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1965. 

Clauser, C.; Tebbetts, I.O.; Bradtmiller, B.; McConville, J.T.; Gordon, C.C. Measurer’s 

Handbook: U.S. Army Anthropometric Survey 1987-1988; TR-88-043; U.S. Army Natick 

RD&E Center: Natick, MA, 1988. 

Garamone, J. Army Tests Land Warrior for 21st Century Soldiers (Vol. 2000), American Forces 

Press Service, 1998. 

Gordon, C.C.; Bradtmiller, B.; Churchill, T.; Clauser, C.; McConville, J.T.; Tebbetts, I.O.; 

Walker, R.A. Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary 

Statistics; Technical Report NATICK TR-89-044, AD A225 094; U.S. Army Natick RD&E 

Center: Natick, MA, 1989. 

Miles, W.R. Ocular Dominance Demonstrated by Unconscious Sighting. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology 1929, 12, 113-126. 

Norkin, C.C.; White, D.J. (Eds.). Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. F.A. 

Davis Company: Philadelphia, 1985. 

Spencer, R.A. Analysis of Performance Resulting From the Design of Selected Hand-held Input 

Control Devices and Visual Displays. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2000. 

U.S. Department of the Army. DA Pam 611-21, 1999. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Battlefield Automation (Army’s Restructured Land Warrior 

Program Needs More Oversight); GAO NSIAD-00-28; Washington, DC, December 1999. 
52 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
53 

Appendix A. Volunteer Agreement Affidavit 

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT AFFIDAVIT: 

ARL-HRED Local Adaptation of DA Form 5303-R. For use of this form, see AR 70-25 or AR 40-38

The proponent for this research is: U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 

Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, 10 USC 3013, 44 USC 3101, and 10 USC 1071-1087 

Principal purpose: 

To document voluntary participation in the Research program. Serial Number 

and home address will be used for identification and locating purposes. 

Routine Uses: 

The SSN and home address will be used for identification and locating 

purposes. Information derived from the project will be used for 

documentation, adjudication of claims, and mandatory reporting of medical 

conditions as required by law. Information may be furnished to Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

Disclosure: 

The furnishing of your SSN and home address is mandatory and necessary to 

provide identification and to contact you if future information indicates that 

your health may be adversely affected. Failure to provide the information 

may preclude your voluntary participation in this data collection. 

Part A • Volunteer agreement affidavit for subjects in approved Department of Army research projects 

Note: Volunteers are authorized all necessary medical care for injury or disease that is the proximate result of 

their participation in such projects under the provisions of AR 40-38 and AR 70-25.

Title of Research Project: ATC Safety Test, Weapon Compatibility and Shooting Assessment 

with Land Warrior Version 1.0 

Human Use Protocol Log Number: ARL-20098-02009 

Principal Investigator(s): Dave King, ATC Phone: (410) 278-3018 

dking@atc.army.mil 

Associate Investigator(s) Charles A. Hickey, Jr. Phone: (410) 278-5994 

charlieh@arl.army.mil 

Location of Research: ARL Mobility and Portability Research Facility 

ARL Small Arms Shooting Performance Facility 

Dates of Participation: 8 April – 31 May 2002 

I do hereby volunteer to participate in the research project described in the table above. I have full capacity to consent and

have attained my 18th birthday. The implications of my voluntary participation, duration, and purpose of the research study, 

the methods and means by which it is to be conducted, and the inconveniences and hazards that may reasonably be expected 

have been explained to me. I have been given an opportunity to ask questions concerning this research project. Any such 

questions were answered to my full and complete satisfaction. Should any further questions arise concerning my rights or 

study related injury, I may contact the ARL-HRED Human Use Committee Chairperson at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 

USA by telephone at 410-278-0612 or DSN 298-0612. I understand that any published data will not reveal my identity. If I 

choose not to participate, or later wish to withdraw from any portion of it, I may do so without penalty. I understand that 

military personnel are not subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for choosing not to take part as 

human subjects and that no administrative sanctions can be given me for choosing not to participate. I may at any time 

during the course of the project revoke my consent and withdraw without penalty or loss of benefits. However, I may be 

required (military volunteer) or requested (civilian volunteer) to undergo certain examinations if, in the opinion of an 

attending physician, such examinations are necessary for my health and well being.
54 

Part B • To be completed by the Principal Investigator 

Note: Instruction for elements of the informed consent provided as detailed explanation in accordance with 

Appendix C, AR 40-38 or AR 70-25.

Purpose 

The purpose of this study is to conduct a safety test of the Land Warrior (LW) 1.0 Version by 

doing mobility, portability and shooting assessments of the LW in various configurations. The 

primary objectives are to identify any design characteristics or features that may impact mobility 

and portability; determine the user acceptance of the LW 1.0 for mobility and portability; 

determine the compatibility of the LW 1.0 with various weapon configurations; determine the 

ability of Soldiers to obtain a correct firing position and aim at targets on the range with the LW 

system and various weapon configurations and collect shooting assessment data with Soldiers 

wearing Land Warrior while firing the M4 carbine, M249, and M240B in various firing 

conditions and with various sights. 

Procedures 

You are being asked to participate in a safety test while doing mobility and shooting assessment 

of the Land Warrior (LW) 1.0 Version. The test includes mobility and portability maneuvers, 

live firing assessments, and compatibility while using the LW equipment in various 

configurations with various weapons and sighting devices. The tasks will include wearing the 

LW 1.0 in various configurations while carrying the weapon systems through a 4-km crosscountry course and a 500-meter obstacle course. It also involves compatibility investigations 

with various LW configurations and weapons while in different firing positions. Live firing 

assessments with the LW configurations and weapons will be conducted during daylight and 

night time. 

Training on the use, wearing, and operation of the LW 1.0 will be provided by a prime training 

contractor to insure that your are familiar with the system prior to your use and operation during 

the conduct of this test. 

For the mobility and portability phase, you will be asked wear various LW configurations and 

carry a designated weapon system. You will carry total configuration weights up to 90 pounds. 

You will then be asked to negotiate the cross-country course twice and the obstacle course twice 

each day. Afterwards you will fill out questionnaires and participate in debriefing sessions. 

For the compatibility phase, you will be asked to wear various LW configurations with a 

designated weapon and specific sighting system. You will then be asked to get into different 

firing positions. You will be asked if you have any difficulty or problems while aiming at 

designated targets downrange. You will then be asked to wear a different LW configuration with 

a designated weapon and the trials will be repeated. 

For the daylight live firing assessment, you will be asked to wear various LW configurations 

with a designated weapon and specific sighting system. You will be provided training trials prior 
55 

to firing for record with the LW configuration, weapon and sighting system. You will be asked 

to engage targets at ranges from 50 to 300 meters with varying target exposure times. In 

addition, you will be asked to engage targets using the direct (through the lens) and indirect 

(through the Helmet Mounted Display) method of aiming and searching for targets. You will 

also be asked to conduct reduced exposure firing trials by firing to the left, right, and over a wall 

while using the Daylight Video Sight of the weapon system. 

For the nighttime live firing assessment, you will be asked to wear various LW configurations 

with a designated weapon and specific night sight system. You will be provided training trials 

prior to firing for record with the LW configuration, weapon, and night sight system. You will 

be asked to engage targets at ranges from 50 to 300 meters with varying target exposure times. 

At the completion of the different tests, you may be asked to complete several questionnaires 

regarding your experience with the LW 1.0 and the tests you just completed. 

During the conduct of this test, photographers may take pictures of you while conducting a 

particular task. If you do not wish to have your photograph taken, please inform the HRED 

personnel or ATC test director. 

You may be asked to complete questionnaires about your prior experience. 

This study will last about two weeks. Your work schedule will be Monday through Friday from 

approximately 0800 to 1600 hours for daylight operations. You may be asked to stay past 1600 

hours to conduct night time operations possibly until 2200 hours on certain nights. The 

scheduled start date is April 8, 2002. 

Demographic and anthropometric measurement data will be collected from you. Demographic 

data consists of your personal background and military experiences. Anthropometric data entails 

specific physical body dimensional measurements related to tasks and the items being 

investigated. You will also be tested for color blindness and visual acuity. 

Thank you for your participation, and please feel free to ask the experimenter any questions you 

may have. 

Benefits 

Your participation in this study will help the Army assess the safety, mobility, portability, 

compatibility, and shooting capability of the Land Warrior 1.0 Version. 

Risks 

All risks encountered in this evaluation are minimal and typical of every day risks encountered 

by personnel working outdoors at the test areas where you will participate. Risks include 

physical fatigue, muscle strains, cuts, abrasions, broken bones, skin irritation, and injuries that 

may result from trips or falls. You are advised that there are wild animals, snakes, and poisonous 

insects in the vicinity of some of the test sites and to take the appropriate precautions. There is a 

risk of tick bites and the potential for Lyme disease at Aberdeen Proving Ground. You will be 
56 

encouraged to use insect repellent that will be available at the test site, and we will ask you to 

inspect yourself frequently for ticks. 

Care will be taken to minimize risks using the following precautions. At all times and at all test 

sites, the wearers, observers and test personnel will be encouraged to drink water freely to 

prevent dehydration. The guidelines from TB Med 507 will be used to determine acceptable 

work rest schedules. Wet Bulb Globe Thermometer reading will be used in correspondence to 

work rest schedules. A copy of TB Med 507 will be kept available at all times. Daily 

meteorological records will be obtained from the Meteorological Service at Phillips Army 

Airfield. Also, the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) and dry bulb temperature will be 

monitored at all test sites using portable WBGT monitors. While wearing body armor, if the heat 

index equals or exceeds 77 degrees F testing will be halted for the day. The WBGT limit for 

mobility and portability maneuvers will be 87 degrees F for seasoned Soldiers not wearing body 

armor. 

Outdoor activities will be suspended during any weather conditions that are inherently dangerous 

or will cause evaluation trials to be dangerous. If it is raining or snowing, or if there is an 

accumulation of water or snow on the ground, outdoor test activities will be delayed or canceled, 

if conditions are believed to be unsafe. Water will be available and you will be instructed to 

drink often. Water breaks will occur at least every 30 minutes for all trials that exceed 30 

minutes in duration. You will be given at least an hour-long break between the mobilityportability course trials. Mobility-portability course trials will be limited to two per day (2 cross 

country and 2 obstacle course runs). As applicable, air-conditioned or heated buildings will be 

available for breaks from the weather. 

Hearing protection will be worn by all personnel during all small arms trials at M Range. Safety 

procedures are well established at M Range in SOP No. 385-H-188 and will be closely followed. 

Confidentiality 

All data and information obtained about you will be considered privileged and held in 

confidence. Photographic or video images of you taken during this data collection will not be 

identified with any of your personal information (name, rank, or status). Complete 

confidentiality cannot be promised, particularly if you are a military service member, because 

information bearing on your health may be required to be reported to appropriate medical or 

command authorities. In addition, applicable regulations note the possibility that the U.S. Army 

Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC-RCQ) officials may inspect the records. 
57 

Disposition of Volunteer Agreement Affidavit 

The Principal Investigator will retain the original signed Volunteer Agreement Affidavit and 

forward a photocopy of it to the Chair of the Human Use Committee after the data collection. 

The test administrator will provide a copy to the volunteer 

Contacts for Additional Assistance 

If you have questions concerning your rights on experiment-related injury, or if you have any 

complaints about your treatment while participating in this experiment, you can contact: 

Chair, Human Use Committee OR Office of the Chief Counsel 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering 

Directorate 

 2800 Powder Mill Road 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 Adelphi, MD 20783-1197 

(410) 278-0612 or (DSN) 298-0612 (301) 394-1070 or (DSN) 290-1070 

Your signature below indicates that you: (1) are at least 18 years of age, (2) have read the information on this 

form, (3) have been given the opportunity to ask questions and they have been answered to your satisfaction, 

and (4) have decided to participate based on the information provided on this form.

Printed Name of Volunteer (First, MI., Last)

Social Security Number (SSN)r

Date of Birth 

(Month, Day, Year)

Permanent Address of Volunteer 

Today’s Date 

(Month, Day, Year)

Signature of Volunteer 

Signature of Administrator 
58 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
Appendix B. Demographic and Anthropometric Data 

Table B-1. Demographic data. 

Test Participant Identification Number 1 2 3 4 MOS 11B3PG 11B 11B1P 11B1P 11Rank E-6 E-6 E-5 E-4 EDuty Position Title Assistant Operations Squad Leader Team Leader SAW Gunner RiflTime in Service 17 yr, 6 mo 5 yr, 1 mo 4 yr, 6 mo 3.yr, 4 mo 2 yrTime at present Duty Station 3 yr, 10 mo 1 yr, 10 mo 3 yr, 5 mo 6 mo 2 DOB 05-Oct-65 12-Aug-75 01-Nov-73 23-Sep-75 03-DAge, yr 36 26 28 26 Place of Birth Richmond, VA Seoul, South Korea Eau Claire, WI Billings, MT Los AnWeapons qualified M4, M249, M240

M4, M249, M240, 

AT4 M249 M

Qualification badges EIB EIB ELand navigation skill rating: Identify topographic symbols on a military map 10 10 10 8 Identify terrain features on a military map 10 10 10 8 Determine grid coordinates on a military map 10 10 10 9 Determine an azimuth using a lensatic compass 10 10 10 9 Determine your location using terrain association 10 10 10 8 Measure distance on a map 10 10 10 8 Orient a map using map to terrain association 10 10 10 9 Determine direction without a compass 10 10 10 8 Communication skill rating: Use of Pro-words 10 10 10 9 

59 
Table B-1 (continued) 

Test Participant Identification Number 1 2 3 4 Knowledge of phonetic alphabet 10 10 10 10 Use of alphanumeric pronunciation 10 10 10 10 Physical injuries None None None None NHandedness right right right right riCorrective lenses No No No No YContacts No No No No YComputer training and experience: IBM Yes No No Yes NMacintosh No No No Yes NSoftware used: Microsoft Word Yes No No No NWord Perfect Yes No No No NMicrosoft Windows Yes Yes No Yes YMicrosoft Office Yes No No No NMultimate Yes No No No NMacWrite No No No Yes NComputer skill rating 9 1 5 5 Highest level of education Some College Some College Some College Some College HS GrSwimming skill rating 9 10 10 10 

60 
Table B-1 (continued) 

Test Participant Identification Number 7 8 9 10 MOS 11B1P 11B2P2C 11B1P 11B1P 11Rank E-3 E-5 E-4 E-4 EDuty Position Title SAW Gunner Team Leader Javelin Gunner Rifleman Saw Time in Service 1 yr, 0 mo 6 yr, 1 mo 2 yr, 1 mo 2 yr, 9 mo 2 yrTime at present Duty Station 0 yr, 8 mo 2 yr, 1 mo 1 yr, 7 mo 2 yr, 5 mo 1 yr, DOB 30-Aug-73 07-Oct-71 29-Apr-79 23-Mar-81 29-DAge, yr 28 30 23 21 Place of Birth Marietta, GA Los Angeles, CA Washington D.C. Ft. Worth, TX LubboWeapons qualified M4, M249 M4, M203, Javelin M4, Javelin M4, M249 MQualification badges Airborne Airborne EIB, Airborne AirLand navigation skill rating: Identify topographic symbols on a military map 10 10 9 8 Identify terrain features on a military map 9 7 10 8 Determine grid coordinates on a military map 10 10 10 8 Determine an azimuth using a lensatic compass 10 10 10 8 Determine your location using terrain association 10 8 10 8 Measure distance on a map 10 10 10 8 Orient a map using map to terrain association 10 9 10 8 Determine direction without a compass 9 7 9 8 Communication skill rating: Use of Pro-words 8 8 10 10 Knowledge of phonetic alphabet 10 9 10 10 Use of alphanumeric pronunciation 10 9 10 10 Physical injuries None None None None NHandedness Right Right Right Right RCorrective lenses Yes No Yes No YContacts Yes No No No NComputer training and experience: IBM No Yes Yes Yes NMacintosh No Yes Yes No NSoftware used: 

61 
Table B-1 (continued) 

Test Participant Identification Number 7 8 9 10 Microsoft Word Yes Yes Yes Yes YWord Perfect Yes Yes Yes No NMicrosoft Windows Yes Yes Yes Yes YMicrosoft Office Yes Yes Yes No NMultimate No No No No NMacWrite No Yes Yes No NComputer skill rating 10 10 9 8 Highest level of education Some College Associates Degree HS Grad, GED HS Grad, GED HS GrSwimming skill rating 10 7 6 10 

62 
Table B-2. Land Warrior Version 1.0 Safety Test - Anthropometric Measurements of Individual Soldiers.

Weight Stature Cervicale Height Acromial Height Crotch Height Chest Breadth Chest Depth Nec

Circu

feren

Soldier 

ID 

No. 

kg % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm 

1 112.6 99 186.1 94 162.1 94 151.0 86 88.9 86 36.1 92 30.0 99 44.2 2 80.7 61 174.3 43 148.6 30 143.0 43 85.6 67 29.7 17 25.4 70 38.0 3 85.4 75 178.0 64 149.4 35 143.3 44 85.7 68 32.4 57 32.4 57 39.4 4 86.5 78 190.3 99 165.1 98 157.3 98 97.0 99 32.7 61 27.7 93 36.5 5 86.2 77 177.4 61 154.1 64 147.6 71 84.4 58 34.6 83 27.4 91 39.1 6 72.8 32 171.3 27 148.5 30 141.4 33 86.4 73 29.6 16 23.9 44 38.2 7 81.3 63 172.4 32 149.4 35 140.8 29 82.4 40 32.1 53 25.0 64 38.3 8 73.4 34 172.0 30 149.0 33 141.4 33 80.4 24 31.6 45 22.3 18 37.5 9 66.6 14 176.5 56 151.0 45 142.1 37 82.5 41 27.5 2 23.9 44 36.0 

10 77.4 49 178.7 68 155.6 72 147.3 69 85.0 62 30.7 31 25.3 69 40.0 11 73.4 34 171.3 27 148.7 31 139.7 23 81.6 34 29.7 17 23.2 31 36.4 12 77.9 51 171.4 27 146.9 21 138.5 18 84.0 54 34.1 79 26.0 78 40.0 

mean 81.2 176.6 152.4 144.5 85.3 31.7 26.0 38.6 

sd 11.6 6.1 5.8 5.4 4.3 2.5 2.9 2.2 

min 66.6 14 171.3 27 146.9 21 138.5 18 80.4 24 27.5 2 22.3 18 36.0 

max 112.6 99 190.3 99 165.1 98 157.3 98 97.0 99 36.1 92 32.4 99 44.2 

63 
Table B-2 (continued) 

Chest 

Circumference 

Waist 

Circumference Waist Front Length (O) Waist Back Length (O) Sitting Height Eye Height Sitting Acromial Height Sitting Biacro

Brea

SOLDIER ID No. 

cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm 

1 114.6 98 105.8 98 44.4 88 49.0 68 94.1 77 82.4 82 57.9 26 47.7 2 97.1 38 84.5 45 40.7 39 49.0 68 92.7 64 80.6 65 59.1 41 42.7 3 99.1 52 87.2 57 42.2 64 45.2 16 94.1 77 82.2 81 59.8 50 43.8 4 102.2 69 96.2 86 40.0 28 47.5 45 92.9 66 79.4 52 60.3 57 40.7 5 107.0 87 94.6 83 42.4 67 48.5 61 93.1 68 80.4 63 63.0 86 41.9 6 94.7 27 82.5 36 39.0 15 46.4 29 87.6 15 76.1 19 56.7 15 38.4 7 98.0 46 88.0 60 40.3 33 48.3 58 91.3 49 80.0 59 59.5 46 42.3 8 94.0 24 89.1 65 40.4 34 48.0 53 94.6 81 83.5 89 64.2 93 39.1 9 87.3 3 77.0 14 39.8 25 47.0 38 93.1 68 80.9 69 56.7 15 39.3 

10 97.2 38 81.3 31 41.1 46 49.5 74 94.3 79 83.0 86 61.4 71 41.8 11 92.4 16 83.7 42 39.2 18 48.1 55 90.8 43 79.0 47 59.1 41 40.5 12 102.0 68 87.7 59 35.8 1 43.6 5 88.2 19 76.7 23 56.5 13 40.6 

mean 98.8 88.1 40.4 47.5 92.2 80.4 59.5 41.6 

sd 7.1 7.7 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 

min 87.3 3 77.0 14 35.8 1 43.6 5 87.6 15 76.1 19 56.5 13 38.4 

max 114.6 98 105.8 98 44.4 88 49.5 74 94.6 81 83.5 89 64.2 93 47.7 

64 
Table B-2 (continued) 

Abdominal 

Ext. Depth 

Bitragion 

Chin Arc 

Bitragion 

Coronal Arc 

Bitragion 

Crinion Arc 

Bitragion 

Frontal Arc 

Bitragion 

Submand. Arc 

Bitragion 

Subnasale Arc 

Hea

Circu

feren

SOLDIER 

ID 

No. 

cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm 

1 31.3 99 36.6 99 35.5 55 32.5 46 31.1 74 35.0 99 32.0 99 58.8 2 21.5 21 35.5 98 35.6 98 33.0 63 31.5 84 31.6 79 32.2 99 57.0 3 23.4 47 34.9 95 36.6 84 32.1 33 30.6 57 34.0 99 31.0 94 60.4 4 26.2 80 32.3 42 37.0 90 33.7 82 32.0 92 31.1 69 30.0 77 59.3 5 26.0 78 33.3 71 35.5 55 33.0 63 31.3 79 30.6 56 30.5 88 56.5 6 22.5 34 32.2 39 35.8 65 32.2 36 31.1 74 30.2 45 30.4 86 55.5 7 24.9 67 32.7 54 34.7 31 32.5 46 31.0 71 30.0 39 29.5 61 56.0 8 22.9 40 32.9 60 35.6 58 32.2 36 31.0 71 31.4 76 30.0 77 54.9 9 19.8 5 30.5 6 34.6 28 31.0 8 29.8 28 29.0 16 27.8 10 56.2 

10 21.6 22 34.3 90 35.4 52 32.2 36 30.5 53 32.5 92 30.0 77 56.8 11 23.4 47 32.0 33 34.3 21 30.5 3 29.1 11 30.0 39 28.5 27 55.2 12 23.5 49 32.7 54 35.5 55 31.3 13 29.2 13 31.0 66 28.9 40 55.7 

mean 23.9 33.3 35.5 32.2 30.7 31.4 30.1 56.9 

sd 3.0 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.7 

min 19.8 5 30.5 6 34.3 21 30.5 3 29.1 11 29.0 16 27.8 10 54.9 

max 31.3 99 36.6 99 37.0 98 33.7 82 32.0 92 35.0 99 32.2 99 60.4 

65 
Table B-2 (continued) 

Head 

Breadth 

Head 

Length 

MentonSellion Length Ear Breadth Hand Breadth Hand Length Interpup

Bre

SOLDIER ID 

No. 

cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm % cm 

1 16.1 95 19.6 43 13.1 91 4.1 89 9.1 83 21.1 95 7.2 2 15.0 38 20.1 71 11.8 28 3.8 55 8.9 38 20.2 81 6.3 3 15.9 91 21.1 98 12.0 39 4.1 89 9.0 47 19.5 57 5.8 4 15.0 38 21.0 97 11.6 18 3.2 2 9.0 47 20.7 91 6.6 5 15.1 46 19.5 38 12.8 82 3.7 40 9.0 47 21.4 97 6.9 6 15.1 46 19.5 38 11.9 34 3.4 8 8.9 38 19.4 53 6.2 7 15.0 38 19.4 32 12.1 46 3.5 16 8.6 15 19.1 40 6.4 8 15.4 68 18.5 5 12.5 69 3.4 8 8.7 21 18.5 18 6.3 9 15.4 68 19.3 27 11.0 3 3.4 8 8.6 15 19.3 49 6.0 

10 15.6 80 19.4 32 12.3 58 3.4 8 8.4 6 19.7 65 6.7 11 15.1 46 18.8 10 10.8 1 3.4 8 8.4 6 19.5 57 6.1 12 14.8 24 19.6 43 11.4 11 3.6 26 9.1 56 19.0 36 6.2 

mean 15.3 19.7 11.9 3.6 8.8 19.8 6.4

sd 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.4

min 14.8 24 18.5 5 10.8 1 3.2 2 8.4 6 18.5 18 5.8 

max 16.1 95 21.1 98 13.1 91 4.1 89 9.1 83 21.4 97 7.2 

66 
67 

Appendix C. Vision Screening Data 

Table C-1. Summary of Soldier Vision Examinations. 

Far Visual Acuity1 Near Visual Acuity1

Soldier 

ID 

No. 

Both 

Eyes 

Right 

Eye 

Left 

Eye 

Both 

Eyes 

Right 

Eye 

Left 

Eye 

Stereo2

Depth 

Perception 

Color 

Vision 

Ocular 

Dominance 

Glasses 

or 

Contacts 

Worn 

 

1 20/15 20/25 20/18 14/13 14/16 14/18 20/95 Normal Left Eye No 

2 20/25 20/30 20/25 14/14 14/13 14/20 100/50 Mild Def. Right Eye No 

3 20/17 20/20 20/18 14/13 14/16 14/12 50/70 Normal Right Eye No 

4 20/30 20/35 20/30 14/11 14/14 14/11 20/95 Normal Right Eye No 

5 20/35 20/40 20/30 14/14 14/18 14/20 20/95 Normal Right Eye Contacts3

6 20/13 20/17 20/15 14/11 14/13 14/11 20/95 Normal Right Eye No 

7 20/18 20/18 20/18 14/12 14/13 14/13 25/90 Normal Right Eye Glasses4

8 20/15 20/15 20/18 14/12 14/10 14/13 20/95 Normal Right Eye No 

9 20/15 20/17 20/15 14/10 14/12 14/10 20/95 Normal Right Eye Glasses4

10 20/13 20/18 20/15 14/10 14/11 14/10 20/95 Normal Right Eye No 

11 20/25 20/70 20/30 14/13 14/13 14/13 200/30 Mild Def. Right Eye Glasses5

12 20/18 20/15 20/17 14/10 14/10 14/11 25/90 Normal Right Eye No 

 

1

20’ (Far) and 14” (Near) Visual Acuity presented as Snellen Fractions. 2

Numbers represent angle of stereopsis in seconds of arc, Shepard-Fry Percentages. 

3

Soldier wearing contacts during vision examination. 4

Soldier wearing glasses during vision examination. 

5

Soldier not wearing glasses during vision examination because he did not have them. 
68 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
Appendix D. Input Device Questionnaire 

Table D-1. Post-test questionnaire. Subject Number ______ Task Number ________________ Trial Number ________ Glove Type _________________ Please circle the answer that best represents your response to each statement 

Question Response 

1. Entering text and numbers was: 

Easy 

X X 

Neither Easy Nor 

Hard 

X X 

2. Physical effort required to perform the task was: 

Too Low 

X X 

Just Right 

X X 

3. Finger and Wrist fatigue: 

None 

X X 

Medium 

X X 

4. Finger and Wrist Pain: 

None 

X X 

Medium 

X X 

5. General comfort: 

Very Comfortable 

X X 

Comfortable 

X X 

6. Overall, the input device was: 

Very Easy to Use 

X X 

Neither Easy Nor 

Difficult to Use 

X X 

Additional comments:

69 
70 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
71 

Appendix E. Glove Compatibility Time Data 

Time 

Glove Mean SD 

Bare Hand 156.91 34.28 

25 mil Butyl Rubber 156.88 33.62 

Trigger Finger 282.15 101.42 

Leather Utility 165.37 18.50 

Bare Hand (Dark Room) 131.65 17.48 

Butyl Rubber Glove + M45 Mask 152.04 22.82 

Bare Hand + M45 Mask 153.53 16.76 
72 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
73 

Appendix F. Questionnaire Data 

Question Bare Hand NBC Trigger Finger Utility 

 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

1 1.71 1.25 1.86 1.46 4.25 1.16 2.57 0.98 

2 3.00 0.82 2.57 1.13 3.75 1.39 2.57 1.13 

3 1.86 0.90 2.43 0.98 3.75 1.39 2.14 0.90 

4 1.71 0.95 2.00 1.15 3.38 1.41 1.86 0.90 

5 3.14 1.07 3.29 0.95 2.75 1.49 2.86 0.69 

6 2.00 1.00 2.29 0.95 4.25 0.71 2.71 0.76 

Question Bare Hand (Dark Room) Bare Hand & Mask NBC Glove and Mask 

 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

1 1.86 1.21 1.30 0.60 2.0 1.0 

2 2.57 0.79 3.0 1.0 1.70 0.60 

3 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 

4 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 

5 3.0 0.58 3.3 1.5 3.3 1.2 

6 2.14 0.90 3.3 0.6 3.0 1.0 
74 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
75 

Appendix G. Shooting Performance Means 

G-1. M4 Daylight Firing 

Means 

% Hits * Sight

% Hits

.59 864 .491

.40 864 .490

.50 1728 .500

Sight

CCO

DVS

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * Firing Position

% Hits

.39 432 .489

.46 432 .499

.59 432 .493

.54 432 .499

.50 1728 .500

Firing Position

Stand

Kneel

Foxhole

Prone

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * EXPOSURE

% Hits

.31 576 .461

.51 576 .500

.67 576 .471

.50 1728 .500

EXPOSURE

3

5

8

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * RANGE

% Hits

.83 288 .376

.66 288 .473

.59 288 .493

.36 288 .482

.30 288 .458

.23 288 .421

.50 1728 .500

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
76 

Report

% Hits

.46 288 .499

.57 288 .496

.75 288 .434

.59 864 .491

.15 288 .357

.45 288 .499

.59 288 .493

.40 864 .490

.31 576 .461

.51 576 .500

.67 576 .471

.50 1728 .500

EXPOSURE

3

5

8

Total

3

5

8

Total

3

5

8

Total

Sight

CCO

DVS

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.92 144 .277

.77 144 .422

.71 144 .456

.40 144 .492

.42 144 .496

.34 144 .475

.59 864 .491

.74 144 .438

.56 144 .499

.47 144 .501

.33 144 .471

.17 144 .380

.12 144 .324

.40 864 .490

.83 288 .376

.66 288 .473

.59 288 .493

.36 288 .482

.30 288 .458

.23 288 .421

.50 1728 .500

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

Sight

CCO

DVS

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
77 

Report

% Hits

.44 216 .498

.57 216 .496

.68 216 .469

.69 216 .464

.59 864 .491

.34 216 .476

.35 216 .479

.50 216 .501

.40 216 .491

.40 864 .490

.39 432 .489

.46 432 .499

.59 432 .493

.54 432 .499

.50 1728 .500

Firing Position

Stand

Kneel

Foxhole

Prone

Total

Stand

Kneel

Foxhole

Prone

Total

Stand

Kneel

Foxhole

Prone

Total

Sight

CCO

DVS

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
78 

Repor t

%

Hits

.7948.41

.7

0

7

48.42

.6

5

0

48.49

.2

4

3

48.42

.2

5

7

48.44

.1

9

0

48.30

.4

9

6

288.49

.9

9

8

48.14

.6

4

0

48.49

.7

4

7

48.42

.3

5

1

48.46

.4

8

4

48.50 1 .31 48

.46

.5

8

7

288.49

.9

6

8

48.14

.9

4

4

48.24

.7

5

5

48.43

.6

8

7

48.47

.5

6

6

48.50

.6

1

0

48.49

.7

4

5

288.43

.9

4

2

144.27

.7

7

7

144.42

.7

2

1

144.45

.4

6

0

144.49

.4

2

2

144.49

.3

6

4

144.47

.5

5

9

864.49 1 .31 48

.46

.2

8

7

48.44

.2

9

3

48.42

.0

5

4

48.20

.0

2

2

48.14

.0

4

2

48.14

.1

4

5

288.35

.9

7

6

48.20

.6

2

0

48.49

.5

4

0

48.50

.3

5

7

48.48

.2

9

1

48.41 0 .08 48

.27

.4

9

5

288.49

.9

9

6

48.20

.7

2

9

48.41

.6

0

7

48.47

.5

6

6

48.50

.2

1

9

48.45

.2

9

5

48.43

.5

8

9

288.49

.7

3

4

144.43

.5

8

6

144.49

.4

9

7

144.50

.3

1

3

144.47

.1

1

7

144.38

.1

0

2

144.32

.4

4

0

864.49 0 .55 96

.50

.5

0

2

96.50

.4

2

2

96.49

.1

6

4

96.34

.1

4

5

96.35 5 .06 96

.24

.3

3

1

576.46

.9

1

7

96.17

.6

5

0

96.49

.6

2

4

96

.48

.3

4

4

96.47

.3

7

2

96.47

.2

0

0

96.40

.5

1

1

576.50

.9

0

7

96.17

.8

5

6

96.34 4 .71 96

.45

.6

7

1

96.48

.4

9

3

96.49

.4

7

3

96.49

.6

7

7

576.47

.8

1

3

288.37

.6

6

6

288.47

.5

3

9

288.49

.3

3

6

288.48

.3

2

0

288.45

.2

8

3

288.42

.5

1

0

172 8.50 0

RANG E50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l50100150200250300

Tota l

EXPOSUR E358

Tota l358

Tota l358

Tota l

Sigh tCCO

DVS

Tota l

Mea nN Std.

Deviation
79 

G-2 M4 Reduced Exposure Firing 

Means 

Report

% Hits

.36 144 .482

.39 162 .489

.40 144 .492

.38 450 .487

.32 144 .468

.33 126 .470

.37 144 .484

.34 414 .474

.34 288 .475

.36 288 .481

.39 288 .488

.36 864 .481

WEAPPOS

Over

Left

Right

Total

Over

Left

Right

Total

Over

Left

Right

Total

FIRPOS

Stand

Kneel

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.77 75 .421

.63 75 .487

.48 75 .503

.23 75 .421

.15 75 .356

.05 75 .226

.38 450 .487

.77 69 .425

.45 69 .501

.36 69 .484

.25 69 .434

.12 69 .323

.09 69 .284

.34 414 .474

.77 144 .422

.54 144 .500

.42 144 .496

.24 144 .426

.13 144 .340

.07 144 .255

.36 864 .481

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

FIRPOS

Stand

Kneel

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
80 

Report

% Hits

.50 48 .505

.33 48 .476

.35 48 .483

.15 48 .357

.04 48 .202

.04 48 .202

.24 288 .425

.94 48 .245

.50 48 .505

.40 48 .494

.21 48 .410

.15 48 .357

.13 48 .334

.39 288 .488

.87 48 .334

.79 48 .410

.52 48 .505

.35 48 .483

.21 48 .410

.04 48 .202

.47 288 .500

.77 144 .422

.54 144 .500

.42 144 .496

.24 144 .426

.13 144 .340

.07 144 .255

.36 864 .481

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

EXPOSURE

8

12

16

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
81 

Report

% Hits

.52 25 .510

.40 25 .500

.28 25 .458

.08 25 .277

.08 25 .277

.04 25 .200

.23 150 .424

.92 25 .277

.60 25 .500

.52 25 .510

.28 25 .458

.12 25 .332

.08 25 .277

.42 150 .495

.88 25 .332

.88 25 .332

.64 25 .490

.32 25 .476

.24 25 .436

.04 25 .200

.50 150 .502

.77 75 .421

.63 75 .487

.48 75 .503

.23 75 .421

.15 75 .356

.05 75 .226

.38 450 .487

.48 23 .511

.26 23 .449

.43 23 .507

.22 23 .422

.00 23 .000

.04 23 .209

.24 138 .428

.96 23 .209

.39 23 .499

.26 23 .449

.13 23 .344

.17 23 .388

.17 23 .388

.35 138 .478

.87 23 .344

.70 23 .470

.39 23 .499

.39 23 .499

.17 23 .388

.04 23 .209

.43 138 .497

.77 69 .425

.45 69 .501

.36 69 .484

.25 69 .434

.12 69 .323

.09 69 .284

.34 414 .474

.50 48 .505

.33 48 .476

.35 48 .483

.15 48 .357

.04 48 .202

.04 48 .202

.24 288 .425

.94 48 .245

.50 48 .505

.40 48 .494

.21 48 .410

.15 48 .357

.13 48 .334

.39 288 .488

.87 48 .334

.79 48 .410

.52 48 .505

.35 48 .483

.21 48 .410

.04 48 .202

.47 288 .500

.77 144 .422

.54 144 .500

.42 144 .496

.24 144 .426

.13 144 .340

.07 144 .255

.36 864 .481

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

EXPOS URE

8

12

16

Total

8

12

16

Total

8

12

16

Total

FIRPOS

Stand

Knee l

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
82 

G-3 M4 Night Firing 

Means 

% Hits * SIGHT

% Hits

.36 192 .481

.11 180 .315

.24 372 .427

SIGHT

Direct

HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * FIREPOS

% Hits

.26 180 .437

.22 192 .418

.24 372 .427

FIREPOS

foxhole

standing

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * EXPOSURE

% Hits

.17 186 .378

.31 186 .462

.24 372 .427

EXPOSURE

5

8

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * RANGE

% Hits

.65 62 .482

.35 62 .482

.19 62 .398

.13 62 .338

.03 62 .178

.08 62 .275

.24 372 .427

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
83 

Report

% Hits

.38 96 .487

.34 96 .477

.36 192 .481

.12 84 .326

.10 96 .307

.11 180 .315

.26 180 .437

.22 192 .418

.24 372 .427

FIREPOS

foxhole

standing

Total

foxhole

standing

Total

foxhole

standing

Total

SIGHT

Direct

HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.29 96 .457

.43 96 .497

.36 192 .481

.04 90 .207

.18 90 .384

.11 180 .315

.17 186 .378

.31 186 .462

.24 372 .427

EXPOSURE

5

8

Total

5

8

Total

5

8

Total

SIGHT

Direct

HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
84 

Report

% Hits

.75 32 .440

.59 32 .499

.38 32 .492

.25 32 .440

.03 32 .177

.16 32 .369

.36 192 .481

.53 30 .507

.10 30 .305

.00 30 .000

.00 30 .000

.03 30 .183

.00 30 .000

.11 180 .315

.65 62 .482

.35 62 .482

.19 62 .398

.13 62 .338

.03 62 .178

.08 62 .275

.24 372 .427

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

SIGHT

Direct

HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.20 90 .402

.31 90 .466

.26 180 .437

.15 96 .355

.30 96 .462

.22 192 .418

.17 186 .378

.31 186 .462

.24 372 .427

EXPOSURE

5

8

Total

5

8

Total

5

8

Total

FIREPOS

foxhole

standing

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
85 

Report

% Hits

.67 30 .479

.33 30 .479

.23 30 .430

.17 30 .379

.03 30 .183

.10 30 .305

.26 180 .437

.63 32 .492

.37 32 .492

.16 32 .369

.09 32 .296

.03 32 .177

.06 32 .246

.22 192 .418

.65 62 .482

.35 62 .482

.19 62 .398

.13 62 .338

.03 62 .178

.08 62 .275

.24 372 .427

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

FIREPOS

foxhole

standing

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
86 

Report

% Hits

.35 31 .486

.32 31 .475

.16 31 .374

.13 31 .341

.03 31 .180

.03 31 .180

.17 186 .378

.94 31 .250

.39 31 .495

.23 31 .425

.13 31 .341

.03 31 .180

.13 31 .341

.31 186 .462

.65 62 .482

.35 62 .482

.19 62 .398

.13 62 .338

.03 62 .178

.08 62 .275

.24 372 .427

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

EXPOSURE

5

8

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
87 

Report

% Hits

.32 28 .476

.32 28 .476

.14 28 .356

.11 28 .315

.04 28 .189

.04 28 .189

.16 168 .368

1.00 28 .000

.36 28 .488

.21 28 .418

.14 28 .356

.04 28 .189

.14 28 .356

.32 168 .466

.66 56 .478

.34 56 .478

.18 56 .386

.13 56 .334

.04 56 .187

.09 56 .288

.24 336 .427

RANGE

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total

EXPOSURE

5

8

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
88 

G-4 M249 Day Firing 

Means 

% Hits * SIGHT

% Hits

.28 72 .451

.47 72 .503

.38 144 .486

SIGHT

DVS

MGO

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * FIREPOS

% Hits

.39 72 .491

.36 72 .484

.38 144 .486

FIREPOS

foxhole

prone

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * EXPOSURE

% Hits

.23 48 .425

.46 48 .504

.44 48 .501

.38 144 .486

EXPOSURE

6

8

10

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * RANGE

% Hits

.69 36 .467

.33 36 .478

.33 36 .478

.14 36 .351

.38 144 .486

RANGE

200

300

400

500

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
89 

Report

%Hits

.25 36 .439

.31 36 .467

.28 72 .451

.53 36 .506

.42 36 .500

.47 72 .503

.39 72 .491

.36 72 .484

.38 144 .486

FIREPOS

foxhole

prone

Total

foxhole

prone

Total

foxhole

prone

Total

SIGHT

DVS

MGO

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.17 24 .381

.25 24 .442

.42 24 .504

.28 72 .451

.29 24 .464

.67 24 .482

.46 24 .509

.47 72 .503

.23 48 .425

.46 48 .504

.44 48 .501

.38 144 .486

EXPOSURE

6

8

10

Total

6

8

10

Total

6

8

10

Total

SIGHT

DVS

MGO

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
90 

Report

% Hits

.50 18 .514

.17 18 .383

.33 18 .485

.11 18 .323

.28 72 .451

.89 18 .323

.50 18 .514

.33 18 .485

.17 18 .383

.47 72 .503

.69 36 .467

.33 36 .478

.33 36 .478

.14 36 .351

.38 144 .486

RANGE

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

SIGHT

DVS

MGO

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.58 12 .515

.25 12 .452

.08 12 .289

.00 12 .000

.23 48 .425

.83 12 .389

.42 12 .515

.42 12 .515

.17 12 .389

.46 48 .504

.67 12 .492

.33 12 .492

.50 12 .522

.25 12 .452

.44 48 .501

.69 36 .467

.33 36 .478

.33 36 .478

.14 36 .351

.38 144 .486

RANGE

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

EXPOSURE

6

8

10

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
91 

G-5 M249 Night Firing 

Means 

% Hits * SIGHT

% Hits

.46 72 .502

.36 72 .484

.41 144 .493

SIGHT

TWS Direct

TWS Through HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * FIREPOS

% Hits

.35 72 .479

.47 72 .503

.41 144 .493

FIREPOS

foxhole

prone

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * EXPOSURE

% Hits

.21 48 .410

.48 48 .505

.54 48 .504

.41 144 .493

EXPOSURE

6

8

10

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

% Hits * RANGE

% Hits

.50 36 .507

.53 36 .506

.33 36 .478

.28 36 .454

.41 144 .493

RANGE

200

300

400

500

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
92 

Report

% Hits

.25 24 .442

.54 24 .509

.58 24 .504

.46 72 .502

.17 24 .381

.42 24 .504

.50 24 .511

.36 72 .484

.21 48 .410

.48 48 .505

.54 48 .504

.41 144 .493

EXPOSURE

6

8

10

Total

6

8

10

Total

6

8

10

Total

SIGHT

TWS Direct

TWS Through HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

% Hits

.61 18 .502

.56 18 .511

.39 18 .502

.28 18 .461

.46 72 .502

.39 18 .502

.50 18 .514

.28 18 .461

.28 18 .461

.36 72 .484

.50 36 .507

.53 36 .506

.33 36 .478

.28 36 .454

.41 144 .493

RANGE

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

200

300

400

500

Total

SIGHT

TWS Direct

TWS Through HMD

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
93 

Appendix H. Raw Weapon Compatibility Data 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP # 3 Stature 178.0 cm – 64th percentile 

FLC

 IRON 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 

 CCO 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone – ok 

 TWS 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone – ok 

 DVS 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 
94 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP #3 Stature 178.0 cm – 64th percentile

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Standing – OK – Better than in kneeling position, not as restrictive. 

Kneeling – Restrictive in shoulders 

Prone – Not a good sight picture. Neck on BALCS pushes helmet down 

which pushes glasses down. 

 CCO 

Standing – Not as restrictive in shoulders as kneeling position. 

Kneeling – Restricive in shoulders. Not good buttstock position. 

Prone – Pushes helmet down. Restricts vision. Can get sight picture for 

low targets. 

 TWS 

Standing – Eyecup difficult to get correct. Not LW specific. Buttstock not 

seated properly. 

Kneeling – Eyecup difficult to get correct. Not LW specific. Buttstock not 

seated properly. 

Prone – With specs on, hard to open eyecup on TWS. Eyecup hits 

helmet. This is difficult even bareheaded. 

 DVS 

Standing – Restricive in shoulders 

Kneeling – Restrictive in shoulders 

Prone – Head pushed down. Helmet restricts vision. 
95 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP #3 Stature 178.0 cm – 64th percentile

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock position on shoulder is not good. Weapon slips 

down to bicep. All the straps make shoulder movement restricted. 

Kneeling – Buttstock position on shoulder is not good. Weapon slips 

down to bicep. All the straps make shoulder movement restricted. 

Prone – Helmet pushing down and restricts vision. Can’t aim at high 

targets. Difficult to use pad. 

 CCO 

Standing – Helmet pushed down slightly 

Kneeling – Helmet pushed down. Buttstock on arm. Restrictive in 

shoulders. 

Prone – Helmet pushing down. VERY difficult to get sight picture. 

 TWS 

Standing – Can get sight picture but it is difficult. 

Kneeling – Can’t even get good sight picture – very difficult. 

Prone – No sight picture. Pack pushes head down. Head at angle and 

won’t push eye cup open properly. 

 DVS 

 * All same as iron sights 
96 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP #3 Stature 178.0 cm – 64th percentile

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Standing – Not a good shoulder hold with buttstock. Strap from assault 

pack interferes. 

Kneeling – Not a good shoulder hold with buttstock. 

Prone – Helmet pushes down a little on glasses. Can still see target. In 

proper firing position. 

 CCO 

Standing – Shoulder hold not good. Assault pack strap interferes. 

Kneeling – Shoulder hold not good. Assault pack strap interferes. 

Prone – Plastic piece on assault pack hit helmet. Still good firing position. 

 TWS 

Standing – Eyecup is easier to use than when in prone position. 

Kneeling – Eyecup is easier to use than when in prone position. 

Prone – Hard to open eyecup on TWS. Eyecup hits helmet, hard even 

when bareheaded. Not a land warrior specific problem. 

 DVS 

Standing – Buttons difficult to press, very difficult to zoom. 

Kneeling – Buttons difficult to press, very difficult to zoom. 

Prone - Buttons difficult to press, very difficult to zoom. 

** Good access to 203. No problem firing it. DVS in the way a little bit for loading 203 

round. 
97 

Rifleman – M4 TP #4 Stature 190.3 cm – 99th percentile

FLC

 IRON 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 

 CCO 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone – ok 

 TWS 

Standing – To open eyecup properly, have to move buttstock of weapon 

up on shoulder. 

Kneeling – To open eyecup properly, have to move buttstock of weapon 

up on shoulder. 

Prone – ok 

 DVS 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 
98 

Rifleman – M4 TP #4 Stature 190.3 cm – 99th percentile

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – Buttstock position not good 

Prone – Can shoot but head is forced down. Have to cock head to right. 

 CCO 

Standing – 

Kneeling – Buttstock position not good 

Prone – Can shoot but head movement is restricted. 

 TWS 

Standing – Buttstock position is not good, eyecup causing problems. 

Kneeling – Eyecup is difficult to use. 

Prone – NO GO. Head is forced down, can’t open eyecup properly to fire. 

 DVS 

Standing – ok. 

Kneeling – Buttstock position is not good. 

Prone – Can shoot but head forced down. 
99 

Rifleman – M4 TP #4 Stature 190.3 cm – 99th percentile

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock on bicep. 

Kneeling – Buttstock on bicep. 

Prone – NO GO. Head pushed forward. Can only see 6 ft in front. 

 CCO 

Standing – Buttstock on bicep. 

Kneeling – Buttstock on bicep. 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t fire. 

 TWS 

Standing – Eyecup is problem. Buttstock not in correct position. 

Kneeling – Eyecup is problem. Buttstock on top of shoulder. 

Prone – NO GO. Because head is pushed down can’t open eyecup 

properly. 

 DVS 

Standing – ok. 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone – Can only see 6 feet in front without DVS. To use DVS would 

have to acquire target using it. DVS is probably only way to fire in this 

configuration. 
100 

Rifleman – M4 TP #4 Stature 190.3 cm – 99th percentile

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Standing – ok. Good access to controls. 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone - ok.

 CCO 

Standing – ok. 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone – ok. Cable is long enough, even for his tall stature. Sometimes 

cable loops up and gets in his face. 

 TWS 

Standing – Eyecup requires several tries to open correctly. 

Kneeling – Eyecup requires several tries to open correctly. 

Prone – Not full picture. Eyecup obscures part of FOV. Not better without 

specs. 

 DVS 

Standing – ok. Buttstock ok 

Kneeling – ok. Buttstock ok. 

Prone – ok. 
101 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP#8 Stature 172.0 cm – 30th percentile 

* sling may interfere with manipulating selector switch 

FLC

 IRON 

Standing – Zoom wheel not conveniently located. #2920 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone – Hard to access zoom knob. 

 

 CCO 

Standing – ok. 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone – Hard to access zoom knob. 

 TWS 

Standing – Trouble with eyecup. 

Kneeling – Zoom knob and pad on weapon tough to reach. Can’t see 

them with TWS mounted. 

Prone – Eyecup difficult to use 

 DVS 

Standing – ok. 

Kneeling – ok. 

Prone – Sling goes in front of DVS. #2922 
102 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP#8 Stature 172.0 cm – 30th percentile 

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Standing – Trying to jam arm in side for support, 203 rounds jab in arm. 

Zoom knob. 

Kneeling – Buttstock slipping to arm. 

Prone – Access to zoom is difficult. Helmet is pushing forward. Buttstock 

not seated properly – on arm. #2925 

 CCO 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron 

Prone – see iron 

 TWS 

Standing – Needed to use hand to get eyecup correct. Problem even 

without specs. 

Kneeling – Buttstock and eyecup issues. 

Prone – Buttstock not seated properly. Helmet pushing forward and 

blocking view. Can get sight picture if eyecup is manipulated with hand. 

 DVS 

Standing – Same as iron, sling in way. 

Kneeling – see iron. 

Prone – Hard to look at HMD. When getting in prone firing position helmet 

shifts and HMD moves from set position. 
103 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP#8 Stature 172.0 cm – 30th percentile 

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock not seating in shoulder properly. 

Kneeling – Buttstock not seating in shoulder properly. #2929 

Prone – NO GO. Assault pack pushing helmet. Can’t see target without 

pushing up helmet with other hand. Can’t line up sights with target. 

 CCO 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron 

Prone – see iron 

 TWS 

Standing – Had to manipulate eyecup with hand. Buttstock way on 

shoulder to open eyecup properly. #2931 

Kneeling – see standing 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t see target – even without sight. 

 DVS 

Standing – same as iron – sling can get in way. Good access to buttons 

except for zoom. 

Kneeling – same as iron access to zoom is difficult. 

Prone – Can’t see target with eyes but could search with DVS and fire. 

Since helmet is pushed forward, need to reposition HMD. 
104 

Grenadier – M4-M203 TP#8 Stature 172.0 cm – 30th percentile 

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Standing – Some buttstock issues but better than when wearing body 

armour. 

Kneeling – same as standing 

Prone – Helmet still pushing forward but can see target. Buttstock will not 

tuck in properly. 

 CCO 

Standing – same as iron. 

Kneeling – same as iron. 

Prone – same as iron. 

 TWS 

Standing – Had to use hand to get eyecup correct. Buttstock up on 

shoulder to open eyecup. 

Kneeling – Same as standing. 

Prone – Need to use hand to push open eyecup. Can see target, helmet 

pushed forward but using eyecup to keep helmet up. 

 DVS 

Standing – Difficult to reach zoom knob 

Kneeling – see iron. 

Prone – see iron. 
105 

SAW Gunner TP#10 Stature 178.7 cm – 68th percentile

FLC

 IRON 

Prone – TWS cable in way, can’t get sight picture. #2927 

 Can reach buttons on port handle but have to remove. #2921 

 MGO 

Prone – ok. 

 TWS 

Prone – Neck unsupported due to high position of the TWS. #2924 

 Eyecup has to be collapsed just right to get it to work. 

 DVS 

Prone – Need to switch hands between buttstock support and UID. 

Soldier would not be able to fully control weapon when zooming in and out. 
106 

SAW Gunner TP#10 Stature 178.7 cm – 68th percentile

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Prone – SAW shoulder support wire (buttstock) slides off shoulder. Can’t 

get support on shoulder (#2928). Hard to lift neck to search target area. Also 

right and left head turning hard. 

 MGO 

Prone – Due to height of MGO and interference of XXXX, hard to raise 

head to get good sight picture. Can reach charging handle but with slight 

difficulty. 

 TWS 

Prone – Had to turn head almost sideways to get into eyecup (#2930), 

would not be able to hold position to maintain fire. TWS too high and eyecup too 

high, more neck strain than without BALCS. 

 DVS 

Prone – ok. 
107 

SAW Gunner TP#10 Stature 178.7 cm – 68th percentile

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t get sight picture due to rear of helmet hitting off 

assault pack. # 2932. 

 MGO 

Prone – NO GO. Same as standing. #2935. #2936 

 TWS 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t get right eye in eyecup due to intereference 

between assault pack and helmet. #2939. #2940 

 DVS 

Prone – ok. Would have to acquire targets through DVS. 
108 

SAW Gunner TP#10 Stature 178.7 cm – 68th percentile

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Prone – Cable interference with sight picture. 

 MGO 

Prone – ok. 

 TWS 

Prone – ok. TWS just a little high. 

 DVS 

Prone - 
109 

Rifleman – M4 TP #11 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC

 IRON 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 

Right safety interferes when engaging with right hand 

 CCO 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone – ok 

 TWS 

High eye cup 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone – ok 

 DVS 

Standing – ok 

Kneeling – ok 

Prone - ok 
110 

Rifleman – M4 TP #11 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock slides off shoulder, can’t get good stock weld. Collar 

interferes when trying to get good stock weld. 

Kneeling – Has to raise arm higher to get better stock weld 

Prone – Helmet strap interferes with collar. Body armour feels too wide. 

Can’r get comfortable grip on front of weapon. 

 CCO 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron 

Prone – see iron. 

 TWS 

Standing – No buttstock in shoulder. 

Kneeling – No stock weld, no buttstock in shoulder pocket. 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t use eyecup in prone. Helmet and spectacles 

interference. Hard to raise head due to collar. 

 DVS 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron. 

Prone – see iron 
111 

Rifleman – M4 TP #11 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock not seated properly in shoulder (#2943). 

Kneeling – Buttstock not seated properly in shoulder. 

Prone – NO GO. No way to fire. 

 CCO 

Standing – same as iron 

Kneeling – same as iron 

Prone – same as iron 

 TWS 

Standing – Difficult to get eyecup open. Not flexible and all the stuff on 

shoulder. 

Kneeling – Eyecup is problem, had to work to get it open correctly. 

Buttstock on top of shoulder. 

Prone – NO GO. Assault pack pushing helmet forward. Can’t begin to lift 

up weapon. Can’t see target in normal firing position. 

 DVS 

Standing – same as iron 

Kneeling – same as iron 

Prone – Wouldn’t be able to use without DVS in prone. To use DVS 

would have to acquire target using it. DVS is probably only way to fire in this 

configuration and firing position. 
112 

Rifleman – M4 TP #11 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Standing – Buttstock a little tough to seat. Better than when had body 

armour. 

Kneeling – Buttstock a little tough to seat. Better than when had body 

armour. 

Prone – Helmet pushed down a little and blocks some view of target area 

Able to push up helmet and sight in on target.

 CCO 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron 

Prone – see iron 

 TWS 

Standing – Buttstock pocket not great. 

Kneeling – Eyecup requires several tries to open correctly. Buttstock not 

seated well on shoulder 

Prone – Can’t get eyecup working very easily. Helmet pushed down on 

eyecup. Very difficult. 

 DVS 

Standing – see iron 

Kneeling – see iron 

Prone – Can use with DVS. Have to reset position of HMD because when 

you get in pron helmet pushes forward and HMD becomes non-visible until reset. 
113 

SAW Gunner TP#6 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC

 IRON 

Prone – Cable retainer clips for TWS in way, right in visual path. Would 

have to remove them to fire through iron sights. 

 MGO 

Prone – ok. 

 TWS 

Prone – Hard to get eyecup opened properly. To reach controls have to 

reach forward – not the normal firing position. 
114 

SAW Gunner TP#6 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with BALCS 

 IRON 

Prone – Could fire but hard. Could extend legs to help but would not be 

able to traverse easily 

 MGO 

Prone - Head was pushed down but could fire. 

 TWS 

Prone – NO GO – can’t fire, head pushed down and eyecup is a problem.. 
115 

SAW Gunner TP#6 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with BALCS and Assault Pack

 IRON 

Prone – Can get sight picture but hard. Can get at high targets only if 

extend legs of bipod. 

 MGO 

Prone – NO GO - Buttstock slides off shoulder. Can’t get sight picture. 

Head is pushed down too far. 

 TWS 

Prone – NO GO. Can’t push eyecup in to see sight picture. 
116 

SAW Gunner TP#6 Stature 171.3 cm – 27th percentile

FLC with assault pack

 IRON 

Prone – 

 MGO 

Prone – 

 TWS 

Prone – 

 DVS 

Prone - 
117 

Appendix I. Obstacle Course Completion Time Data 

Means 

TIME * TRIAL

TIME

245.6867 12 34.62942

444.5858 12 111.65621

559.8092 12 105.62938

416.6939 36 158.48421

TRIAL

BDU

LW

LW BALCS + PLATES

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

TIME * CONFIG

TIME

366.0525 12 115.64758

409.6358 12 142.82755

474.3933 12 199.14948

416.6939 36 158.48421

CONFIG

rifleman

grenadier

saw gunner

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation

Report

TIME

244.4750 4 51.82727

248.2475 4 25.48257

244.3375 4 32.38053

245.6867 12 34.62942

363.5450 4 53.50998

436.4575 4 90.74305

533.7550 4 123.16119

444.5858 12 111.65621

490.1375 4 56.95610

544.2025 4 77.99714

645.0875 4 122.84157

559.8092 12 105.62938

366.0525 12 115.64758

409.6358 12 142.82755

474.3933 12 199.14948

416.6939 36 158.48421

CONFIG

rifleman

grenadier

saw gunner

Total

rifleman

grenadier

saw gunner

Total

rifleman

grenadier

saw gunner

Total

rifleman

grenadier

saw gunner

Total

TRIAL

BDU

LW

LW BALCS + PLATES

Total

Mean N Std. Deviation
118 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
119 

Appendix J. Equipment Configuration Descriptions 

LW “Rifleman” LBE

The LW “Rifleman” LBE is shown in figure J-1. The LBE has padded shoulder straps, and 

several ammunition and grenade pouches are situated along its front. A general purpose pouch is 

also situated on the right side of the LBE. Several straps and buckles on the LBE allow for 

proper adjustment. 

Figure J-1. LW “rifleman” LBE. 

BALCS

BALCS consists of body armor, an equipment load-carrying subsystem, and a backpack 

subsystem; however, in this study, only the body armor component was used (see figure J-2). 

The body armor component provides ballistic protection and consists of a soft armor vest, front 

and back interchangeable upgrade plates, and modular neck and groin protection. The vest is 

available in four sizes ranging from small to extra large, and the plates are sized with the vest. A 

medium sized vest weighs approximately 6.5 lb, and the corresponding plates weighs 

approximate 6 lb each. 

JSLIST 

The JSLIST is a two-piece garment (hooded coat and trousers), featuring state-of-the-art 

chemical protective lining technology, which provides increased chemical protection while 

allowing more mobility for the Soldier. It is compatible with individual weapons, protective 
120 

masks, footwear, and standard chemical individual equipment at all mission-oriented protective 

posture levels. In this study, both parts of the garment were worn, as well as a protective mask 

with canister, but the protective gloves and boots were not worn in this study (see figure J-3). 

Figure J-2. BALCS body armor. Figure J-3. JSLIST. 
121 

Appendix K. Procedures for Joint Motion Measurement 

Head Flexion

The subject begins in standing position with his head and neck in anatomic position (see 

figure K-1a). The head is then tilted anteriorly in the sagittal plane until the end of ROM is 

reached (see figure K-1b). The goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to base 

of neck, the stationary arm is aligned with the mid-axillary line of the trunk and the moving arm 

is aligned with the mastoid process (see figure K-1b). The average ROM for head flexion is 0° 

to 45°. 

Figure K-1. Head flexion. 

Head Extension

The subject begins in standing position with his head and neck in anatomic position (see figure 

K-2a). The head is then tilted posteriorly in the sagittal plane until the end of ROM is reached 

(see figure K-2b). The goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to base of neck, 

the stationary arm is aligned with the mid-axillary line of the trunk and the moving arm is 

aligned with the mastoid process (see figure K-2b). The average ROM for head extension is 0° 

to 45°. 

(a) (b)
122 

Figure K-2. Head extension. 

Head Rotation

The subject begins in a standing position with his head and neck in anatomic position. The head 

is then rotated laterally (left or right) about the longitudinal axis in the transverse plane until the 

end of ROM is reached (see figure K-3). The goniometer is placed on top of the head and 

aligned so that the fulcrum is over the midpoint of an imaginary line connecting the ears, the 

stationary arm is aligned with the jugular notch, and the moving arm is aligned with the nose. 

The average ROM for head rotation is 0° to 60°. 

Figure K-3. Head rotation. 

(a) (b)
123 

Head Lateral Bending

The subject begins in a standing position with his head and neck in anatomic position (see 

figure K-4a). The head is then tilted laterally (left or right) in the frontal plane until the end of 

ROM is reached (see figure K-4b). The goniometer is placed against the back of the neck and 

aligned so that the fulcrum is at the level of the spinous process of vertebrae C4 or C5, the 

stationary arm is aligned parallel to the midline of the trunk and the moving arm is aligned with 

the occipital protuberance (see figure K-4b). The average ROM for head lateral bending is 0° to 

45°. 

Figure K-4. Head lateral bending. 

Upper Extremity Motions 

Shoulder Flexion

The subject begins in a standing position with the right arm straight at his side and palm facing in 

towards his body (see figure K-5a). The right arm is then raised anteriorly about the coronal axis 

in the sagittal plane until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-5b). The goniometer is 

aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to the acromion process, the stationary arm is aligned 

with the mid-axillary line of the trunk, and the moving arm is aligned with the lateral midline of 

the humerus (see figure K-5b). The average ROM for shoulder flexion is 0° to 180°. 

Shoulder Extension

The subject begins in a standing position with the right arm straight at his side and palm facing in 

toward his body (see figure K-6a). The right arm is then raised posteriorly about the coronal axis 

in the sagittal plane until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-6b). The goniometer is 

aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to acromion process, the stationary arm is aligned with 

(a) (b)
124 

the mid-axillary line of the trunk, and the moving arm is aligned with the lateral midline of the 

humerus (see figure K-6b). The average ROM for shoulder extension is 0° to 60°. 

Figure K-5. Shoulder flexion. Figure K-6. Shoulder extension. 

Shoulder Abduction 

The subject begins in a standing position with the right arm straight at his side and palm facing in 

toward his body (see figure K-7a). The right arm is then raised laterally about the anteriorposterior axis in the frontal plane until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-7b). The 

goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to the posterior aspect of the acromion 

process, the stationary arm is aligned with the vertebral column, and the moving arm is aligned 

with the lateral midline of the humerus (see figure K-7b). The average ROM for shoulder 

abduction is 0° to 180°. 

Shoulder Adduction 

The subject begins in a standing position with the right arm straight at his side and palm facing in 

toward his body (see figure K-8a). The right arm is then raised medially about the anteriorposterior axis in the frontal plane until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-8b). The 

goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to the anterior aspect of the acromion 

process, the stationary arm is aligned with the sternum, and the moving arm is aligned with the 

lateral midline of the humerus (see figure K-8b). The average ROM for shoulder adduction is 0° 

to 75°. 

(a) (b) (a) (b)
125 

Figure K-7. Should and upper arm abduction. Figure K-8. Shoulder adduction. 

Upper Arm Abduction 

The subject begins in a standing position with both arms straight at his sides and palms facing in 

toward his body (see figure K-7a). Both arms are then raised laterally about the anteriorposterior axis in the frontal plane until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-7b). The 

goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed close to the posterior aspect of the right 

acromion process, the stationary arm is aligned with the vertebral column, and the moving arm is 

aligned with the lateral midline of the right humerus (see figure K-7b). 

Lower Extremity Motions 

Hip Flexion

The subject begins in a standing position with his right hip in 0° of abduction, adduction and 

rotation (see figure K-9a). With flexed knee, the right leg is then raised anteriorly in the sagittal 

plane about the transverse axis until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-9b). The 

goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed over the lateral aspect of the hip joint (greater 

trochanter of the femur used as a reference), the stationary arm is aligned parallel to the long axis 

of the trunk, and the moving arm is aligned with the lateral midline of the right femur (see figure 

K-9b). The average ROM for hip flexion is 0° to 120°. 

Hip Extension 

The subject begins in a standing position with his right hip in 0° of abduction, adduction and 

rotation (see figure K-10a). With a straight knee, the right leg is then raised posteriorly in the 

sagittal plane about the transverse axis until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-10b). The 

goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed over the lateral aspect of the hip joint (greater 

trochanter of the femur used as a reference), the stationary arm is aligned parallel to the long axis 

(a) (b) (a) (b) 
126 

of the trunk, and the moving arm is aligned with the lateral midline of the right femur (see figure 

K-10b). The average ROM for hip extension is 0° to 30°.

Figure K-9. Hip flexion. Figure K-10. Hip extension. 

Standing Trunk Flexion

The subject begins in a standing position with his trunk, head, and lower extremities in their 

anatomic positions (see figure K-11a). With a straight back, the trunk is then tilted anteriorly in 

the sagittal plane about the transverse axis until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-11b). 

The goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed slightly above the ilium, the stationary 

arm is aligned perpendicular to the floor, and the moving arm is aligned parallel to the back (see 

figure K-11b). The average ROM for standing trunk flexion is 0° to 80°. 

Standing Trunk Extension

The subject begins in a standing position with his trunk, head, and lower extremities in their 

anatomic positions (see figure K-12a). With a straight back, the trunk is then tilted posteriorly in 

the sagittal plane about the transverse axis until the end of ROM is reached (see figure K-12b). 

The goniometer is aligned so that the fulcrum is placed slightly above the ilium, the stationary 

arm is aligned perpendicular to the floor, and the moving arm is aligned parallel to the back (see 

figure K-12b). The average ROM for standing trunk extension is 0° to 25°. 

(a) (b) (a) (b)
127 

Figure K-11. Standing trunk flexion. Figure K-12. Standing trunk extension. 

(a) (b) (a) (b) 
128 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 * ADMINISTRATOR 

 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CTR 

 ATTN DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 *pdf file only 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI IS R REC MGMT 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TECH LIB 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARL HRED AVNC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM AUN FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MI 

 BLDG 5464 RM 202 J MINNINGER 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM MSL FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MO T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARS AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED USAADASCH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME A MARES 

 ATTN ATSA CD 

 5800 CARTER ROAD 

 FORT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 ARL HRED ARDEC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1002 ROOM 117 

 1ST CAVALRY REGIMENT RD 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED CECOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630 

 1 ARL HRED FT BELVOIR FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARL HRED FT HOOD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 MV HQ USAOTC 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 111 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARL HRED FT HUACHUCA FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARL HRED FLW FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 166 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-8929 

 1 ARL HRED NATICK FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR BLDG 3 

 AMSRD ARL NSC SE E 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARL HRED SC&FG FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS RM 303A 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARL HRED STRICOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT C CHEN 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

 1 ARL HRED TACOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARL HRED USAFAS FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF C HERNANDEZ 

 BLDG 3040 RM 220 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-5600 
129 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED USAIC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARL HRED USASOC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARL HRED FT LEAVENWORTH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP 

 D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARL HRED AMEDD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM V RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094 

 1 ARL HRED SPO 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M M STRUB 

 6359 WALKER LANE STE 100 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310 

 1 ARL HRED JFCOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF D BARNETTE 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23535 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK (TECH LIB) 

 BLDG 4600 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MB J NAWLEY 

 BLDG 459 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459 

 21 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SB 

 A KRAUSMAN (6 CYS) 

 A BOYNTON (3 CYS) 

 W HARPER (6 CYS) 

 S ORTEGA (6 CYS) 

 BLDG 459