.

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — — — 

—

T.ch.IcsI Pup.r 2

~~ 

AD

TRAINING TRANSFER FROM MINI-TAN K RANGE

-

~~~~~~~~~~ TO TANK MAIN GUN FIRING

Robert W. Bauer

JQ. ARI FIELD UNIT FORT KNOX

)C)

DDC

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

S.pt.mb.r 1978

Approv.d for public r.l.ss .; distribution unlimited.

-T ( ~ 1’
— ~~~~~ ~—~:

~~f J~

j

~~~’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operat ing A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staf f for Personnel

WiLLiAM L. HAUSER

J OSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical Director (Designate) Commander

_, NOTICES

DISThISUTION: Primary distribution of this report hes been meds by ARI. PI.as, address corrsipondsnce concerning distribution of sports to: U. S. Army Rs,ssrch Institute for the Sih~~

loraI and Social Sciences. ATTN: PERI.P, 5001 E,i.nho~*r Avenue, Alexandria Virginia 22333.

FINAL Ol9OLTlC~j: This report r

~sy be destroyed sieien It Is no longsr nssdsd. Pluses do not return it to

the U. S. Army Relsercit Institute for the Sehesioral and Social Sciences.

~~ 

Th. findings in this report are not to be construed es an official Dape.t ,..ant of the Army positicn,

unless so ds.lgnussd by other authori,sd documents.
UN CLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wtiai Dat. B,, _________________________________

DE~’

~~

’. ~~~~~~~ 1~ ~~~ IT A rIf~U ~ READ INSTRUCTIONS f

~ U~

JI% I I1’J.

’UR~~ I’I I ~~ I IUI’ ~ I

~~~ U BEFORE COMPLETIN G FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER j2. GO~

/T ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPiENT’S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Paper 285 /

4. TITLE (aid Subtl tl.) TYPE OF REPORT C PERIOD COVERED

‘( 1

~ -------—

~~~~j ~~

XBAINING.IRANSFER FROM MINI—~,ANK RANGE TO TANK ! Final

J ~~~IN,9UN JIRINC . ~~~

‘

~~

- 

- — J S. PER VbWDiG OR. RT NUMBER

I. AUTNOR(a) 5- CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(.)

~~c1

Rob

~~~~~~~~~~~ri 

_______

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS ,/ lb. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJ ECT, TASK

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral f 

/ .. AREA C WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences , 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, / . 1 I 2Q763743A773 Alexandria, Virginia 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~~~ P0RT OATE

US Army Armor School, For t Knox , KY // ~~~~~~ 11781

US Army Tra ining and Doc trine Command • iuuvan.rrasu

Fort Monroe, VA __________________________

IS. MONITORING AGENCY NAM E C AOORES$(U Coat •) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of tAt. ripen)

J c

~ ~1j ~ 

Unclassif ied

J

~~~~~~~~.-, ISa. D~ CLASSIFICAT ION/OOW NGRADING

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tAt. Raport)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited .

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of A. .b.(sact ait•rsd In Block 20, II dlff.,.nt born R.port)

IS. SUPPLEM ENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WOR DS (C.ntlnu • ai r.vsr.. old. If occ..Iay aid Id.ntlty by block nueb.t)

Transfer of training

Tra in ing effec tiveness

Subcaliber tra ining dev ices

Simula tion

Mini—tank range training device ao.aosrsAcr ~~~~~~ — .,

~~~~~ 

-- N . _-—y • I*S1t~~ by block ., 5ot)

~~~ Subcaliber training devices are used for preliminary firing exercises to

reduce ammunition costs during tank gunnery training. The mini-tank range has

been recently introduced into US Army armor training after extended use by the

British grmy . The present report compares the effectiveness of two training

devices, the mini—tank range and the tank coaxial machine gun, in terms of

gunner ’s qualif ying performance with the tank main gun.

The training transferred from the mini-tank range experience to 105-nan main

gun live firm a was relatively effective. The mini—tank ranae exercises werI~~~ ~j-v~~

DO 

~~~~ 

W3.

~ 

(OflioN of I NOV Si tS OSSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SI SS Y CL*I$I F~CAYION OP ThIS PAGE (

~~ ai Dot. liwioci5

L.

~ 

ate-- 

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

__

- - a - - - - 

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

~~—-~~~~ • - - ---~~~~~~-

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICAtION OF THIS PAGE( i Data mWN.~~ / Y.in genera more accura te and eff icient and less cos tly than the 7.62 mm coaxial

machine gu in single shot mode used for comparison .

I

I

- - -

.

~~

Ry 

,,

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(WSIS.I Data lnt.ri 4f

- 

I 

~ Jr-~ te~~

- - - ____-

~~~

- -

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

~~~~~~~~~~

---—-—~

_ _ - -

_ —~

-_-- ------.--

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

- —--

Tichulcal Pep.r 285

TRAINING TRANSFER FROM MINI-TANK RANGE

TO TANK MAIN GUN FIRING

Robert W. Bauer

ARI FIELD UNIT FORT KNOX

Donald F. Haggard, Field Unit Chief

Submitted By: Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director Joseph Zeidner

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (Designate)

PERFORMANCE RESEARCH

LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Pirsonnel

Dep rtment of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Number Combat Unit Training

20763743A773

.AporINod for puMic isleass; dIStItbudOn unlindtsd. 

_____

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

_ ——
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

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

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

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

f

t

.1I
—-—.--~~~~~~~ - -

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

4

FOREWORD

The research reported here is part of a broader program on

combat unit training and simulation being conducted by the US

Army Re search Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) in both the ARI field units and the Un it Tra ining and

Evaluation Systems Technical Area.

The ARI F ield Unit at For t Knox , KY , is charged with developing cost—effective methods for collective tank training . The

field unit has the objective of improving effectiveness and

eff iciency of tra ining ar mor crews by analys is and field research

on transfer of training from the training device simulations to

actual performance .

Small caliber training devices can be used for the prelim—

m ary tables in tank main gun exercises. The present research

evaluated the effectiveness of current subcaliber training compared

to training with the .22—caliber mini—tank range device , which

provided a savings in operating cost .

Research was done by personnel of the Fort Knox Field Unit

during armor exercises at Fort Rood , TX.

ARI wishes to express appreciation for the support and cooperation of COL John P. Prillaman , Commander of the 2d Br igad e , let

Cavalry Division , For t Hood ; and special thanks to the officers and

men of 1/7 Cavalry , commanded by LTC John E. Toye. The entire

program is done under Army Project 2Q763743A773 and is responsive

to requirements of the US Army Armor School at Fort Knox ; the Army

Training and Doctrine Command ; and the Army Forces Command .

ical rector (Designate)

.e* . .S—.--- _ - - - — - - -
_ _

TRAINING TRANSFER FROM MINI—TANK RANGE TO TANK MAIN GUN FIRING

BRIEF

Requirement:

The mini—tank range , a device recently introduced into US

Army armor training after extended use in the British Army ,

prev iously has not been evaluated for training effectiveness.

The purpose of this research was to compare the training effectiveness of the new device with current subcaliber training using

the tank coaxial machine gun . The research was in terms of

transfer of training from the subcaliber devices to main gun

firing performance and of relative training efficiency and cost.

Proced ur e:

In coordination with a battalion gunnery exercise at Fort

Hood , TX , 105 mm M6OAI main gun firing performance was compared

among three tank company groups of approximately equal experience. Two experimental groups (N 17 and 15) fired the .22

caliber mini—tank range device tables as preliminary exercises to

Table IV main gun . The control group (N — 18) used the 7.62 mm

coaxial machine gun (single shot) preliminary tables. Each of

the three groups had 15 or more tank performances measured by

independent evaluation teamS of subcaliber Table II and main gun

Tables IV , V, and VIII. The control group and one experimental

group fired 130 rounds per man on the preliminary tables; the

second experimental group f ired 260 ro unds , the full number

prescribed for mini—tank range tables (TC 17—12—6).

Findings :

The mini—tank range exercises were in general more accurate

and efficient and less costly than those using the 7.62 mm sub—

caliber training device (TC 17—12—5). The experimental group

given the full firing experience on the mini—tank range had

faster first—round time—to—fire scores on main gun Table IV ,

achieved the best main gun hit performance on Tables IV and VIII,

and also achieved the best overall scores and had no crew failures on Table VIII. However, differences among the three groups

on main gun performance measures were generally not statistically

significant . Individual experience showed no significant relationship with criterion main gun performance.

Utilization of Findings :

Res ults and r ecommenda tions will be used by US Army Armor

School and US Army Training and Doctrine Command in armor train—

ing develo pmen t and by US Arm y Forc es Command units in planning

- and administering tank gunnery training .

~ 

_fl_ - ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~: —
- 

1 -

TRAINING TRANSFER FROM MINI—TANK RANGE TO TANK MAIN GUN FIRING

CONTENTS

Page

OBJECTIVE S 1

METHOD 2

Design and Procedures 2

Subjects 5

4 Criteria 6

Field Procedures 7

RESULTS 10

Transfer of Training 10

Eff iciency of Training 14

Costs 14

DISCUSSION 15

CONCLUSIONS 17

APPENDIXE S 19

DISTRIBUTION LIST 30

i

F - -
________________ - ---—~~~~~_- - --

TABLES Page

Table 1. Research design 3

2. Comparison of subject experience across groups 5

3. Percent hits after BOT, Table II 9

4. Mean number of rounds fired per gunner 9

5. Mean time—to—fire first round of engagements for

all gunners , Tables IV and V 11

6. Mean target hit percentages for gunners , Tabl es IV andV 11

7. Mean scores , calculated as percent of max imum

possible scores , and number of crew failures , Table VIII 13

8. Percentage of engagements in which at least one

hit was scored 13

F IGURES

Figure 1. Officer serving as instructor while loading .22

caliber subealiber training device (SCTD) 4

2. Shimming necessary to force convergence on sight

at 6O m 8

3. Accumulated cost of rounds fired by a battalion

in quarterly exercises on preliminary tables 16
TRAINING TRANSFER FROM MINI—TANK RANGE TO TANK MAIN GUN FIRING

OBJECTIVE S

In the training of armor crewmen , use of fuel and costs of ammunition are matters of much concern. Use of full field equipment is so

expensive that numerous simulator and subcaliber training devices have

been developed or adopted by the armor community in an effort to cut

costs and yet provide good gunnery training . The field mini—tank range

is a subcaliber training device , usually associated with a training

complex . The device has a long history of use in the British Army and

has shown a high potential for cost—effective application to US armor

training . Even though the mini—tank range has been put into regular

training use by some units , effectiveness of such training has not yet

been systematically evaluated .

Training effectiveness can best be evalua ted by measurement of

transfer of training from the device exercise to some criterion performance with full field equipment.

In this case , training using the device is intended to provide

skills necesssary to effective main gun crew performance , especially

gunner performance . The ulti’

~ate criterion for armor crewmen is, of

course , combat effectivc.~ess.

For obvious reasons , however, the performance chosen for use as

V a research criterion measure must be some more accessible training

exercise calling upon a representative array of combat gunnery skills.

The main gun exercises making up the gunnery tables could provide

criterion measures , especially Gunnery Table VIII , the crew qualification

exercise .

A training transfer evaluation design was developed in coordination

with planning for a battalion ’s tank gunnery range training exercises.

The coordination provided advantages in the conservation of fuel ,

maintenance , and main gun ammunition (already allocated to the battalion

for training), while making available the battalion resources for

diviaion into comparable controlled training groups.

The primary purpose of the experiment was to evaluate transfer

of mini—tank range training to live 105 mm main gun firing performance

of tank crew members. The plan called for a comparison of a mini—tank

range trained group with a group trained on the standard 7.62 mm tables

(TC 17—12—5).’

US Arm y Armor School , Tank Gunnery Training . it 17— 12—5 , Fort Knox , KY ,

January 1975.

— ~~~~ ~~~~~~ -

~~~——-~~~~ - ~

-

~~

‘—-~~~~~—— - ~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- ----- -
__ ___

Other purposes included gaining understanding of the relacionships

among gunnery exercises , improving administration of preliminary gunnery

exercises (see Appendix A), and the early prediction of more effective

gunne r performance (see Appendix B).

METHOD

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

The research design involved a comparison among three company—size

groups : a control group using the current training method and two

experimental groups using two levels of training on the mini—tank range

prior to cr4terion performance on the main gun .

The control group of 18 tank gunners used 7.62 mm ammunition in the

coaxial machine gun (single shot) on the preliminary tables as provided

in TC 17—12—5.

The two experimental groups used .22 caliber long rifle ammunition

in the subcaliber training device on the mini—tank range in preliminary

tables as described in it 17_ 12_ 6 .

2 The control group followed TC

17— 12—5 through the preliminary Gunnery Tables I, II and III, each man

firing 130 rounds.

The experimental groups , X1 and X2, required each man to fire

130 rounds and 260 rounds , respectively, on Gunnery Tables I through VII

on the mini—tank range . (258 rounds are prescribed for Gunnery Tables

I through VIII on the mini—tank range in TC 17—12—6.)

This requirement matched experimental group X1 with control group

C on preliminary subcaliber rounds and also provided data on experimen—

tal group X2 which was given the full mini—tank range experience

through Table VII. (See Table 1.)

The mini—tank range exercises were conducted as part of a set

of training exercises that included a tank crew qualification course

(TCQ C), a ranging and tracking course , and a synchronization and alignment exercise . All three groups completed all the exercises except the

mini—tank range exercises , which were given only to the two experimental

groups.

Thiring the TCQC, an assistant instructor (Al) rode on each tank ;

during the mini—tank range exercises an officer or noncommissioned

officer often served as Al, sometimes serving as observer or loader

while directing the sequence of training (Figure 1).

2 US Arm y Armor School , Field Mini—Tank Range Complex . It 17— 12—6

DRAFT, Fort Knox , XI , August 1975.

-2- 

-- - - ----
-

~~

----— --——-- ---—-- *-_-——----_— --_- - - -——— -_ 

I

The criteria for comparison of relative transfer of training

were to be gunner performances on main gun on Gunnery Tables IV , V , and

VIII, as scored by evaluation teams drawn from resources other than the

battalion under study.

Table 1

RESEARCH DESIGN

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Group 1 Group 2

(C) (X 1) (x2)

n (tank/gunners) 18 17 15

Preliminary tables 1,11,111 I,II,III ,IV, I,II,III ,IV

7.62 mm V,VI ,VII V ,VI,VII

(TC 17—25—5 ) Mini—tank range Mini—tank range

(Tc 17—12—6) (TC 17—12—6)

Preliminary tables total

number rounds per man

(day & night) 130 130 260

• Tank Crew Qualification

Course (TCQC) (dry) x x x

Main gun tables

(all TC 17—12—5 )

Zero x x x

IV (day only) x x x V (day only) x x x VIII (day & night) x x x

_ - 

-3-

— ___________ _____
___________________ -_~~~~—~~~--

~ -__ .—---—--._- --_ -~-—- -_--— - • ~~— -_-- - - - - - ---~~~—~~~~ -

1

‘4

‘I I

I

i

i 

-. ~~~~~~~ &

•. 

.1

• 

~~

F

~

*

~

jii;~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~ i l l

~~

Figure 1. Officer serving as instructor while loading .22 caliber

subcaliber training device (SCTD) 

- ._ •-- - 

-4-

I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~- — - -.~

- 

~ 

•—- •- _

~~ ;_.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

_ __ • - • - - — —

-— _ - -—-—•—‘ —
_______

SUBJECTS

The subjec ts were the gunners of one armored cav alry ba ttalion,

which was completing its annual tank gunnery training and crew qualification cycle at Fort Hood , TX. Gunner performances could be observed

and measured as the gunners performed the preliminary subcaliber tables

and the main gun exercises culminating in Table VIII.

The battalion required that crews proceed through the exercises

in company groups , maintaining company integrity throughout the training, except that the battalion headquarters tank crews were added to

one company during the firing exercises.

The requirement to maintain company integrity limited the number

of comparison groups to a maximum of three and did not permit experimen—

tal control of crew assignments. It is widely assumed that tank crew

experience contributes to proficiency.

Therefore , data on gunner experience were gathered across groups

in order to permit an assessment of group comparability. Four experience measures on gunners were obtained (Table 2). The first was simply

months of experience in MOS liE (Armor Crewman).

The second was months of experience in the tank commander position.

The third was months of experience in the gunner position. The fourth

measure was a count of gunners who had qualified during the prior

three years.

V

Table 2

COMPARISON OF SUBJECT EXPERIENCE ACROSS GROUPS

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Groupa Group 1 Group 2

Group (C) (X1) (X2)

n ( tanks/gunners ) 18 17 15

Months of experienceb

in MOS liE 0—16—96 0—15—60 11—33—63

as Tank ~~dr 0—0—6 0—0—24 0—0—24

as Gunner 0— 4—70 0—6—40 0—3—24

Gunners qual if ied

prior 3 yrs 4 5 5

a Included battalion headquarters crews. b Months of experience are shown as minimum—median—maximum .

—5—

__

~

_ _ __ _. .__ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

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

Thoug h the X2 group appeared to have more experience in the MOS

and the X j group more experience as gunners, the three groups were

regarded as equivalent and comparable for the purpose of the experiment.

Correlation/coefficients run after the data were gathered indicated

no significant relationship between MOS liE experience and Gunnery Table

VIII scares (r — .005, n — 41), and no significant relationship between

gunner assignment experience and Gunnery Table VIII scores (r — .05,

n— 40).

Prior agreement with the battalion that no gunners were to be

chang ed f:o m their or iginal crew ass ignment pr ior to com pletion of

Gunnery Table V main gun firing permitted the use of Gunnery Tables IV

and V as intermediate criteria of tank gunner performance. Relatively

few gunners were actually changed through the entire sequence.

CRITERIA

Measures of interest in the transfer experiment were gunner performances on the tank main gun Tables IV , V, and VIII, as scored by independent evaluation teams. (Machine—gun scores from preliminary tables

were not included in the statistical comparisons.)

The maintenance of crew stability through Gunnery Table V permitted

the use of daytime main gun performance on Gunnery Tables IV and V

as intermediate criteria . In actuality, crew changes were rather few

even after completion of Gunnery Table V.

It was possible to track most of the gunners through the qualification Gunnery Table VIII, which served as the final criterion . ~~i

earlier tables, only day f iring scor es were analyze d , but on Gunnery

Table VIII both day and night scores were recorded and analyzed , with

machine—gun exercises separated out as noted above .

Table VI, a machine—gun table , was not included in the analysis ,

and Gunnery Table VII, a pra ctice for Table VIII, was not scored by

an independent team and so was not included .

~~

i Gunnery Tables IV and V , hits were scored as well as time—to—

fire first round (in seconds) on each engagement. ~~i Table VIII, hit

scores and time scores were recorded but actual time—to—fire was not.

In combat gunnery, it is important not only to get a high percent—

age of hits , but also very important to get at least one hit in each

engagement. Thu., a score was derived for each main gun table to in—

dicate the percentage of engagements in which at least one hit was

obtained .

—6—

—- 

.

—- - — ~- - I- ,--- _

~

- - -

— s_,--~~-- - .
-~~~~~ -- - ----— --- - --~- --~~ — — - - ----—

FIELD PROCEDURES

The BC scope was used from the range tower in scoring main gun

tables. Generally, members of the tank crew received a quick report on

their hits after each engagement on main gun tables. A timer mounted on

each firing tank also recorded time—to—fire first rounds on Tables IV

and V main gun.

In order to get equivalent tines—to—fire , each gunner was instruc ted to lay the main gun off targets and on the pole marking the

edge of the range fan prior to each engagement.

Then the timing of the first round was begun either with the

first movement of the gun or the tank commander ’s fire command , with the

word , “Gunner” , whichever was first observed by the timer. Elapsed time

closed with the report of the gun.

The early plans were to use Table II, a burst—on—target (BOT)

adjustment table in both it 17—12—5 and it 17— 12—6 , as a preliminary

control and for comparison among all three groups.

Differences between the 7.62 mm machine gun simulation and the

.22 caliber mini—tank range simulation interacted with the firing

results obtained and made such a controlled comparison impossible . (

~ the 7.62 mm range , the targets for Gunnery Tables I, II, and III were

made up of concentric 4—inch and 8—inch circles at 60 meters (m) range.

The smaller , 4—inch circle subsumed 2.2 mils at that range . Because

this size was more nearly comparable to the 18 sills subsumed by the

mini—tank range Gunnery Table II targets second—round hits on the

smaller target were selected for comparison in the analysis.

The hit percentage for the control group was relatively low in

comparison with the two experimental groups , despite the somewhat

larger target size .

The control group officers had great difficulty in achieving

convergence of the coaxial machine gun at 60 m versus the design convergence at 800 m . Figure 2 illustrates the shimming necessary to force

the gun to the extreme right of the aperture ring .3

Largely beca use of this proble m , the co ntrol grou p used all the

first day and part of the second day on the range on Gunnery Table I,

which required zeroing the 7.62 mm machine gun at 60 m , thus consuming a

major portion of the three days assigned to that group for Gunnery

Table s I, II, and III and reduc ing the time remaining for the bulk of

the preliminary table firing .

• ~ Tank Gunnery Aasistance Team, 1st Cavalry Division , For t Hood , TX,

advised on review that such shimming should not be done——that procedures described in operator’s manual , Th 9—2350—215—10, make conver—

gence at 60 m easier.

—7—

____

~

___ _1_ _ _ _ - — _ — - _ - --- -
F- --_--

~~

-----------—_-•---—-‘—---———

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

.

~~~~~~~~~~

-—.--—---- -—-_ — - -,---__-— • _ - -‘

The control group of commissioned and noncommissioned officers

also felt that th. zero shot pattern of the 7.62 mm machine gum was

very large at 60 a and unsuitable for a BOT exercise . They expressed

the opinion that single—shot fire of the coaxial machine gun puts

unusual wear on the breech block , bolt assembly , and the extractors.

p 

w

- 

)

V

‘

/

Figure 2. Shimming necessary to force

convergence on sight at 60 m

The mini—tank range .22 caliber simulation used a range in which

the nearest targets are at about 1000 a simulated by an actual range of

53 feet near the front edge of the sand table.

From tha t line on , each foot represents 100 a; 1200 m (the zero—

range) is thus represented by 55 feet , and 4000 m or maximum range by 83

feet , as measured from a stake at the front wheel of the tank.

Though the targets used for Gunnery Tables I and II were slightly

smaller in angular area than the target . used on the 7.62 mm range,

about twice as many second—round hits were achieved on the mini—tank

range Table II (see Table 3). Pre iuaa bly, this result was a function of

the greater accuracy of the .22 caliber system.

-8- 

J

— - __ • - - • - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _~~~~~~ _ - -• — _—. • —
— - - -- - - --- ---- - - --- -~~ -----~~~~~~~~~~ --- - -

Table 3

PERCENTAGE OF HITS AFTER BOT , TABLE II

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Group 1 Group 2

(C) (X1) (X2)

All crewmen 39 50 70

Gunners only 37 75 85

The three group s did not fire exactly the same number of main

gun rounds on each table , as is indicated in Table 4. One company did

not fire second rounds after first—round hits on Table IV. On Table

VIII , gunners who achieved more first—round hits generally used fewer

rounds and received more cred its for round s saved .

Table 4

MEAN NUMBER OF ROUNDS FIRED PER GUNNER

Company Gro ups

Control Exper imental Experi mental

Group Group 1 Gro up 2

(C) (X 1) (X2)

Subcal iber Tables (7.62 mm) (.22 cal ) (.22 cal )

I , II , III Total 130 None None

(TC 17—12—5 )

I through VII None Total 130 Total 260

(TC 17—12—6 )

Ma in Gun Tables

Zero 5+ 5+ 5+

Table IV (day ) 18 16 18

Table V (day) 14 14 14

Table VIII (day

and night ) 14 15 14
---- - ~ - - - - - ——- ——— -- - - - .- -—--- - - -

~~ - - --- --- 

RESULTS

TRANSFER OF TRAININ G

Main gun Tables IV and V were analyzed in terms of time—to—fire

first round of each engagement and target hits on each engagement. The

mean time—to—fire first round is presented in Table 5.

Croup8 trained on the mini—tank range achieved better time scores

than the control group on Gunnery Table IV but not on Table V.

Analysis of variance indicated tha t the differences were statistically significant between Groups (F( 2 ,42) — 5.78, p< .01), Tables

(F( 1,42) — 10.50 , p< .005), and the Groups by Tables Interaction (F( 2 ,42 —

9.74, p< .0Oi).~ Analysis of variance summary tables are in Appendix C.

Table 5 shows the percentage of engagements meeting a time criterion

of < 10 seconds for battlesight engagements or < 15-seconds for precision

engagements. Time limits for battlesight firing are generally shorter

because the round is preloaded and the range is previously indexed , thus

reducing the time required to fire the first round .

Analysis of variance indicated significant differences for Groups

(F( 2 ,42) — 4.63 , p< .05) and groups by Tables Interaction (F(2,42) — 9.48,

p< .001) but not for Tables (F(1 ,42) — 3.42, p> .05). (See Appendix C

for summary tables.)

Target hit results on main gun Tables IV and V are shown in Table

6. The X2 group showed the best hit performance on Table IV but the

V three groups performed equally well on Table V , the mov ing target table .

The differences between the groups were not significant , however.

Analysis of variance with unweighted means solution showed a

significant difference between Tables, F(1 ,46) — 27.21 , p< .001, but no

significant differences among Companies (groups) and no significant

interaction (F(2,46 — .46 , p> .05, and F(2,46) — 2.64 , p> .05,

respectively. (See Appendix C for summary tables.)

~ Kirk , R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral

Sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole , 1968.

-

• 4- - 

-10 -
- —~~~~~~~

!

Table 5

MEAN TIME—TO—FIRE FIRST ROUND OF ENGAGEMENTS FOR ALL GUNNERS ,

TABLES IV AND V

Company Gro ups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Group 1 Group 2

(C) (X 1) (X2)

TABLE IV

Mean time—to—fire 14 sec. 11 sec . 9 sec .

Percent meeting

criteriaa 65% 80% 962

TABLE V

Mean time—to—fire 10 sec . 11 sec 9 sec .

Percent meeting

criteria* 882 822 88%

a Percent of engagements meeting time criteria of < 10 seconds on

battlesight engagements , ~ 15 seconds on precision engagements.

Table 6

MEAN TARGET HIT PERCENTAGE S FOR GUNNERS , TABLES IV AND V

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Gr oup 1 Group 2

(C) (X 1) (X 2)

Table IV 332 29% 442

Table V 582 582 54%

— 1 1 —

— _ _ L._ .__ ’

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ — . - - • • — •• - _______________
Table 7 summarizes the results on main gun Table VIII. For purposes

of comparison , the main gun scores were transformed into percentages

of the maximum score possible for each gunner on day and night f iring

combined .

The mean score for the X2 group was highest, but the d~~terences

among groups were not statistically significant. The gro’.

~

ps were also

examined for differences in crew failures and for differences in their

med ian level of qualif ica tion , two measures important to commanders.

The X2 group had no crew failures. The X1 group, which had fired

half the number of rounds prescribed on the mini—tank range tables,

performed poorly on Table VIII , with five failures .

The X2 average (median) performance on Table VIII was Distinguished

the highest level of qualification, while the X 1 and C groups average

performance was Expert. Analysis of variance indicated a nonsignificant

mean score percent , F( 2 40) — .49, p> .O5.~ (See Appendix C.)

Table 8 shows , for each group , the percentage of total engagements

in which one or more hits were scored . This measure , dev ised for the

present analysis, appears to have face validity as a criterion approaching

combat requirements.

The differences shown favored the X2 group on Gunnery Tables IV

and VIII , but the differences between groups were not statistically

significant.

Analysis of variance with unweighted means solution was significant

for Tables , F(2 ,76) — 19.40 , p< .001; nonsignificant for Groups , F(2 ,38) — .52, p> .05, and Interaction , F(4 ,76) — .10 , p> .05. (See

Appendix C.)

~ Bruning .J. L., and Kintz , B. L. Computational Handbook of Statistics.

Glenview , Illinois: Scott , Foresman , 1968.

— 12 — 

- --—— -
- -- .- -- - 

Table 7

MEAN SCORES , CALCULATED AS PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORES ,

AND NUMB ER OF CREW FAILURES, TABLE VIII

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Group 1 Group 2

(C) (X 1) (X 2)

Mean score 74% 67% 80%

Crew failures 2 5 0

Tabl e 8

PERCENTAGE OF ENGAGEMENTS IN WHICH AT LEAST ONE HIT WAS SCORED

Company Groups

Control Experimental Experimental

Group Group 1 Group 2

(C) (X 1) (X 2)

Table IV 53% 50% 63%

Tabl e V 69% 71% 64%

Table VIII 81% 75% 83%

— 13 —

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —— _______________

— _: U___ it - ,- -

~~~~~ . — -
EFFICIENCY OF TRAINING

Observers reported tha t the mini—tank range was set up and training

begun in a half—day or less with each of the two experimental companies.

The control group required more than a day to begin training on the 7.62

mm range largely because of the extreme difficulty in achieving convergence with the coaxial machine gun at 60 m.

Control group efficiency was also reduced by problems in the

reliability of the 7.62 mm machine gun. Furthermore, control group

scores on Gunnery Table II were reduced by the wide dispersion and

relatively inaccurate performance of the 7.62 mm machine gun in the

single—shot point target mode.

The mini—tank range also presented some difficulties in set—up ;

most notable was the failure to insert the aperture disc to eliminate

parallax in the sight picture prior to firing .

Much of the Xj group Table II firing had been completed before

- a sight parallax problem was resolved by the proper insertion of the

disc aperture into the sight assembly. This problem did not adversely

affect the X2 group , which followed the X1 group on the mini—tank

range .

Recommendations toward the more efficient operation of the mini—

tank range and suggestions for improvemen t of TC 17—12—6 are included in

Append ix A.

However , observation of this battalion indicated that the 258

rounds prescribed in TC 17—12— 6 for eight preliminary tables, when

fired in an effective training sequence , will ordinarily require less

time on the range than the 130 rounds of 7.62 mm prescribed for the

three preliminary Tables of TC 17—12—5.

Ordinarily a tank company commander would plan to give all his

tank commanders, tank gunners, and potential or alternate tank gunners

the full mini—tank range training prior to the main gun tables. In

effect , 60—80% of the company tank crewmen can be expected to complete

the mini—tank range tables in about three days and evenings of concentrated exercises.

COSTS

The most recently constructed mini—tank range at Fort Hood is

a two—tank range built by the 2nd Armored Division in 1974 at a cost

of $16 ,000 for material and $7,000 for troop labor . These costs do

not apply to the entire complex but to the mini—tank range , exclusively.

However, these costs do include targets , moving target system ,

electrical system , target sand table , retaining walls, earth—moving ,

and covered firing station . Allowing 20% additional for inflation

since 1974 , the cost of a mini—tank range complex was estimated at

$27 ,600 (1976 dollars).

— 14 —

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

-

- - - - -- - —

-

-—-- - ~~~~~~~~~~~

- - 

- -

~ 

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

In comparison with firing subcaliber tabies on the more remote

field ranges, there are substantial savings in fuel, travel, and cleanup

time in the use of the more accessible mini—tank ranges on post .

The savings in ammunition alone are very significant and nearly

constant from one post to another. For example, a battalion with 50

tanks firing on Gunnery Tables I, II, III on the 7.62 mm range will

require 130 rounds per man or 26, 000 rounds for all crew members to fire

on TC 1 7— 1 2—5 .

At 20 cents per round, the cost of ammunition is $5,200 for the

7.62 mm range only. On the mini—tank range, using Table I through VIII

from TC 17—12— 6, each man will fire twice as many rounds in the same

allotted time on the range. These 260 rounds per man will require

52 ,000 .22—caliber long rifle rounds at one cent per round , or $520.

One battalion firing the exercises quarterly at the indicated

ammunition cost saving of $4,680 each quarter would amortize the total

cap ital investment in the mini—tank range construction in less than 18

months (Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

In any such field experiment, a number of extraneous and uncontrolled variables interact with the results obtained .

Certainly, good management and troop morale can affect the quality

of performance of a tank company, regardless of the training procedures

j employed . Equipment failures and bad weather can plague the best

r efforts of men with machines. Weather differences were not significant

during the experiment. -

However, there were equipment maintenance and operational problems

with both old and new tanks in the battalion . The exchange of the

older M6OA 1 tanks for new M6OAI/AOS tanks (with add—on stabilization)

was occurring throughout the battalion .

All three groups were receiving the new tanks just prior to the

gunner exercises; C group inluded 10 AOS among their 18 tanks, X1 group

included 9 among their 17, and X2 group had 14 among their 15.

These differences should be interpreted as of no special advantage

to any particular group , since the new AOS tanks were by no means

trouble—free and no firing was done “on the move.”

An improvement is generally expected from one training experience

to the next. However, it is surprisingly difficult to demonstrate

such rela !ionships among gunnery exercises.

— 15 —

____ -

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

-

-

- -
F- - —------ —. - -

~~

--- - . -------- --- 

45 -

40 

/

4

/

U.

I Mini.tank rafl~~ ptem ~~ a t ~~~’

~~~~~~~~~~j —

~~~ 2O-

:: 

1

~

2 

-

~~~~ 1~ ~1 ~4

Months

Figure 3. Accumulated cost of rounds fired by a battalion in quarterly exercises on the preliminary tables. (Capital investment in

mini-tank range at $27,600; capital investment in 7.62 mm

range assumed zero.)

In the analysis of the data gathered in the experiment , the data on

performance time and hits from the sequential tables were plotted

and examined for the regular increases characteristic of learning

curves. Any such regular improvement within tables was largely obscured

by variations in target , range , and ammunition requirements occurring

in a near—random fashion throughout.

Regular increases between gunnery tables, more representative

of learning increments, were noted (Tables 5, 6, and 8).

Early in planni:.5, it was thought that the gunners’ prior experience might show a relationship with Gunnery Table VIII scores. The

three groups differed somewhat in time in MOS and time in gunner assignment (Table 1).

— 16 — 

:

~

_ _ ~~~ -~~~~ -

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

_ 

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

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

~~~-~~~~~~

- ---

~~~~~

However, correlation coefficients between MOS experience and

Table VIII scores as well as between gunner experience and Table VIII

scores were not significantly different from zero. It was reasonable to

expect positive relationships among performances on different tables.

However , all correlation coefficients among Table II mini—tank range

and Tables IV, V, and VIII main gun performances were insignificant.

Nevertheless, it may be possible to structure the results of gunnery

exericses so as to improve the prediction of gunner success.

The possibility of improving the prediction of gunner success is

explored further in Appendix B.

Given the prevalence of null relationships among gunnery exercises

and experience indicators, it is perhaps the more surprising to observe

differences among the groups. There were, of course, differences

between the experimental groups and the control group in their preliminary table experiences. These differences argue for the greater eff i—

ciency of the mini—tank range exercises. Both experimental groups were

able to set up and zero their weapons more efficiently and the X2

group was able to fire twice as many rounds as the control group in the

same time on the range and at less cost.

The major question addressed was that of transfer of training

from mini—tank range exercises to main gun performance. Main gun

performance differences between groups were small and generally not

statistically significant. However, the differences were considered

important from a military viewpoint.

The X2 group, which followed the TC 17—12—6 procedures and

fired the full 260 rounds on Tables I through VII (mini—tank range),

showed the best time and hit performance on main gun Table IV and

achieved the best overall performance on Gunnery Table VIII with no crew

failures.

The median performance of the X2 group was Distinguished .

The median perfo rmances of the X 1 group and of the C group wer e at

the Expert level with 5 failures and 2 failures, respectIvely.

CONCLUSIONS

The mini—tank range exercises were in general more accurate,

efficient , and less costly than the 7.62 mm range firing used for

comparison.

Use of the mini—tank range exercises in preliminary subcaliber

training prior to main gun firing was shown to be at least equally

effective in terms of training transfer.

— 17 —
r —-- 

~~~

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

Gunners given the full training experience (260 rounds) on

Gunnery Tables I through VII (TC 17—12—6) performed well on main gun

Tables IV and VIII. Cutting these preliminary exercises 50% (130

rounds) resulted in a relatively poor performance on main gun tables.

The favorable training effect of the mini—tank range exercises

may be further enhanced by better scoring, practice distribution and

administration of the exercises with emphasis upon correct crew procedures (Appendix A).

The evidence here is limited to the use of mini—tank range training

in preliminary exercises or supplementary exercises. The evidence

obtained does not show the effect of substitution of mini—tank exercises

for main gun tables; all three group s fired a full allotment of main gun

round s on Tables IV , V , VU and VIII.

-18 - 

- - - 

*- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~ - ~~ - -- - - - S - --. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

~ -- —- — --
APPENDIXES

Appendix Page

A. Suggestions for Improved Mini—Tank Range Effectiveness 21

B. Predition of Gunner Performance 23

Table B—i. Prediction of Qualification on Table VIII

from Table IV 24

B—2. Detailed Prediction of Qualification on

Table VIII from Table IV 25

C. Summary Tables for Analyses of Variance 27

_ ——-~~ ~~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -. _

————-—----- -.

~~~~~~~~~ ,

--———-—--- -—------— _-----—--.—--- _ 

— -—----.---
-

APPENDIX A Su GGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED MINI—TANK RANGE EFFECTIVENESS

There were some problems in the administration of the mini—tank

range training and in the procedures and scoring given in TC 17—12—6 ,

which provided guidance on operation of the mini—tank range.

The following suggestions for improving training are not research

conclusions per se, but are based on field observations and general

training research background .

With regard to the TC 17—12—6 , two suggestions for improvement

emerged from the experience with this training.

First, the scoring patterns recommended are inaccurate and inconsistent and should be corrected and properly explained.

Second, only one of the first seven Gunnery tables, Table VII,

includes moving targets. These moving target exercises appeared both

enjoyable and beneficial to the crew members, perhaps partly as a

diversion from the tedium of a long series of stationary target exer—

cises. The inclusion of additional moving target engagements, spread

through some of the earlier exercises, may be beneficial, and just as

important, may add considerable interest to the other tables.

With regard to the administration of the mini—tank range exercises,

the following obervations may be helpful .

The common practice of guiding each man through the seven mini—

tank range tables in one continuous session contributed to the monotony

of the exercises. Better training results usually can be obtained

by distributing such repetitive practice over several sessions, permitting any one crewman a greater variety of activities within the

training day. In this instance, distributed practice should present

no appreciable added costs in training time or inconvenience. It

may prove more efficient to present the mini—tank range training in

several phases, e.g., Gunnery Tables I II, and III; Tables IV, V, and

VI; and Tables VII and VIII.

In the conduct of the Tank Crew Qualification Course (TCQC ) an

assistant instructor (At) rode on each tank. In the conduct of the

mini—tank range training, an officer or noncommissioned officer often

served as At on the tank, sometimes serving as observer or as loader,

while directing the sequence of training. (See Figure 1.) Observations indicate that such an At can be of great value to the crew in

training, provid ing feedback to the gunner , checking procedures of the

tank commander, loader , and gunner, and observing for correct safety

practices. The Al can mak e the crew training not only more effective

but can also benefit from an objective review of another crew. For

this reason , a tank commander or gunner from another tank crew can

both give and receive training benefits as an Al . It may be obvious

that the same observations apply to the main gun tables also, where

an Al on each tank on the line can be extremely valuable in improving

training and maintaining safety.

-21 - 

_

- - - - .—--- . ;~~~~~ - - - =•. _.___,.~

___ _

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

- - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . - — —~~— -—-—- —
Greater efficiency in operation of a complex system such as the

mini—tank range can be achieved by providing training for the trainers

who will be responsible for supervising the set—up and assisting in

the conduct of the training .

On the main gun ranges, Tables IV and V, the following recoiiimenda—

tions are pertinent. The use of an Al on each firing tank monitoring

time—to—fire , crew procedures, and safety practice., could have great

training benefits. As indicated above , these Ate can be selected

from among tank crews not on the firing line , and can be expected to

benefit from the active participation tn the training while improving

safety practices and firing procedures among the crew.

These Ala could be placed and supervised by a designated noncommissioned officer who might also provid e control of ammunition

and traffic flow and ground liaison between the control tower and

various points on the range. Such a designated range NCO could resolve

many frustrating situations for which communication. between the tower

and range points are otherwise inadequate.

— 22 —

- ~~~ -

~~~~ - -~~~ -- - - - -..._~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __~~~~~~_ ___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
APPENDIX B. PREDICTION OF GUNNER PERFORMANCE

For the purpose of assigning the most promising trainers to the

gunner position within crews, it is important for the commander to

know early in training which crew member is likely to become a successful

gunner . Each firing table, whether it be a mini—tank range table

or a main gun table , can be regarded as a work sample of the qualification table, Table VIII , because each prior table includes some importan t

training toward the later qualification. Unfortunately, the product—

moment correlation coefficients calculated to show relationships among

the gunnery tables recorded in the present study were , in general, null.

The attempt to predict Table VIII scores from Table It mini—tank range

scores was not successful either. Scores were not recorded on mini—tank

range tables given after II; additional data currently in process of

collection will include other such tables and may give better prediction.

Even main gun Tables IV and V showed no significant positive

relationship. Table V did not predict Table VIII. The prediction

of Table VIII from Table IV (main gun) was more successful (ri~ — +0.51,

p< 0.01) after arrangement into a dichotomous table (qualified vs. non—

qualified) (Table B—i).

The column headed CUTOFF on Table B—i indicates the percentage

of gunners who qualified on Table VIII after achieving a given cutoff

on Table IV. Selection of 41% hits on Table IV as cutoff would have

produced a 94% probability of success on Table VIII. A more practical

compromise , assuming a limited trainee population and a high demand

for gunners, might be a cutoff at 31% hits on Table IV , above which

87% of gunners qualified . Below this cutoff only 9 out of 35 (26%)

of potentially qualified gunners were eliminated , and the probab ility

of success in the group below this level was a rather consistent 502.

Table B—2 expands the same data shown in Table B—i to indicate

clearly which gunners were changed (C) prior to Table VIII firing,

which fired and did not qualify (N), and which qualified minimally (Q),

at Expert (E) level, and at Distinguished (D) level .

This table shows that the company commanders did eliminate some

poor performers on Table IV, but they were influenced also by other

considerations. Indeed , some of the poor performers on Table IV did

very well on Table VIII.

However , it is possible that the Table VIII qualifications could

have been increased by 10% to 20% by using an arbitrary cutoff at a

level near 31% hits on Table IV.

Given the poor relationships found within and among gunnery tables

in this research, conclusions about relationships among gunnery tables

must be regarded as tentative until additional data are obtained.

Research exploring a variety of discriminators of armor crewman success

is continuing within the Army Research Institute.

— 23 —

~ 

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

Table B—i

PREDICTION OF QUALIFICATION ON TABLE VIII FROM TABLE IV

Table VIII

Table IV Cutoff

% Hits Na Q

91—100 0 0 0

81—90 0 1 100

71—80 0 0 100

61—70 0 2 100

51—6 0 0 4 100

41—50 1 9 94

31—4 0 3 10 87

21—30 6 5 76

11—20 3 3 72

0—10 1 1 71

TOTALS 14 35 n — 49

rb— 4 0.51

significant

at p< 0. 0i

a Includes personnel not qualified and those changed

from gunner position prior to Table VIII.

~:

-__________ 

— 2 4—

—---~~~~
Table B—2

DETAILED PREDICTION OF QUALIFICATION ON TABLE VIII FROM TABLE IV

Table VIII Performance

Cutoff

Table IV Not

% Hits Qualified Qualified Qualified

C N Q E D

9 1—100

81—90 1 100

71—80 100

61—70 1 1 100

51—6 0 2 2 100

41—50 1 2 1 6 94

31—4 0 2 1 1 2 7 87

21—30 4 2 1 2 2 76

11—20 2 1 1 2 72

0—10 1 1 71

8 6 8 6 21 n— 4 9

— 25 —

I i

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

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - _________________________________________
APPENDIX C SUMMARY TABLES FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

ANOVA on Time—to—Fire First Round Each Engagement (Table 5 in text.)

Group s C, X1, and X2 with Gunnery Tables IV and V.

Summary Table

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects 465.29 44

A (groups) 100.35 2 50.17 5. 78 .01

Subjects within group s 364.94 42 8.68

Within subjects 332.00 45

B (tables) 48.39 1 48.39 10.50 .005

AB 89.85 2 44.92 9. 74 .001

B x subjects within group s 193. 76 42 4.61

TOTALS 797.29 89

Summary Table for Simple Effects

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects

Groups with Table IV 158.97 2 79.48 11.95 .001

Groups with Table V 31.24 2 15.62 2. 34 —

Within cell 558.70 84 6.65

Within subjects

Tables with C 136.53 1 136.53 29. 62 .001

Tables with X 1 1.20 1 1.20 .26 —

Tables with X2 .53 1 .53 .11 —

Tables x subject within groups 193. 76 42 4.61

-

. 

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

- -
~ _--__ _._ -- .—- - _-_ —— ___ - - _ - _ --—-- . -- _- — _ -~~~~ --------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANOVA on percent engagements meeting time criteria (Table 5 in text.)

Group s C, Xj, and X2 with Gunnery Tables IV and V. Same ANOVA was

also applied to arc sine transformations of percent scores with similar

results; between group s significant at p< .01 and interaction significant

at p< .01.

Summary Table

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects 21, 228. 72 44

A (groups) 3,836.15 2 1,918.08 4.63 .05

Subjects within group s 17, 392.57 42 414.11

Within subjects 12 , 964.00 45

B (tables) 688.90 1 688.90 3.42 —

AB 3,818. 87 2 1,909.44 9. 48 .001

B x subjects within groups 8,456.23 42 201.34

TOTALS 34, 192.72 89

Summary Table for Simple Effects

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects

— Groups with Table IV 7,290.18 2 3,645.09 11.85 .001

Groups with Table V 364.84 2 182.42

Within cell 25,848.80 84 307.72

Within subjects

Tables with C 3,898.80 1 3,898.80 19.36 .001

Tables with X 1 45. 63 1 45. 63

Tables with X2 563.33 1 563. 33

Tables x subject within groups 8,456.23 42 201.34

— 28 —
ANOVA on hit percent- for gunners (Table 6 in text). Group s

C, X1 and X2 with gunnery table IV and V.

Summary Table

Source SS df MS F p

A (groups) 237.43 2 118.72 .46 —

Subjects within group s 11,941.09 46 259.59

B (tables) 9,825.52 1 9,825.52 27.21 .001

AB 1,905.76 2 952.88 2.64 —

B x subjects within groups 16,609. 52 46 361.08

ANOVA on score calculated as percent of maximum score possible (Table

7 in text). Group s C, X 1 and X 2 with gunnery Table VIII.

Summa ry Table

Source SS df MS F p

Between group s 1,109.91 2 554.95 2.02 —

Within group s 10,435.21 38 274.61 — — TOTALS 11, 545. 12 40

ANOVA on percent of engagements in which at least one hit was scored

(Table 8 in text). Groups C, K1 and X2 on gunnery tables IV , V and VIII.

Summary Table

Source SS df MS F p

A (groups) 387.93 2 193.97 .52 —

Subjects within group s 14 , 292.51 38 376.12

B (tables) 12,057.32 2 6,028.66 19.40 .001

AR 118.24 4 29.56 .10 —

B x subjects within group s 23,614.81 76 310.72

— 29 —

• — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • -— ~~~ —~~~~~~~~~~ -= - - - - - ~ - -
____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - _ -_- - -

DISTRIBUTION

AR I Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RAI 2 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord , ATTN: Library

2 HQDA (DAMI-CSZ) I HQUSACDEC, Ft Ord , ATTN: ATEC—EX--E—Hum Factors

1 HODA (DAPE-PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

1 HODA (DANA.AR ) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP—HR

I HQOA (DAPE-HRE-PQ) 1 USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth , AiTh : ATSN— EA

I HQDA (SGRD•ID) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—CT—HDP

1 HQDA (DAMI-DOT-C) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, AiTh: AMSEL—PA—P

1 HQDA IDAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSE L—SI—CB

1 HODA (DACH PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Fad Day Br

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE) 1 USA MaterIals Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY—P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO.C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA—SL—H

1 HODA (DAPE-DW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN: ATSL—TEM—C

1 HQDA (DAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen , AT1’N: Library/Dir

1 HODA (DAPE-CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Ing Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rich Unit , Ft Benning, ATJ’N: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Sd, Ft Banning, A’fl ’N: STEBC—TE—T

I HQOA ~

OAPC-PAS-A) I USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATI’N: ATSS—LRC

I HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 LiSA Air Del Sch, Ft Slim , ATTN : ATSA--CTD--ME

I HODA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Del Sch. Ft Bliss, A1TN: Tech Lib

I HODA IDASG) 1 USA Air Dat Sd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

1 HODA (DAIO-PI) 1 USA Air Def Sd, Ft Bliss, A1TN: STEBD—PO

I Chief, Consult Div (DA-OTSG). Adeiphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Sif College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

I Mil Asst. Hum Ret , ODDR&E , OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Sit College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW—SE—L

1 HO USARAL . APO Seattle, ATTN: A RAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, A’fl’N: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATIN: AFKA -Ol-Tl 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, AnN: D.pCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Day Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dir, Army Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ArtN: ATCACO-E

1 DCSPER, ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Day Act, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATCACC-CI

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, AnN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

I Oft , Atsi Sect of the Army )R&D) 1 USAMERDC, Ft B&voir, ATTN: 51SF B—D O

1 Tech Support Ofc, OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir. ATTN: ETL-TD—S

1 USA Rich Oft, Durham, ATTN: Life Science, Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM, Natick, ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATFN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC , Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC-MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN : CTD—MS

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, A’fl’N: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft l4uachuca, AUN: ATS—CTD--MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: AISI—TE

1 US WAC Cit & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huachuc a, ATTN: ATSI—TEX —GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATT’N: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—Ci’S—OR

1 USA Ce~artermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN : ATSM-TE I USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca, ATTN : ATSI—CTD—DT

1 Intelligence Material Day Ofc, EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence C~ & 5th , Ft Huachuca, AT1N: ATSl—CTD—CS

1 USA SE Signal 5th , Ft Gordon, ATT’N: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch. Ft Huachuca, ATTN : DAS/SRO

1 USA Chaplain Cit & Sits . Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC-TE - RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Scb. Ft Huachuca , ATTN : ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH, Ft Eustli, ATTN : Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Library

I USA War College, Carlisle Barracks, ATTN: Lib I COB , HO Ft Huachuca, ATIN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR , Nsuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR . USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATIN: STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI, SDA, Monterey I CDR , Project MASSTER, ATTN: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATI’N: MOCA’WGC I Hg MASSTE R, USATRADOC, LNO

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, B.thesda. ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Reieardi Institute, HO MASSIER. Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, B.thesda, ATm: MOCAJF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATm : USARCPM-P

I USA Attic Test Cu, APO Seattle, A’flN: STEAC-MO-ASL I Senior Army Mv., USAFAGOD/TAC, Elgin AF Aux FId No.9

I USA Attic Test Cii, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL•TS I HO USARPAC, DCSPER . APO SF 96558, AUN: GPPE-SE

I USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib. Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATIN: AMSAR.TDC I Marine Carp, Inst., ATTN: Dean—MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City, A’fl’N: Library I HOUSMC. Commandant. ATTN : Code MTMT 51

I FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic CIty, AiTh: Hum Engr Br I HQUSMC. Commandant. ATTN: Cods MPl-

~~

)

I FAA Aeronautical Cii, Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC.440 2 USCG Academy, New London, AUN: Admission

2 USA Fld Arty Salt. Ft Sill . ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London , ATTN: Library

I USA Armor Salt, Ft Knox , ATTN: LIbrary 1 USCG TrainIng Cu, NY , AIIM: CO

1 USA Armor Silt, Ft Knox, ATm: ATSB-DI-E 1 USCG Training Cii. NY , ATTN Educ Svc Ofc

1 USA Armor Silt, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-OT-TP 1 USCG, Psythol Ret Br , DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sils, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-CD-AO I HO Mid-Range Br, MC Des, Ouantlco, ATTN: P&S Dlv

— 3 0 —

~

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

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —- — - - -—- — —
1 US Marine Corps Lialsion Ofc . AMC. Ale xandria, AIM: AMCGS—F 1 Dat & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATRO—ED 1 AIR CRESS, Klnsington, AIN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATPR—AD I Militaerpaykologisk Tjeneste, Copehagen

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. A’TIN: ATIS—EA I Military Attach., French Emtossy , ATTN: Dcc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson, ATTN: Library 1 Medecin Chef, C.E.R.P.A —Arsenal, Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Sd, Ft Ruckar, AIIM: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off. Appi Hum Engr Rids Div. Ministry

1 USA Agoy for Avi ation Safety, Ft Bucker , ATFN: Library of Defense. New Delhi

1 USA Agcy tot Aviation Safety, Ft Rsacker . AUN: Educ Advisor 1 Pars Rich Ofc Library, AKA . Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sits, Ft Bucker, AIIM: P0 Draw,r o I Mirsisisris van Defensie, DOOP/KL Afd Sociael

1 HOUSA Avia tion Sys Cmd, St Louis, AIIM: AMSAV-ZDR Psychologiiche Zaken, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act.. Edwards AFB, AIIM: SAVIE—T

1 USA Air Dat 5th, Ft Bliet, AIIM: ATSA TEN

1 USA Air Mobility Rich & Day Lab, Moffeti FId , ATTN: SAVDL—AS

I USA Aviation Sits, Re, Tng Mgi, Ft Bucker , ATTN: ATST-T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sits, CO. Ft Bucker, AiIM: ATST—D--A

1 HO. USAMC, Alexandria, AIIM: AMXCD—TL

I HO, USANC. Alaxuid ria, AIIM: CDII

1 US Military Academy. West Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy. West Point. ATTN: Ofc of Nih Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy, West Point , AIIM: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK, FPO NY , AIIN: MASE—GC

I Ofc of Naval Rids. Arlington, AIIM: Code 452

3 Oft of Naval Bach , Arlington. ATTN: Code 458

1 Oft of Naval Rich. Arlington, AIIM: Code 450

I Ole of Naval Rich. Arlington, AiiM: Cod. 441

1 Naval Aarospc Med Res Lab,Pensa ola,ATm:Acous~~~~Dlv

I Naval Aeroepc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola, ATTN : Code L51

I Nval a Urospe Mud Re, Lab, Pensacola, AiiM: Code Lb

1 Chief of NavPers, ATTN: Pars-OR

1 NAV AIR STA, Norfolk, AIIN: Safety Cts1 Nay Oceanographic. DC, AIIN: Code 6251, Charts & Tsch

1 Centsr ot Naval Anal, A’fl’N: Doc Ctr

I NavAirSysCom, ATrN: AIR—53 13C

I Nay BoNed, AIIM: 713-

1 N.vHelicopterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (Fl) Wil liam AFS -:

1 AFHRL (IT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB ,OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZI Brook, AFE

1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lackland AFB

I HOUSAF IINYSD)

1 HOUSAF (DPXXAI

1 AFVTG (AD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB, OH, AIIM: ENE /SL

1 AIC (XPID) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib. Brooks AFB (SUL—4), AIIM: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (ML), Arlington

1 AF log Cmd, McClellan AFB, ATTN: AL.C!DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Bet Sen

5 NavPers & Day Cu, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rich Unit , San Diego

1 Nav Electronic Lab, Sin Diego, AIIM: Ret Lab

1 Nav TrngCen, San Diego, AIIN: Code 9000—Lib

I NevPostGrsSds, Monterey. AIIM: Cod. SSAe

1 NavPoatGraSch, Monterey, AIIM: Code 2124

I NavTmgEqulpCtr, Orlando, AIIM: Tech LIb

1 US Dept of Labor, DC, AIIM: Manpower ~idmin

I US Dept of Justice, DC, ATTN: Drugi Enforce Admln

1 Nat Bur of Stindards, DC, AIIM: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for MH—Info. Rockville

1 Denver Federal Cii. Laltewood. AiiM: BLM

I? Defense Docum entation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hs~ Ruseell Otci., Canberra

1 ScIentific Advsr, Mll Bd, Army Hg, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

I NIl ind Air Attach.. Austrian Embs y

I Centre de R.cfwrcts, Des Fact.ure, Humain. de l. Defense

National., Brutael,

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

I C/Air Staff, Royal Canadian AF, AIIM: Puts Sad Anal Br

3 Chief, Canadian Del Rich Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 Brftlah D.f Staff . British Embwey, Washington

— 31 —

- -

~~~ ‘-~~~~ ~~~~~~~~