Technical Report 507

THE STRUCTURAL, TRAINING, AND

OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF ARMY TEAMS

Jean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr., and Dorothy L. Finley

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

DTIC

~ JAN 2 1 ;8

A

rJi

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1980 0 21

Aoproved for public release; distribution unlimited.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Ill

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: 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.
linri aggi f ed

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE MWtien Data Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 507 (, _---_,Ift_ __ _ 1 4. "TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

The Structural, Training, and Operational Final Report 1977-1980

Characteristics of Army Teams 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(& S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Jean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr., and ,I

Dorothy L. Finley

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

US Army Research Institute Field Unit 2Q762722A765

Post Office Box 2086 2Q162722A765

Fort Benning, Georgia 31905 20263743A794

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

US Army Research Institute for the ehavioral June 1980

and Social Sciences 1s. NUMBER OF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 149

T4, MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(1I diffternit em Controillinl Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

15 . DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thli Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abettat entered In Block 20, It different from Report)

I. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse ide If necessary and Identify by block number)

Teams Group Dynamics

Small Groups Team Structure

Army Training Team Performance and Operational Characteristics

Team Composition

2, ABSTRACT (Caitfrueo reverse eb H necessar a ldemltr by block number)

Combat, combat support, and combat service support branches within the

Army were surveyed to identify teams within each branch and to describe their

structural characteristics according to official organizational tables of

personnel and equipment. A total of 255 distinct teams were identified and

described, with the Infantry, Field Artillery, and Armor branches containing

the greatest number of teams. Results on such characteristics as team size,

member rank, leader/rank, skill level of members, and equipment used, (con't)

DD , FO 1473 EDITION OF I NOV GS IS OBSOLETE • Unclassified DDtJAM7 Unlasiie

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When to Entered)

/,A
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Who Data nt.erd)

20. A TRACT f=ontinued)

-are presented. Teams that perform non-routine tasks were located within the

Infantry, Armor, and Engineer branches.

Active Army units were also surveyed. These units rated their teams on

the amount of team training received and needed, leader satisfaction with

training, training constraints, team characteristics, operational problems, and

team evaluation procedures. The primary training problems and constraints

identified were the turn-over of team personnel, understrength teams, unqualified personnel, insufficient time to train, and unrealistic training. Of team

characteristics surveyed, only one was rated as atypical of Army teams --

a cpmpensation by one member for inadequate performance by another member.

The results provide a data base for future team research within the Army.

An appendix contains a list of all teams identified in both phases of the study,

I

ii Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entoted)

/+
!,,

Technical Report 507

THE STRUCTURAL, TRAINING, AND

OPERATIONAL CHARARACTERISTICS

OF ARMY TEAMS

Jean L. Dyer, Trueman R. Tremble, Jr.,

and Dorothy L. Finley

Submitted by: H.C. Strasel, Chief

AIR FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

I1

4

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

June 1980 IS* 

II

Army Project Number Infantry Systems

2Q762722A765 Development Research

2Q162722A765

2Q263743A794

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

±±/
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last 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.

iv

iv
FOREWORD

The research reported here is part of a broader program on training for

combat effectiveness being conducted by the US Amy Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). A critical element in the combat effectiveness of a military unit at the company and battalion levels is the effectiveness of subordinate sub-units or teams.

The ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia, has initiated a team research

program whose long-term goal is to improve the training and evaluation procedures

of military teams. The initial step in this program, identifying Army teams and

describing their basic characteristics, is reported here.

ARI conducts research on Amy operational problems through in-house efforts

and the efforts of selected qualified contract groups. This research was performed primarily by Fort Benning Field Unit staff. This in-house effort was

supplemented by personnel from the Litton-Mellonics System Development Division,

who performed the actual survey under contract DA-C 19-77-C-0011. The research

was funded as part of Army RDTE Projects 2Q762722A765 (FY 77), 2Q162722A765

(FY 78 and 79), and 2Q263743A794 (FY 80). The research is directly responsive

to research requirements of the US Army Infantry School and the US Army Training

and Doctrine Command.

,JO~ EPH ZE~NER

Qe hnical Director

'or

vvX

9~

, Cc\ e _ \
THE STRUCTURAL, TRAINING, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY TEAMS

BRIEF

Requirement:

The Defense Science Bcdrd report of 1976 pointed out the need for greater

emphasis on the appropriate training for crews/groups/teams/units throughout

the armed services. The report also highlighted the needs for extensive

research into the nature of team performance and the requirements for better

technology for defining training requirements and methods for team training.

Army team training has been developed and conducted in a hit and miss fashion

over the years, largely because there is little knowledge of what team performance really is, of how to develop appropriate training materials and methods,

and of how to train teams to perform better. Specific research requirements

are to identify: the population of Army teams and their characteristics, the

current level of team skills and deficiencies, and procedures for determining

team skill requirements and selecting appropriate training methods. This project was designed to satisfy the first requirement and to begin to address the

second.

Procedure:

First, TRADOC (US Army Training and Doctrine Command) organizational

experts identified teams within the official Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE) for each of the branches surveyed. In addition, the experts described

the composition of each team in terms of the position, rank, skill level, and

MOS held by each member, the activities performed by the team, and whether or •

not most team activities could be accomplished by routine, pre-established procedures. Then questionnaires were sent to training personnel witbin FORSCOM

units requesting them to rate each of the teams within their units on the am unt

of team training received and needed, leader satisfaction with training, traiaing constraints, team characteristics, operational problems, and team evaluation

procedures.

- Findings:

A total of 255 distinct teams were identified and described in the first

phase of the study. Of the twelve branches surveyed, the Infantry, Field

Artillery, and Armor branches had the greatest number of teams. In terms of

size, MOS, and leader and member rank four major categories of teams occurred:

small (2-3 members), homogeneous (with respect to member rank and MOS) teams

led by enlisted men; medium-sized (4-8 members), homogeneous teams led by

enlisted men; medium-sized, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted men or

officers; and large (nore than 9 members), heterogeneous teams led by senior

enlisted men or officers. Teams had more members at low skill levels than at

vii

L-.1
1

high skill levels. Some variation in the frequency distribution of these profiles were found among the combat branches. Almost all of the teams that performed nonroutine type tasks were located in either the Infantry, Armor or

Engineer branches.

Teams within the FORSCOM units were rated high on such team characteristics

as requiring member and leader coordination, and team spirit, but relatively low

on the extent to which one member can compensate for inadequate performance by

another member. Training problems and constraints focused on the turn-over of

team personnel, understrength teams, unqualified personnel, insufficient time

to train and unrealistic training. The perceived need for team training was

generally greater than the amount received across all categories of training.

Overall, the teams identified very considerably in structure and in the

forms of teamwork required for successful performance. A general caution should

be made regarding the survey findings. Comparative analyses of the TRADOC and

FORSCOM data indicate that the respondents did not apply the definition of a

team in the same way. Also, although the lists of teams provided in both studies

were taken at face value, in reality, some of the teams may require little teamwork.

Utilization of Findings:

The inventory of Army teams obtained and the descriptive information on

these teams provide the data base needed to identify and select teams for future

Army team research programs. Judicious selection of teams for research should

yield generalizable findings relevant to such issues as the nature of team

training requirements, identification of training requirements for a specific

team, and how to best satisfy the training requirements. The report should also

be useful to small group/team researchers in providing them with information

regarding how military teams differ from many of the groups used in social

science small group research.

viii

1J~
THE STRUCTURAL, TRAINING, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY TEAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND .......... ............................. . ..

Problem .....................................

Purpose .............................. 2

General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Target Population .......... ....................... 3

TRADOC SURVEY: STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY TEAMS ......... 4

Methodology.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Sample......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Instruments . . . . . ......... . . . . . . .. . 4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sample . . . . .................. 6

Team Description ..................... 8

Number of Positions..... ................ 10

Ranks of Team Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

MOS Category . . . . . . . .. . ...... . . . 14

Skill Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Profile Analysis . . . ............ . 20

Different Types of Equipment .... ............ .. 23

Established-Emergent Rating ............. 23

FORSCOM SURVEY: TRAINING AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

ARMY TEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Methodology ............ .......................... 27

Sampling Design ................... . . ....... 27

Procedure ......... ........................ .. 27

Team Questionnaire ...... .................... ... 28

Team Definition .... ..................... 30

Results. . . . . ....................... 32

Sample Return ....... ...................... .. 32

Comparison with TRADOC Survey ..... .............. 35

ix
Page

Operational Characteristics of Teams ... ........... ... 35

Team Training Received and Needed .... ............ .. 39

Team Training Received .... ... ............... 39

Team Training Needed .... ....... ........ 41

Infantry Teams .... .. ................... .. 41

Leader Satisfaction with Training ..... ........... . 44

Training Constraints ...... ................... .. 44

Operational Problems ...... ................... .. 44

Evaluation ........ ......................... 47

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......... ..................... 48

Team Definition ......... ........................ .. 48

Formal Structure of Teams ....... .................. .. 48

Emergent and Established Teams ............... .49

Team Training ......... ........................ . 50

Team Characteristics ...... .................... 50

Team Data Bank ... ....................... 51

Need for Additional Research on Military Teams ....... .. 51

REFERENCES. ............... .............. 53

APPENDICES:

A. TOE Units in TRADOC and FORSCOM Surveys .. ......... ... 56

B. TRADOC and FORSCOM Surveys: Survey Instruments and

Instructions ........ ...................... . . 73

C. TRADOC and FORSCOM Surveys: Types of Teams Identified

and Described .... ...................... 92

D. TRADOC Survey: Results on All Branches .... ......... 114

E. FORSCOM Survey: Distribution of Questionnaire

Responses for Combat Branches .... .............. . 125

x
4C LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Structural Characteristics Obtained on Each Team in

TRADOC Survey ............................ 5

2. Number of Teams in TRADOC Survey ..... .. ............... 7

3. Team Size ...... ........................... 9

4. Number of Different Team Positions .... .............. .11

5. Rank of Team Leader ...... .. ...................... .12

6. Relationship between Team Size and Leader Rank . ....... 13

7. Relationship between Leader Rank and Number of MOS

Categories . . . . . . ... ................ 15

8. Number of Ranks held by Team Members ............. 16

9. Highest and Lowest Ranks ..... .. ................... 17

10. Number of MOS Categories ............... . . .. . . . 18

11. Relationship between Number of MOS Categories and Team

Size . ............. ......... . . . . 19

12. Skill Level of Team Members .................. ..... 21

13. Frequent Combinations of Size, Leader Rank, Number of

Ranks, and Number of MOS Categories for All Branches,

Armor, Field Artillery, and Infantry . . ........... 22

14. Number of Different Types of Equipment ... ............ ... 24

15. Percentage of Responses to the Established.-Emergent

Ratings. . . . . . . . ................... 25

16. Operational Characteristic Items in FORSCOM Survey . . . . .. 29

17. Operational Problem Items in FORSCOM Survey .............. 31

18. Percentage of Army Units in Sample that Provided Responses

to FORSCOM Questionnaire ...... ................... .33

19. Summary of Numbers of Teams: TRADOC and FORSCOM Surveys . . . 34

xi

--- i I I I I 'I
Table Page

20. Team Characteristics ....... ..................... ... 37

21. Team Characteristics for Different Categories of

Infantry Teams ........ ........................ ... 38

22. Types of Training Received and Needed. . . . ......... 40

23. Summary of Training Received and Needed for All Branches . . . 42

24. Training Received and Needed for Different Categories

of Infantry Teams ........ ...................... ... 43

25. Leader Satisfaction with Training and Training Constraints . . 45

26. Operational Problems......... . . . . . . . . ... .. 46

A-i Summary of Number at Battalions and Separate

Companies in TRADOC and FORSCOM Surveys. . . . . .57

A-2 Distribution of FORSCOM Units Returning Questionnaires

by Branch*and Location.. . . .. . . . . ..... .. ... 58

C-i Summary of Numbers of Teams: TRADOC and FORSCO4 Surveys . . . 93

D-1 Size of Teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . 115

D-2 Number of Positions Held by Team Members . .......... 116

D-3 Rank of Leader ...... ...................... 117

D-4 Number of Different Ranks within the Team (excluding

the leader).......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118

D-5 Highest Rank within team (excluding the leader). . . . . . . . 119

D-6 Lowest Rank within Team ...... ................. ... 120

D-7 Number of MOS Categories. ................... 121

D-8 Skill Levels of Team Members ................. .... 122

D-9 Number of Types of Equipment Used by Team .... ........... 123

D-1O Emergent-Established Team Rating . . . . .......... 124

E-1 Team Characteristics ...... ..................... ... 126

xii

--------------------------- -- **--'---
Table Page

E-2 Training Received and Needed ................. 131

E-3 Leader Satisfaction ......... ...................... 137

E-4 Training Constraints ....... ..................... . 138

E-5 Orerational Problems I.....................142

xiii

' /

-. . . a.. 
Vt

SBACKGROUND

PROBLEM

Some research evidence supports the commonly held belief that the

effectiveness of larger military units (e.g., platoons, ships) is determined not only by individual performance levels but also by team performance levels (Chapman, Kennedy, Newell, & Biel, 1959; Finley,

Rheinlander, Thompson, & Sullivan, 1971). That is, to the extent that a

system is composed of small work groups Lhat require member "interaction" and "coordination" in order to accomplish their- missions, the

effectiveness of the system will be affected by the team performance

levels of these small work groups.

Research regarding what will modify or enhance the effectiveness/productivity of small work groups and teams (e.g., individual vs.

team training) has, however, produced conflicting results (e.f.,

Collins, 1977; Hall & Rizzo, 1975; Nieva, Flcishman & Rieck, 1978;

Wagner, Hibbits, Rosenblatt & Schulz, 1977). This suggests that the

response of a team to some factors may be determined by the specifics of

the situation. Some reviewers (e.g., Collins, 1977; Nieva et al., 1978;

Wagner et al., 1977) have suggested that the basic reason for the

conflicting and nonproductive results of team research has been a lack

of attention to the issue of what actually constitutes team performance

and team characteristics, and whether the teams studied are really

teams. To state it more simply, in order to mount a program to assess

the impact of and improve the performance level of teams, one must know,

in specific detail, what differentiates a team from a collection of

individuals.

Based on inhouse literature reviews and operational experience, the

authors feel that there exist a number of critical team characteristics

and performance dimensions that differentiate teams from collections of

individuals, and that the specific training requirements of a particular

team will depend on where that team falls on the continua associated

with these dimensions. ARI has initiated a long range research program

to explore these ideas and to translate findings into team training and

evaluation technologies for the Army. The goals are to determine if and

when team skills make a difference in the effectiveness of larger military units, to develop better methods for identifying team training requirements and for developing team training programs, and to develop

better methods for evaluating team performance. Initial steps taken to

4launch the program include: (1) data collection to identify and describe the population of formally defined combat-involved teams within

the Army, and (2) further definition of what constitutes the dimensions

of team functional and task performance. This report describes the

survey conducted to accomplish the first step. The work of Nieva et al.

(1978) describes one effort related to the second step.

. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .
Considerable evidence of the felt need for team research was obtained from Army training developer personnel during the conduct of the

study. The plaint was that too little was known regarding how to

identify team training requirements and techniques to determine whether

effective unit or collective training programs are being and have been

developed.

PURPOSE

The present project was designed to identify Army teams and to

obtain descriptive information on the structural and operational

characteristics of these teams. The specific purposes were to: (1)

obtain an estimate of the number of team types within the Army and a

description of what constitutes typical Army teams; (2) determine the

variety of teams within the population considered; (3) obtain a data

base that could be used for selecting teams for research purposes; and

(4) obtain a means for identifying teams likely to benefit from future

research findings or new training methods., The primAry focus of the

project was on formally recognized teams directly involved in the conduct or support of combat within the formal organizational structure o'

Army units. The reasons for this focus were the Army's need to concentrate its limited training resources in the area of greatest payoff, and

the need to perform research supportive of a dominant Army training

developer activity: development of training programs for formally recognized individual positions and teams.

GENERAL APPROACH

The project was divided into two phases: (1) the TRADOC (US Army

Training and Doctrine Command) phase and (2) the FORSCOM (US Army Forces

Command) phase. The details of each phase are reported in subsequent

sections. The objectives of the first (TRADOC) phase were to identify

the types of small groups recognized as "teams" within the formal organizational structure of Army units, i.e., by Tables of Organization

and Equipment (TOE), and to describe the formal structure of these

teams. Such structural characteristics as size, leader rank, rank of

members, number of different positions held by team members, and military occupational specialty (MOS) of members were examined. The objective of the second phase was to obtain data on teams functioning in

active Army units within FORSCOM. Four major sets of variables were

surveyed in the FORSCOM phase: team training received and needed,

factors preventing the conduct of more effective team training, factors

that characterized team activities, and sources that created critical or

frequent performance problems for the team. The survey data were

collected by Litton-Mellonics under contract to ARI, and preliminary results of the first phase were presented by Smillie, Shelnutt, and Bercos

(1977).

2
I

The composite definition of team used for conducting the TRADOC and

FORSCOM surveys was a small group of usually 2 to 11 persons whose

positions or member task assignments within the group are formally defined and who normally perform their tasks in an interactive and interdependent manner. Ad hoc, informal or temporary teams were excluded

(see Appendix B for specific definitions). This working definition of

teams is generally consistent with Glaser, Klaus and Egerman's (1962, p.

6) distinction between teams and small groups in that teams are

"relatively rigid in structure, organization, and communication pattern;

the task of each team member is well defined; and the functioning of the

team depends upon the coordinated participation of all or several individuals," whereas small groups generally "have an indefinite or loose

structure, organization and communication patterns; have assignments

which are assumed in the course of group interaction rather than designated beforehand; and the group product can be a function of one or more

of the group members involved depending upon the quality ana quantity of

their participation."

TARGET POPULATION

The target populat.on for both surveys included teams in eleven of

the fourteen basic branches of the Army as defined in Army Regulation

(AR) 10-6: Infantry, Corps of Engineers, Quartermaster Corps, Air Defense Artillery, Field Artillery, Armor, Ordnance Corps, Signal Corps,

Chemical Corps, Military Police Corps, and Transportation Corps. The

Adjutant General's Corps, Finance Corps, and Military Intelligence

branches were excluded from the target population. Missile and

Munitions teams were examined separately from other Ordnance teams

because of the distinct types of Missile and Munitions teams reported in

the surveys. In addition, the special branch of Medical Services Corps

was included in the population, and Aviation units that are generally

assigned to Corps rather than Divisional units were treated as a unique

subgroup (identified by 01 prefix in Department of the Army Pamphlet

310-3). The target population excluded teams that performed mainly

command and control and staff functions above the platoon level. The

primary focus was on combat, combat support, and combat service support

teams formed at the company/battery and platoon/section levels.

3
TRADOC SURVEY:

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY TEAMS

METHODOLOGY

SAMPLE

The purpose of the TRADOC survey was to compile both a listing and

a description of all types of teams in each of the target population

subgroups. However, it was not possible during this stage to obtain

complete information from two of these groups - Military Police and

Medical Services. Descriptive data were obtained on the following

branches: Air Defense Artillery, Armor, Aviation, Chemical, Engineers,

Field Artillery, Infantry, Missile and Munitions, Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal, and Transportation. The service schools responsible for

training personnel in these branches were identified, and subject matter

experts at the schools provided the data. The subject matter experts

were identified by coordination with Headquarters, TRADOC, Fort Monroe,

VA. The TOE designations included in the TRADOC survey are cited in

Appendix A. A total of 114 units were surveyed.

INSTRUMENTS

Two instruments were used: one to identify teams (referred to as

team identification worksheets) and the other to describe the structural

characteristics of teams (referred to as team questionnaires). Refer to

Appendix B for details on these instruments. Both instruments were completed by the TRADOC subject matter experts.

The team identification worksheets were completed first. One worksheet was completed for each type of operational unit (of company size

or smaller) for which a service school hal training responsibility. The

information requested on these worksheets included the TOE designation

for each unit, type of unit as designated on the TOE, the alternative

names of each type of team in the unit, and the platoon or section of

the unit in which each team is found.

The team questionaire requested the subject matter experts to describe the structure of each team that had been identified on the worksheets. The structural characteristics described included the total

number of personnel on the team; rank, military occupational specialty

(MOS), and major items of equipment for each position; major activities

performed by team members when engaged in a defensive mission; and the

positions of the members typically executing thesc activities (refer to

Table 1 for definitions of all characteristics). In addition, ratings

on a five-point scale of the extent to which the team's overall activities are "emergent" or "established" were obtained. Established and

emergent activities were defined as:

4

,|Ile
Table E

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OBTAINED ON EACH TEAM IN TRADOC SURVEY

VARIABLE DEFINITION

Size Number of members on team

Position Types Number of different positions in team

Leader Rank Rank of position holder identified

as team leader

Rank Types Number of different rank types on team

excluding team leader's rank

Low Rank Lowest rank on team

High Rank Highest rank on team excluding team

leader's rank

Leader MOS Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)

of team leader including skill level

MOS Types Number of different MOS types on team

a

Number of Secondary Leaders Number of secondary leaders on team

Skill Level 4 Number of team members with Skill Level

4 or above

Skill Level 3 Number of team members with Skill Level 3

Skill Level 2 Number of team members with Skill Level 2

Skill Level 1 Number of team members with Skill Level 1

Equipment Types Number of different pieces of equipment

used by team members

Activitiesa Total number of job activities performed

by the team and its members

Team Activitiesa Number of job activities performed by the

team as a unit

Individual Activitiesa Number of job activities performed by

team members as individuals

Emergent-Established Rated nature of overall team activities

as emergent or established

aThese characteristics are not reported due to missing data.

5
Established - The situation is routine; the job activities of team

personnel consist of completely specified procedures.

Emergent - The situation tends to present a relatively unique

problem; the team must decide what activities to perform and how to

perform them in order to solve the problem.

The distinction between established and emergent activities was

originally made by Boguslaw (1961), was elaborated upon by Boguslaw and

Porter (1962), and was treated as the major way to classify task situations by Wagner et al. (1977) in their review of team training in the

military.

RESULTS

SAMPLE

The number of teams identified and described within each branch on

the team questionnaires is presented inTable 2. A total of 1,248 teams

were identified, but descriptive data were obtained on only 1,156 teams.

However, in many instances, the "same" team was described more than once

since it occurred in more than one TOE (e.g., UH-1 flight crew, aidman

team, rifle squad, tank crew, demolitions team), and teams given different names were often almost identical to each other in terms of the

positions of team members and team functions (e.g., different howitzer

crews, multi-channel Signal teams).

Table 2 also summarizes, by branch, the number of distinct team

types that were identified, and the number and percent of these teams

for which descriptive data were available (i.e., at least one team

questionnaire was returned). If a particular team was identified and/or

described under more than one TOE, it was counted only once. Although a

total of 1,156 teams were described on all the team questionnaires,

these represented only 255 "distinct" or "different" teams. The findings presented in this report are based on these distinct teams. A

listing of these distinct teams is in Appendix C.

In order to determine the number of distinct team types, both the

team identification worksheets and team questionnaires were examined.

All teams with the same or synonymous names and with similar structural

attributes (e.g., size, number of positions, similar types of equipment)

were treated as one team type. Three factors reduced the reliability of

this effort. First, descriptive data were not obtained for all team

types. Consequently, only the names listed on the team identification

worksheets were available for identification of some team types.

Second, the level of detail of the descriptive data did not permit unequivocal judgments as to whether teams with slightly differing structural characteristics (e.g., different types of equipment) actually

represented groups with differing behavioral requirements. Third, the

6
u 0

12 r- H C r-4 L C-O'4 A A'

14 1 H Ha H H HL

10N

0)

144

E-44

o4~ Ch '0 0 D C-4 %.0 C M' r-4 CO 0

o C1 -4 ' --7 -NT 

NHOH

H 4 .4Hr 0 N 

10

.11 HO '0 A 0 0 N ' '

(n 44

.40 O H CO -T H N - 0Lm0 \ LA\ '

NC H1 HA ON- ' r H N H4 Hi A

E-4 0n N ') H

t-0

r44

4 0

4) 04 1 0

0 - H 4 4

CIA -H o

4- 0 o (D 44 ( 0 c b 00 

Z~r 14 0r r w :

C-) 00 C~ tn E4 E-
level of group identified as a team varied with the branch. Several

branches provided data on teams which are subgroups (e.g., rifle team)

of other groups (e.g., rifle squad) also identified as teams. When such

hierarchical groups occurred, military experts were consulted and the

group judged to operate most frequently as a team was retained.

In general, most (73%) of the teams that were identified were also described, although this percentage varied considerably with individual branches from (30% to 100%, Table 2). The completeness of the data

varied in two other aspects. First, four schools defined all teams

within pertinent TOE units to include teams for which the school does

not have training proponency. Descriptions returned by other schools

were limited to teams for which the schools have a training responsibility. Finally, data on three variables were not completely reported:

items of equipment used, job activities, and established-emergent

rating. Due to the sizeable amount of missing information on job activities, no analyses were performed on this variable'.

TEAM DESCRIPTION

Information on the structural characteristics of Army teams is

summarized for the total sample (all branches) and for each of the

combat arms (Air Defense Artillery, Armor, Engineers, Field Artillery,

and Infantry). Because of the small number of team types within Air

Defense Artillery and Engineers, all the results for these two branches

are not always discussed. In addition, results on the major structural

characteristics are cited for the noncombat branches. Frequency distributions on each variable for each branch are presented in Appendix D.

Size

For all the 255 types of teams described, the size of the teams

ranged from 2 to 61 members. However, most of the team types (64%) were

composed of two to eight members, an additional 22% had between 9 and 16

members, and the remaining teams had more than 16 members (see Table 3).

The most frequent team size was three.

The size of the teams varied .with combat arm (Table 3). The different types of Anmor teams were the smallest with almost 80% of these

teams composed of two or three members. About 60% of the Engineer teams

were composed of two to four members. Team sizes within Infantry and

Field Artillery were the largest and the most variable of the five

branches. About 20% of these teams were composed of four or fewer members, while about 63% of the teams had 5 to 16 members. Of the other

branches 

portation 

studied 

also had 

(refer 

some 

to 

large 

Table 

teams 

D-1, 

(i.e., 

Appendix 

40 to 

D), 

63% 

Ordnance 

had 

and Trans- I

12 or more members). On the other hand, Quartermaster, Aviation, Signal, and Missile

and Munitions generally had smaller teams (i.e., over 80% were composed

1
Table 3

TEAM SIZE

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

SIZE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

2 - 43.2 23.5 2.2 4.8 13.7

3 14.3 35.1 5.9 13.3 9.5 17.3

4 14.3 13.5 29.5 4.4 6.3 10.6

5-9 28.6 8.1 41.1 31.1 33.3 25.9

10-14 28.6 - - 22.2 26.9 14.1

15-19 14.3 - - 13.3 9.5 7.8

20-24 - - - 8.9 7.9 4.7

> 25 - - 4.4 1.6 5.9

n 7 37 17 45 63 255

Mode Sizes 3,4, 2 4 3,8 3,6,7,13 3

5,7,11,14,

15 each

occurred

once

Median 7.0 2.7 4.2 9.3 8.9 6.0

Mean 8.4 2.9 4.4 11.2 10.3 9.3

St Dev 4.9 1.0 1.9 7.4 6.8 9.5

Range 3-15 2-6 2-8 2-37 2-42 2-61

9
of 2 to 8 members). Within Chemical, 63% of the teams had 2 to 8

members.

Number of Positions

The number of different positions within each team ranged from 1 to

28 with 78% of the teams composed of six or fewer positions (Table 4).

The most frequent numbers of positions were two, three, and four.

Since the size of a team limits the possible number of positions

available within a team, there is a mathematical dependency between

these two team characteristics. The statistical association between

these variables was strong (r = .73; gamma = .74). In about 40% of all

teams, the team size and the number of positions were identical. Since

the combat branches differed in team size, they also differed in number

of positions. Members were concentrated in few positions in Armor and

distributed across many positions in Field Artillery and Infantry (Table

4). In fact, in 95% of the Armor teams and in 88% of the Engineer teams

the number of team members corresponded to the number of positions on

the team. The corresponding percentages in Field Artilley, Air Defense

Artillery and Infantry were lower. However, for small teams within

Field Artillery and Infantry (i.e., six or fewer members), the number o(

positions frequently equaled the number of team members (55% of 20

Infantry teams and 77% of 13 Field Artillery teams).

Ranks of Team Members

Leader Rank. For all service areas the rank of the team leader

ranged from E3 to 04, with E5 and E6 being the most frequent ranks

(Table 5). However, the distribution of leader ranks varied with combat

arm. Team leaders in Air Defense Artillery, Armor, and Engineer

branches were concentrated in two or three grades: ADA leaders were

primarily E6s; about 85% of the Armor leaders were E5s or E6s; and about

82% of the Engineer leaders were E5s, E6s, or E7s. On the other hand,

only 47% of the Field Artillery leaders and the Infantry leaders were

either ESs, E6s, or E7s. Within the other branches studied, enlisted

personnel were team leaders in most of the Quartermaster, Missile and

Munitions, Ordnance, Transportation, and Signal teams. All chemical

leaders were officers; half the Aviation team leaders were either WOs or

Ols-03s.

For all branches combined there was a tendency for an increase in

team size to be associated with an increase in leader rank (Cramer's V

.54, Table 6). Two and three member teams were usually led by E3s-E5s.

Teams with 4 to 8 members were led by E6s-E8s. Teams with nine or more

members were usually led by E6s-E8s, Ols-04s, or WOs. This positive relationship between team size and leader rank characterized teams in each

of the combat arms also.

10
% .. . S ......... 

2 .. .....  ...........

r+

Table 4

NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TEAM POSITIONS

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

NUMBER OF AIR DEFENSE FIELD

POSITIONS ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY ALL BRANCHES

1 2.7 - - 2.7

2 - 43.2 23.5 4.4 7.9 20.4

3 14.3 37.8 5.9 22.2 15.9 20.4

4 28.6 10.8 35.3 11.1 28.6 17.3

5 28.6 2.7 11.8 8.9 7.9 8.2

6 - 2.7 5.9 22.2 12.7 9.4

7 28.6 - 11.8 4.4 9.5 5.9

8 5.9 4.4 4.8 3.5

> 9 22.2 12.7 12.1

n 7 37 17 45 63 255 St

Mode 4,5,7 2 4 3,6 4 2,3

Median 4.7 2.6 4.1 5.7 4.4 3.8

Mean 5.0 2.7 4.3 6.2 5.5 5.1

St Dev 1.5 1.0 1.9 3.6 3.0 3.9

Range 3-7 1-6 2-8 2-20 2-17 1-28

Association between size and number of positions

% teams 28.6 94.6 88.2 26.7 20.6 37.6

where size =No. of

positions

Max size 4 6 8 11 13 13

for above

percentage

Product .96 .83 .98 .64 .61 .73

moment r

Gamma 1.00 .85 1.00 .55 .69 .74

_ _ _ __ _ _ .1 _ _ _i
[)

Table 5

RANK OF TEAM LEADER

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

LEADER AIR DEFENSE FIELD

RANK ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY 1NFANTRY: ALL. BRANCHES

E3 - 0.4

E4 2.7 - - I 4.8 3.5

E5 - 54.1 29.4 111 11.1 22.7

E6 85.7 29.7 35.3 31.1 25.4 29.0

E7 - 2.7 17,6 4.4 11.1 7.5

E8 - - - 6.7 - 1.2

01 - 2.7 - 13.3 22.2 12.2

02 - - 11.8 - - 0.8

03 14.3 5.4 - 8.9 12.7 8.2

04 - - - - 1.6 0.8

WO 2.7 5.9 24.4 11.1 13.7

n 7 37 17 45 63 255

12

... ... , /
Table 6

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEAM SIZE AND LEADER RANK

(Percentages in table based on totals within each size category)

TEAM SIZE/ AIR DEFENSE FIELD

LEADER RANK ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY ALL BRANCHES

Size 2-3

E3 - E5 - 65.5 60.0 57.1 55.6 59.5

E6 - E8 100.0 24.1 20.0 14.3 33.3 21.5

01 - 04 - 6.9 - 28.6 16.7 8.9

Wo - 3.4 20.0 - 16.7 10.1

n 1 29 5 7 9 79

Size 4-8

E3 - E5 - 25.0 8.3 7.1 23.5 21.1

E6 - E8 100.0 62.5 66.7 71.4 47.1 52.9

01 - 04 - 12.5 16.7 7.1 23.5 18.8

WO - - 8.3 14.3 5.9 7.1

3 8 12 14 17 85

Size > 9

E3 - E5 - - 2.7 3.3

E6 - E8 66.7 - - 33.3 35.1 37.4

01 - 04 33.3 - - 29.2 48.6 36.3

WO - - - 37.5 13.5 23.1

n 3 0 0 24 37 91

13

-- - -- - - -/
For all branches, almost all teams composed of members with the

same MOS were more likely to be led by enlisted personnel (96%) than by

officers (Table 7). When officers were team leaders, they were leaders

of teams composed of members with more than one MOS. Yet even in these

teams, enlisted personnel were likely to be the team leaders (4110% for

enlisted personnel, 37% for officers, 23% for warrant officers).

Member Rank. The number of different ranks within a team, excluding the rank of the team leader, ranged from 1 to 6 (Table 8). Seventyone percent of the teams were composed of one to three ranks, and an

additional 19% were composed of four ranks. Differences among the combat arm branches in member rank reflected to some extent the differences

among the branches in team size and leader rank, since both factors

limited the variability in ranks. Air Defense Artillery, Armor, and

Engineer teams were more homogeneous in member rank than Field Artillery

and Infantry teams.

The highest ranking member of a team, excluding the leader, was

typically an E4 or an E5 (Table 9). In Air Defense Artillery, Armor,

and Engineers 70 to 87% of the highest ranking team members were at

these two levels. However, in Field Artillery and Infantry only 37 to

47% were at the same levels, reflecting in part the greater diversity in

team size and number of positions within these wo combat arms.

The lowest ranking team member was likely to be either an E3 or E4

within Air Defense Artillery, Armor, and Engineers. In Field Artillery

and Infantry, the lowest ranking individual was most likely to be an E3.

MOS Category

For the total sample 80% of all teams had members with three or

fewer MOS categories (Table 10). Howeve.', within Ordnance and Transportation the corresponding percentage was approximately 55% (Table D-7,

Appendix D). Forty-three percent of all teams had members with the same

MOS qualifications. This homogeneity was most pronounced within Armor

where 87% of the teams were composed of members with the same MOS.

In general, a positive association occurred betwen team size and

the number of MOS categories on a team (r = .70, Table 11). This positive relationship occurred in each of the combat arms except for Armor.

(The lack of association within Armor was the result of the restricted

variability in team MOS categories within this branch). The size of

homogeneous teams (one MOS) varied with the combat branch (Table 11).

In Armor these teams were of two or three members; in Field Artillery

and Infantry such teams often had four or more members. The size of

heterogeneous teams (more than one MOS) also varied with combat arm. In

Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, and Infantry these teams were

likely to have at least nine members, while in Armor and Engineers these

teams had fewer than nine members. The sizes of these heterogeneous

14

-.. .. .. I f
Table 7

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER RANK AND NUMBER OF MOS CATEGORIES

(Percentages in table based on totals within each MOS category)

'AIR DEFENSE I FIELD

MOS/RANK ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY ALL BRANCHES

One MOS

E3-E5 - 62.5 50.0 28.6 52.9 55.0

E6-E8 100.0 34.4 50.0 71.4 41.2 41.3

01-04 - 3.1 - - 5.9 1.8

WO - - - 1.8

n 3 32 6 14 17 109

Two or

More MOS

E3-E5 - 20.0 18.2 3.2 2.2 5.5

E6-E8 75.0 20.0 54.5 29.0 34.8 34.9

01-04 25.0 40.0 18.2 32.2 47.8 36.9

WO - 20.0 9.1 35.5 15.2 1 22.6

n 4 5 11 31 46 146

15

4(

Nk/
II

Table 8

NUiBER OF RANKS HELD BY TEAM MEMBERS

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

NUMBER OF

DIFFERENT

RANKS EXCLUDING AIR DEFENSE FIELD

LEADER RANK ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY ALL BRANCHES

1 - 43.2 23.5 4.4 6.3 18.0

2 42.9 43.2 23.5 22.2 25.4 27.5

3 42.9 10.8 41.2 31.1 23.8 25.1

4 14.3 2.7 11.8 20.0 34.9 19.2

5 - - - 20.0 6.3 7.5

6 2.2 3.2 2.4

n 7 37 17 45 63 255

Mode 2,3 1,2 1,2 3 4 2

Median 2.7 1.7 2.6 3.3 3.3 2.7

Mean 2.7 1.7 2.4 3.4 3.2 2.8

St Dev 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3

Range 2-4 1-4 1-4 1-6 1-6 1-6

16
Table 9

HIGHEST AND LOWEST RANKS

(Percentages in table are based on column totals)

HIGHEST RANK AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

EXCLUDING ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

LEADER

E3 - 8.1 - - 3.2 3.5

E4 - 56.8 29.4 17.8 14.3 27.5

E5 71.4 29.7 52.9 28.9 22.2 28.2

E6 14.3 2.7 11.8 22.2 20.6 16.9

E7 - - - 20.0 9.5 10.2

E8 - - - 2.2 3.2 1.6

01 14.3 2.7 - 6.7 3.2 3.1

03 - - - - 1.6 0.4

WO - 5.9 2.2 22.2 8.6

LOWEST RANK

E3 42.9 48.6 52.9 77.8 77.8 66.7

,E4 57.1 40.5 41.2 20.0 11.1 25.9

E5 - 10.8 5.9 2.2 11.1 5.9

E6, E7, - - - - 1.6

wo

" n (for high- 7 37 17 45 63 215

est & lowest

rank)

17

,! I .
Table 10

NUMBER OF MOS CATEGORIES

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

NUMBER OF AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

MOS CATEGORIES ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

i 42.9 86.5 1 35.3 31.1 27.0 42.7

2 28.6 10.8 23.5 24.4 7.9 16.5

3 28.6 - 11.8 13.3 41.3 20.0

4 2.7 17.6 8.9 9.5 6.7

5 - 8 11.8 15.6 11.1 9.4

9 - 22 - - 6.7 3.2 4.7

I i

n 7 37 17 45 63 255

Mode 1 1 1 1 3 1

Median 1.7 1.1 2.1 2.3 2.9 1.9

Mean 1.8 1.2 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.8

St Dev 0.9 0.6 1.6 2.9 2.0 2.9

Range 1-3 1-4 1-6 1-13 1-11 1-22

18

Al "
IN U)m - -1 m0 0 z

0 ccNc ~ - aD HN-'i

<LsrQ C4 ' ')CJ '

rLI')- Ct') HI H- H r HY

0z 0-V

H3 H- %v).0 0-~ i'4 H Li' \D)

0) H U') :8 ) r- U't 0 -C;

H. N- COi -.T CV) tfCC HH~ H; 4 r c

0 0 c'J O '0 ir0

U)H 0 00 ', C H ; H) W C4I n 0 C14 Hj

0 (n_ _ __ _ _

03 03 

H CO '

E- o CV 00 HtH w a) I I ON 44

Um N N" EOC.Jr

H 0 0 ) (

04 ca car au Hz 0) cu a)n U0 E- -4"

03 w 0 U- a)

Cx Q * * 0) I1 *o w E 0 r a4 '.0 a ') U'- 0

(-4 C4

E--

0 r. 0

H~~4 OCO'- C" 

l) w 3 03 - w Hz 0. 0. .000

co 4. N 2v 1 

v 0 '4o 40H r4-. 00 A0

0-H U E-4 24uWC) c

H 19 I 
teams are primarily accounted for by the variation in team size that

occurred among the combat arms.

Skill Levels

For all teams the percentage of individuals who had skill levels of

1 or 2 was substantially higher than those who had skill levels of 3 or

4. A comparison of the two extreme levels shows that 80% of all teams

had at least one individual with a skill level of 1, while only 40% of

all teams had at least one individual with a skill level of 4 (Table

12). In addition, teams were more likely to have several members at the

1 level than at the 4 level.

The general pattern of the proportion of team members with low

skill levels being higher than the proportion of members with high skill

levels was also characteristic of each of the combat arms. Within this

pattern, Armor teams differed somewhat from the other combat arms teams

by having relatively fewer members qualified at skill levels 3 to 4.

Field Artillery and Engineer teams differed slightly from the general

pattern in that level 2, not 1, was the most frequent skill qualification level.

Profile Analysis: Size, Leader Rank, Number of Ranks, MOS

The variables of team size, leader rank, number of different ranks

(excluding leader), and number of MOS categories were selected to provide a "summary" profile of "typical" Army teams. The joint distribution of teams on these four variables was determined for the entire

sample. Only in the Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery branches was

the sample size large enough for the same profile analysis. For each

variable, categories containing equal numbers of teams were established.

The variable of size was reduced to three categories (2-3, 4-8, and 9-61

members); leader rank was reduced to four categories (E3-E5, E6-E8,

01-04, and 140); the number of different member ranks to two levels (1-2

and 3-6 ranks); and tle number of MOS categories to two levels (1 and 2

or more). Thus a total of 48 combinations was possible. Variable

combinations that individually accounted for at least 5% of the teams in

all branches or for at least 5% of the teams in Infantry, Armor, or

Field Artillery are presented in Table 13. Together these combinations

accounted for 80% of the teams.

Five variable combinations accounted for 50% of the team types in

the total sample. Only one of these combinations was common to Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery branches as well. This combination reflected small, homogeneous teams with enlisted leaders (size 2-3, 1-2

ranks, 1 MOS category, E3-E5 leader). This combination accounted for

17% of the teams in the entire sample, 49% of the Armor teams, 9% of the

Field Artillery teams, and 8% of the Infantry teams.

20

-
Table 12

SKILL LEVEL OF TEAM MEMBERS

(Percentages on table based on column totals)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

SKILL LEVEL ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

% Members -Level 4

No Members 57.1 91.9 52.9 53.3 58.7 62.4

One Member 28.6 8.1 41.2 37.8 20.6 26.7

Two or More

Members 14.3 - 5.9 8.9 20.7 10.9

% Members - Level 3

No Members 57.1 70.3 47.1 31.1 54.0 51.4

One Member 42.9 24.3 47.1 55.6 31.7 34.9

Two or More

Members - 5.4 5.9 13.3 14.3 13.7

% Members - Level 2

No Members 14.3 21.6 - 4.4 23.8 16.9

One Member 42.9 70.3 41.2 48.9 31.9 38.8

Two or Three

Members 14.3 8.1 53.0 13.3 25.4 23.9

Four or More

Members 286 - 5.9 33.3 18.9 20.4

% Members - Level 1

No Members - 13.5 23.5 11.1 17.5 20.8

One Member 14.3 37.8 52.9 13.3 9.5 17.3

Two or Three

Members 71.5 43.2 23.6 15.6 22.3 24.7

Four or More

Members 14.3 5.4 - 60.0 50.7 37.3

Average No. Members

Level 4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.7

Level 3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.8

Level 2 3.8 0.9 1.8 3.2 2.4 2.6

Level 1 2.4 1.5 1.1 5.1 4.0 4.1

n for Each Skill Level 7 37 17 45 63 255

21

i
Table 13

FREQUENT COMBINATIONS OF SIZE, LEADER RANK, NUMBER OF RANKS, AND

NUMBER OF MOS CATEGORIES FOR ALL BRANCHES, ARMOR, FIELD ARTILLERY, AND INFANTRY (Percentages are based on total number of teams within each column)

# OF # OF LEADER ALL BRANCHES ARMOR FIELD ARTILLERY INFANTRY

SIZE RANKS MOS RANK n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

Small, homogeneous teams, enlisted

leaders

2-3 1-2 1 E3-E5 42 (16.5) 18(48.6) 4(8.9) 5(7.9)

2-3 1-2 1 E6-E8 15 (5.9) 6(16.2) - 2(3.2)

Medium, homogeneous teams,

enlisted leaders

4-8 1-2 1 E3-E5 13 (5.1) 1(2.7) - 3(4.8)

4-8 3-6 1 E6-E8 13 (5.1) 3(8.2) 4(8.9) 1(1.6)

Medium, heterogeneous teams,

senior enlisted & officer

leaders

4-8 3-6 > 2 E6-E8 21 (8.2) - 4(8.9) 6(9.5)

4-8 3-6 > 2 01-04 15 (5.9) 1(2.7) 1(2.2) 6(9.5)

Large, heterogeneous teams,

senior enlisted & officer

leaders

9-61 3-6 > 2 01-04 28 (11.0) - 7(15.5) 11(17.5)

9-61 3-6 > 2 WO 21 (8.2) - 9(20.0) 4(6.3)

9-61 3-6 > 2 E6-E8 20 (7.8) - 2(4.4) 8(12.7)

9-61 3-6 1 E6-E8 - 9 (3.5) - 4(8.9) -

9-61 1-2 > 2 01-04 4 (1.6) - - 4(6.3)

Cumulative n(%) 201 (78.8) 29(78,4) 35(77.8) 50(79.4)

Total number of teams 255 37 45 63

Number of Combinations Required 5 1 4 4

to Account for Approximately

50% of Teams

v ote. Combinations that . escribed at least 5% of teams across all branches or within

a branch are cited. The number and percentage af teams within each of these

combinations for the total sample and the three combat arms are presented in

the table, even though in some cases the percentage is less than 5%. Note

for example, that the last combination in the table(9-61 members, 1-2 ranks,

more than 2 MOS, and 01-04 leaders) accounted for 6% of the Infantry teams and

was therefore included in the table, although it only accounted for 2% of all

teams.

22

t -
The combinations that accounted for most of the teams in all the

branches could be grouped into four categories. The first category was

small, homogeneous teams led by enlisted men (2-3 members, 1-2 ranks, 1

MOS category, E3-E8 leaders). The second category was medium-sized,

homogeneous teams with enlisted men as leaders (4-8 members, 1 MOS category, E3-E8 leaders). The third category was medium sized, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted men or by officers (4-8 members, 3-6

ranks, more than two MOS categories, E6-E8 or 01-04 leaders). The last

category was large, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted men or by

officers (more than 9 members, 3-6 ranks, more than two MOS categories,

E6-E8 or 01-04 or WO leaders). The frequency of each of these team

categories varied with combat arm. Armor teams were small, homogeneous,

and led by enlisted men. Infantry was characterized by both medium and

large heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted men or officers. Field

Artillery was also characterized by large, heterogeneous teams led by

officers. The remaining Field Artillery teams were about equally distributed across the three other team categories. Thus on the structural

variables examined, Field Artillery teams were the most variable; Armor

teams the least variable.

The data in Table 13 show that Army teams are diversified on the

variables examined, due to the relatively low percentage of teams described by each combination and the relatively small overlap among the

combat branches, Of course, if larger variable groupings had been used

(e.g., only two sizes), then this picture would change somewhat.

Different Types of Equipment

Most teams (75%) used from one to five types of equipment (Table

14). Typically, Armor, Air Defense Artillery, and Engineer teams used

one type of equipment, while Field Artillery and Infantry teams used a

greater variety of equipment (75-85% of these teams used from two to

seven types of equipment). These numbers reflect quite different types

of equipment both within and across branches, ranging from total systems

such as tanks, helicopters, and bridges to individual pieces of equipment such as rifles, plotting boards, radios, and welding torches. In

addition, the data varied in level of detail and completeness across the

branches surveyed.

Established-Emergent Rating

Of the 255 teams described, only 33 (17%) were rated by the TRADOC

subject matter experts as performing emergent, as opposed to

established, tasks (Table 15). All except one of these teams were in

one of the combat arms. This exception was diving teams within the

Transportation branch. None of the Field Artillery teams was rated as

performing emergent tasks. The percentage of emergent teams in the

other combat arms ranged from 30 to 40%. However, the percentage of

23

II
Table 14

NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EQUIPMENT

(Percentages in table based on column totals)

# TYPES OF AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

EQUIPMENT ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

1 42.9 50.0 41.7 2.2 6.3 30.6

2 28.6 22.2 16.7 8.9 21.0 15.7

3 14.3 8.3 16.7 13.3 14.5 10.3

4 14.3 5.6 8.3 24.4 14.5 10.7

5 I - 5.6 8.3 11.1 17.7 8.3

6 - - - 8.9 9.7 6.6

7 - 8.3 8.3 6.7 9.7 6.2

8 - - - 24.4 6.4 11.6

n 7 36 12 45 62 242

Mode 1 1 1 4 2 1

Median 1.7 1.5 2.0 4.6 4.0 2.9

Mean 2.0 2.3 2.6 5.8 4.4 4.5

St Dev 1.1 1.8 1.9 3.3 2.8 6.3

Range 1-4 1-7 1-7 8-14 1-19 1-49

Missing n 0 1 5 0 1 13

24
Table 15

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES TO THE ESTABLISHED-EMERGENT RATINGS

(Percentage based on column totals)

AIR DEFENSE ' FIELD ALL

RATING ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Established - 56.8 5.9 67.4 19.4 47.4

More Egtablished than

Emergent 57.1 2.7 47.1 32.6 25.0 24.0

e qually Established&

Emergent 8.1 17.6 J - 22.2 4 11.7

More Emergent than

Established 42.9 32.4 17.6 - 33.3 15.8

Emergent 11.8 - - 1.0

o 7 37 17 1 43 36 196

Mode 2 1 2 1 4 1 1

Median 2.7 1.4 2.4 1.2 2.8 1.6

Mean 2.8 2.2 2.8 1.3 2.7 2.0

St Dev 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.1 : 1.1

Missing n 0 0 0 2 27 59

Note. Five point scale with "established" coded 1 and "emergent" coded 5.

25

/l
such teams within Infantry may be misleading, due to the sizeable number

of missing ratings.

The names of the emergent teams are as follows: Infantry - aidman

team, aid station/evacuation station, M60 machine gun team, rifle squad,

antitank (TOW) squad, scout squad, Redeye team, antitank (Dragon) team,

armed helicopter section, utility support section (Aviation elements),

and command and control section (Aviation elements); Armor - aidman

team, antitank (TOW) team, tank crews (M551 and M6OA/A2), scout squad,

heavy mortar squad, armored vehicular launched bridge (AVLB) crew, observation crew (Aviation elements), rifle squad, aeroscout crew, aeroweapons crew, and reconnaissance squad or aerorifle crew; Engineers -

firefighting team, medical section, construction squad, engineer squad

and demolition team; and Air Defense Artillery - radar section, vulcan

squad, and chaparral squad. A careful examination of the names of these

teams indicates some redundancy as well as some consistency in the

emergent ratings among the branches, i.e., medic~l teams were cited by

Armor, Infantry and Engineers; rifle squads and anti-tank teams were

cited by both Armor and Infantry. Thus the number of distinct emergent

teams may in fact be lower than that reported here.

266

26 j

-- - I ,
FORSCOM SURVEY:

TRAINING AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF ARMY TEA4S

METHODOLOGY

SAMPLING DESIGN

The target population consisted of teams in active Army units

within FORSCOM. These teams were selected from active TOE units for

which the following centers and schools have proponency: Air Defense

Artillery, Armor, Aviation, Chemical, Engineers, Field Artillery, Infantry, Medical Services, Military Police, Missile and Munitions,

Quartermaster, Signal, and Transportation. These active units were

located with information obtained in the TRADOC team survey and from the

Adjutant General's Office. All battalion-size units or separate companies organized under the same TOE number were treated as a single type

of unit. Units concerned with command and control functions and units

being phased out were excluded from the target population. The target

population represented 109 different TOEs. The exact size and nature of

the target population are classified information, making the sampling

ratio classified as well. However, the sampling plan was designed to

obtain a sufficient proportion of the units from the target population.

From the target population, 140 units (68 battalions and 72

separate companies) were selected for the sample. The selection

procedure was as follows:

1. Fifteen installations were selected to assure reasonable geographic and size representation.

2. Only one unit with a particular TOE was sampled from a single

installation (e.g., five Infantry Battalions with a designated TOE

number were drawn from five separate installations rather than from the

same installation).

3. At least one active unit per TOE number was sampled. When

multiple units were selected, they were primarily from the Armor, Infantry, Medical, and Missile-Munitions branches.

4. The individual point of contact at an installation selected

the actual unit from which data were obtained if more than one unit with

a particular TOE designation was located at that installation.

PROCEDURE

Team questionnaires were sent to each of the 140 units selected for

the sample. Points of contact at each installation were obtained

through coordination with HQ, FORSCOM. The points of contact were in27

A!
1

structed that all questionnaires for a specific unit should be completed

by one or more individuals who were knowledgeable of the structure of

the unit, the teams within it, and the training of teams. In most instances, this individual was the training officer for the unit (or

personnel within his office).

Respondents within each unit were instructed to complete one

questionnaire for each type of team in the unit. A list of teams appropriate for that unit's branch was included with the questionnaire to

assist it) the identification of teams. These lists were based on the

results of the TRADOC survey. Thus, the list provided to a particular

unit (e.g., Airborne Infantry Battalion) included teams that were likely

to be found in other types of units (e.g., Ranger Battalion) within that

particular branch (e.g., Infantry). The definition of team was also

included to assist respondents in identifying any teams not on the list.

TEAM QUESTIONNAIRE

The team questionnaire was designed to obtain information that

would describe some of the operational characteristics of existing Army

teams and provide basic data on the nature of team training within the

Army. The subject matter experts in the TRADOC phase critiqued the

questionnaire before it was sent to FORSCOM units. The final questionnaire is presented in its entirety in Appendix B. Six areas were

examined.

Structural Characteristics

The number of teams of a particular type within a unit and the size

of these teams were recorded.

Operational Characteristics

Nine characteristics that reflected how each team operated or

functioned were examined. These characteristics and their variable

labels are presented in Table 16. Respondents were requested to indicate the scale: "no extent" (coded 0), "to a little extent," "to a

moderate extent," "to quite an extent," or "to a great extent" (coded

4). These characteristics were selected on the basis of small group research and Army team/crew research (see reviews by Collins, 1977; Hare,

1976). For example, researchers have examined the nature of group

member interaction and cooperation (reflected in the survey variables of

leader coordination, member coordination, performance compensation, and

task interdependence), and how such interaction affects group

productivity. Group cohesion and motivation (reflected in the survey variables of team spirit and personal knowledge) have also been j

identified as important characteristics of small groups.

28.

IiA
Table 16

OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC ITEMS IN FORSCOM SURVEY

To what extent do each cf the following characteristics apply to this

team?

a. Except for transfers, team members on a given team are usually the

same individuals from hour to hour and from day to day. (Continuity)

b. The team's tasks are mainly composed of the activities needed to

operate one or more items of equipment. (Equipment Tasks)

c. Successful task/mission performance requires team members to obtain

information about the work situation and to pass it on to other team

members. (Information Transfer)

d. Successful task/mission performance is dependent on a leader to

closely coordinate the activities of all team members. (Leader Coordination)

e. Successful task/mission performance requires team members to coordinate their activities directly with each other. (Member Coordination)

f. The tasks are such that if one member cannot perform adequately

(e.g., fast enough), another member can 'makeup for" that performance.

(Performance Compensation)

g. The team members need to express a "team spirit" in their work

activities. (Team Spirit)

h. Task performance by team members is dependent on timing, quality,

and/or completeness of the performance of other team members. (Task

Interdependence)

i. A team member needs to know his mates and know how they will react

in certain situations. (Personal Knowledge)

29

i. " .. . ... .. .. . . . ... . .. .." .t | ¢ r . .
Extent of Team Training

Both the amount of team training received and the amount of team

training needed were determined. Six forms of team training were

examined: on-the-job training, unit maneuvers or exercises, field

training, classroom lectures and demonstrations, use of team training

devices, and training at special schools. For each type of training,

respondents indicated whether the team received this training daily

(coded 8), several times a week, once a week, several times a month,

once a month, several times a year, once a year, less than once a year,

or never (coded 0). Respondents used the same categories to indicate

the amount of each type of training that was needed. In addition, the

degree of leader satisfaction with the amount of team training received

was obtained on the same five-point scale that was used for operational

characteristics ("no extent" to "a great extent").

Training Constraints

Eight factors that could prevent units from conducting additional

or better team training were examined: lack of instructional programs,

lack of realistic training, lack of trainers, limited time for training,

limited facilities and support equipment, lack of team training devices,

difficulties in keeping the team together for training, and whether individual training was more important than team training. Respondents

indicated whether each of these factors characterized each team on the

five-point "no extent" to "a great extent" scale.

Operational Problems

Sixteen factors that could cause frequent or critical problems in

the performance of teams were examined. These factors and their variable labels are presented in Table 17. Respondents were again requested

to indicate the degree to which each factor characterized each team on

the same scale used for training constraints and operational characteristics ("no extent" to "a great extent").

Evaluation

The frequency and adequacy of external Army Training and Evaluation

Programs (ARTEP), Operational Readiness Training Tests (ORTT) and internal evaluations were examined. The adequacy of such evaluations was

rated on the extent to which they provided satisfactory estimates of the

team's ability to perform its wartime mission.

TEAM DEFINITION

Each questionnaire was screened to insure that key items had been

completed and that the data described a team as opposed to other

groupings of individuals. Questionnaires were excluded from further

30
7"'

Table 17

OPERATIONAL PROBLEM ITEMS IN FORSCOM SURVEY

To what extent do the factors listed below cause frequent or critical

problems in the performance of this team?

a. Frequent turnover in team personnel. (Turbulence)

b. Some team members are not qualified for their positions. (Unqualified Personnel)

c. Inadequate amount of team training. (Insufficient training)

d. Team training is not meaningful or realistic. (Unrealistic Training)

e. Team is not given the opportunity to train with otiher units. (No

Unit Training)

f. Lack of team spirit. (Lack Spirit)

g. Social problems (e.g., hostility between members). (Social Problems)

h. Lack of technically and tactically proficient leadership. (Leadership)

i. Lack of discipline. (Discipline)

J. Poor design of equipment that the team needs to operate. (Equipment

Design)

k. Lack of equipment that the team would normally use. (Lack Equipment)

1. Team is employed using inappropriate tactics. (Inappropriate Tactics)

m. Team is employed beyond its capabilities. (Overextended)

n. Lack of communication and coordination. (Communication/Coordination)

o. The current configuration of the team is inadequate (e.g., more or

fewer members are needed or different types of personnel are needed).

(Inappropriate Configuration)

p. Teams are frequently understrength and thus lack the manpower to

effectively perform team missions. (Understrength)

31

;I'

-!

-. , - - -
analysis if one of the following applied: (a) responses described a

position occupied by a single individual rather than a team, (b) responses described a team with positions that were completely unfilled at

the time of the survey, (c) groups were composed of a relatively large

number of members functioning as something other than a team (such determinations were based on conversations with the respondents themselves), (d) the team's primary function was the command and control of

a company-size or larger unit, and (e) data for a team were unintelligible. When more than one questionnaire for a particular type of team

within a unit was returned, the responses from these "duplicate" questionnaires were averaged and this average was used in the analysis.

Although one of the original purposes of the FORSCOM survey was to

use the sample data to estimate characteristics of the population of

Army teams by weighting team responses for each type of team in each

unit by the number of teams of that particular type within the unit, incomplete data and the sampling procedures made such estimation inappropriate. In some cases certain companies within a battalion were not

described, and in other cases not all types of teams within a company

were described. Therefore, the data were treated in a manner similar to

that in the TRADOC survey. Distinct teams within each branch were

identified. When there was more than one FORSCO14 questionnaire from

different units within the same branch for a particular type of team,

the responses from these multiple questionnaires were averaged and the

average was used in the data analysis. Such multiple questionnaires

were very common (e.g., rifle squads, tank crews, howitzer crews, mess

teams, RATT teams, Redeye teams).

RESULTS

SAMPLE RETURN

Approximately 81% (114; 54 battalions and 60 separate companies) of

the units returned the team questionnaires (Table 18). The breakout in

Table 18 indicates that this return rate varied with the branch, but was

fairly similar for each of the combat arms (Engineers, Field Artillery,

and Armor - 75%, Infantry and Air Defense Artillery - 84%). The 114

units in the sample also represented 82 distinct TOE battalion/company

designations. A list of the TOE units in the sample is given in

Appendix A.

A total of 1188 questionnaires was returned, representing a total

of 284 distinct teams. Ninety-three questionnaires were excluded from

analysis for one of the reasons mentioned earlier. Information from the

remaining questionnaires was reduced further by the two averaging processes described previously: 279 questionnaires covered the same team

within the same unit more than once and 532 questionnaires "duplicated"

teams within the same branch. The number of distinct teams per branch

is given in Table 19. Most (73%) of the teams were in the Armor, Field

32

, /.~r
Table 18

PERCENTAGE OF ARMY UNITS IN SAMPLE THAT PROVIDED RESPONSES

TO FORSCOM QUESTIONNAIRE

NO. OF UNITS NO. OF UNITS RETURN

BRANCH IN SAMPLE PROVIDING RETURNS PERCENTAGE

Air Defense Artillery 6 5 83.3

Armor 16 12 75.0

Aviation 3 3 100.0

Engineers 15 11 73.3

Field Artillery 19 15 78.9

Infantry 21 18 85.7

Medical Services 23 19 82.6

Military Police 10 8 80.0

Missile & Munitions 8 6 75.0

a

Quartermaster 5 5 100.0

Signal 6 5 83.3

Transportation 8 7 87.5

Total 140 114 81.4

# Battalions 68 54 79.4

# Separate Companies 72 60 83.3

Note. Numbers reflect sampling of more than one FORSCOM unit for selected

TOE designations.

a From Composite Units.

33

L7 - a
Table 19

SUMMARY OF NUMBERS OF TEAMS: TRADOC AND FORSCOM SURVEYS

TOTAL # TRADOC FORSCOM # TEAMS

DISTINCT WITH

TEAMS # with # Identi- # TEAMS DESCRIPIDENTIFIED # Descrip- fied & w/ COMMON 1TIVE DATA

IN BOTH Identi- tive Descrip- TO BOTH I IN BOTH

BRANCH SURVEYS fied Data tive Data SURVEYSI SURVEYS

Air Defense

Artillery 27 23 7 13 9 5

Armor 55 46 37 46 37 30

Aviation 16 12 11 13 9 8

Chemical 9 9 8 a - -

Engineers 35 24 17 25 14 11

7I

Field Artillery 58 46 45 37 25 25

Infantry 84 63 63 63 42 42

Medical 37 b - 37 -

Military Police 9 b 9

Missile &

Munitions 13 13 12 3 3 3

Ordnance 41 41 19 a -

Quartermaster 13 6 6 13 6 6

Signal 48 48 15 16 16 8

Transportation 20 16 15 9 5 5

Total 465 347 255 284 166 143

Total for 10

Branches in

Both Surveys 369 297 228 238 166 143

aNo data collected in FORSCOM Phase

bNo data collected in TRADOC Phase

34

... ................. .. .
Artillery, Infantry, Engineer, and Medical branches. The FORSCOM

analysis was conducted on these 284 teams. A list of these teams is in

Appendix C.

COMPARISON WITH TRADOC SURVEY

The correspondence between the teams in the TRADOC and FORSCOM surveys is shown in Table 19. A total of 465 distinct teams were identified in both surveys. The five combat branches accounted for 56% of

these teams. Complete TRADOC and FORSCOM descriptive data were available on 143 or 31% of all teams. However, this index of data overlap

between the two surveys is slightly misleading for two reasons. One,

only ten of the fourteen branches were included in both surveys. Two,

for some branches a sizeable proportion of teams was identified by name

only in the TRADOC survey. When only those teams that were described as

well as identified in the TRADOC survey, and only those branches that

were included in both surveys were examined, the total team count was

228. Complete descriptive information was av-ailable on 63% (143) of

these teams.

Four factors interacted to produce discrepancies between the types

of teams identified in the two surveys. First, not all types of TOE

units were included in the FORSCOM study. Second, review of the FORSCOM

returns suggested that data on teams in all elements of a TOE unit

(e.g., all companies in a battalion) were not always recorded. Third,

the TRADOC data identified teams that are formally recognized in the

organizational structure of Army units. The structures of actual units

tend to deviate from these formal structures. Finally, the project was

not designed to permit association of the data collected in both surveys. That is, only three types of data were available for judging the

match between teams described in both surveys: the unit in which a team

was located, the names of the teams, and the team size. Due to variations in nomenclature, differences in actual and formal team sizes, and

discrepancies in organizational structures, it was often impossible to

determine with certainty whether a team described in the FORSCOM survey

had also been identified in the TRADOC survey. As a result, the extent

to which teams of the same type were covered in both phases of the study

is probably underestimated.

OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAMS

Except for the question on continuity of team membership, the operational characteristic items requested the respondents to indicate

whether each characteristic was required or needed in team activities

rather than whether a characteristic was typical of actual team operations. For example, the member coordination item asked whether member

coordination is required rather than if it occurs in normal team operation. Responses to the questionnaire items indicated that each of the

characteristics, except for performance compensation, was rated as very

35

- .,
Co

typical of Army teams (Table 20). In general, about 60% of the ratings

fell in the "to quite an extent" and the "to a great extent" categories

(see Appendix E). On the other hand, only 36% of the ratings fell in

these two categories for the performance compensation item; 40% of the

ratings were in the "to a moderate extent" category. Despite this concentration of responses within each branch, all five points on the

rating scale were used, indicating variation among the teams on the

characteristics examined.

In all branches, performance compensation was given the lowest

rating. Air Defense Artillery teams also gave equipment tasks a low

rating. The remaining characteristics were all rated as being rather

typical of teams within each of the combat arms.

No significant differencs on any of the team characteristic items

existed among the combat arms. This homogeneity may resuit, in part,

from the fact that there are similar types of teams (teams performing

similar functions) within several of the combat arms, e.g., mortar

platoons are similar to howitzer sections, medical aidman teams and mess

teams exist in all branches, aviation-related teams exist in both Armor

and Infantry.

The homogeneity may also be measurement-related, in that the

questionnaire items were not sensitive to differences in team characteristics. For example, most Army teams use several pieces of equpiment,

although teams differ in the extent to which that equipment influences

the nature of team activity. For example, the activities of an Engineer

ribbon bridge section are greatly influenced by the bridge itself,

whereas the activities of a rifle squad are not as dependent upon the

M16 rifle. However, the equipment characteristic item only asked respondents to indicate the extent to which team tasks needed one or more

items of equipment.

On the other hand, the homogeneity may have resulted from the

averaging of different characteristics associated with different types

of teams within some of the combat branches. To test this hypothesis,

Infantry teams were divided into four major categories: combat teams

(e.g., rifle squad, TOW team, mortar squad), medical teams (e.g., aidman

team, evacuation section), aviation teams (e.g., flight operations,

airlift section, aircraft maintenance section), and support teams (e.g.,

commo platoon, wire team, liaison, supply section, mess team). Teams

placed in each of these categories are indicated in Appendix C. Two

significant differences did occur among these types of teams (Table 21).

Leader coordination was rated as more important in combat and support

teams than in aviation and medical teams. Team spirit was rated as less

important in medical teams than in the other types of teams. Although

no other significant differences occurred, it is interesting to note

that the respondents rated personal knowledge of other team member's re36

1

k~ -. - " tI
Table 20

TEAM CHARACTERISTICS: MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

AIR

DEFENSE FIELD ALL

ITEM ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEER ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Continuity 2.7 (1.2) 2.7 (0.7) 3.1 (1.2) 2.4 (1.3) 2.9 (1.0) 2.8 (1.1)

Leader 2.8 (1.2) 2.9 (0.8) 2.5 (1.1) 2.6 (1.1) 2.7 (1.0) 2.7 (1.0)

Coordinat ion

Member 3.0 (0.9) 2.7 (0.9) 2.6 (0.9) 2.4 (1.1) 2.5 (1.0) 2.7 (0.9)

Coord inat ion

Personal 3.1 (0.7) 2.7 (0.9) 3.0 (0.7) 2.5 (1.1) 2.7 (1.0) 2.7 (1.0)

Knowledge

Information 2.8 (1.1) 2.5 (0.9) 2.6 (1.0) 2.6 (1.1) 2.6 (1.0) 2.6 (1.0)

Transfer

Task 2.6 (0.8) 2.6 (0.9) 2.9 (0.6) 2.3 (1.2) 2.7 (1.0) 2.6 (1.0)

Interdependence

Equipment 2.1 (1.4) 2.6 (0.9) 2.9 (1.1) 2.4 (1.1) 2.5 (1.1) 2.5 (1.1)

Tasks

Team Spirit 2.8 (1.0) 2.5 (1.0) 2.9 (0.9) 2.3 (1.3) 2.5 (1.0) 2.5 (1.0)

Performance 2.3 (1.0) 1.9 (0.7) 2.2 (0.9) 1.9 (1.0) 2.2 (1.0) 2.1 (1.0)

Compensation

Note. Five-point scale with 0 representing "to no extent" and 4 representing "to a great extent."

37

IF

- .
I

Table 21

TEAM CHARACTERISTICS FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF

INFANTRY TEAMS: MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

k ITEM COMBAT SUPPORT AVIATION MEDICAL

Continuity 2.7 (0.9) 3.0 (0.7) 2.8 (1.2) 2.9 (1.5)

Leader 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (0.7) 2.4 (1.0) 1.9 (1.2)

Coordinationa

Member 2.5 (0.9) 2.7 (0.8) 2.3 (1.1) 2.2 (1.2)

Coordination

Personal 3.2 (1.0) 2.7 (0.6) 2.5 (1.2) 2.5 (0.7)

Knowledge

Information 2.7 (0.9) 2.8 (0.8) 2.6 (1.1) 2.2 (1.2)

Transfer

Task 3.0 (1.0) 2.5 (0.8) 2.6 (1.1) 2.5 (1.1)

Interdependence

Equipment 2.5 (1.9) 2.8 (0.8) 2.5 (1.4) 1.6 (1.2)

Tasks

b

Team Spirit 3.0 (1.1) 2.8 (0.6) 2.1 (1.0) 1.9 (1.2)

Performance 2.1 (1.1) 2.4 (0.7) 2.1 (1.2) 2.1 (0.8)

Compensation

n 15 21 21 6

Note. Five-point scale with 0 representing "to no extent" and 4 representing

a "to a great extent."

aF= 3 .3 6 , df=3/59, p=.024 7

bF=3.55, df=3/59, p=.0197

38

7i

-- .- "= r
I

actions and dependency among tasks performed by other team members as

more characteristic of combat teams than the other types of teams.

TEAM TRAINING RECEIVED AND NEEDED

Several factors could have influenced the responses to the training

questions. The respondents may have defined team training to include

training that not only involved an emphasis upon teamwork (e.g., the

quality and speed of team member coordination), but also training that

stressed the repetition of tasks by individual team members within a

team context. In the latter situation, the quality of each individual's

performance would be emphasized more than teamwork per se. Therefore,

the estimates of the amount of team training may be high. In addition,

the six types of training examined were not mutually exclusive. For example, use of training devices can occur in field training and in classroom instruction. On-the-job training might have been interpreted to

mean field training exercises for some teams. Thus respondents may have

included the same training in more than one of the six training categories, which would inflate the estimates of the level of team training

that actually occurred.

Team Training Received

For all the branches surveyed, the frequency of team training

varied with the type of training (Table 22). The most common form of

training was on-the-job, with teams receiving such training, on the

average, from several times a month to once a week. Unit training, lectures/demonstrations, and use of training devices were the next most

likely forms of training received and were generally encountered several

times a year to once a month. Field training was received about once a

year. Training at special schools was received very infrequently, i.e.,

less than once a year or never.

Within each of the combat arms, the rank ordering of the different

types of training was similar to that obtained for all branches. The

one exception to this pattern was that unit training was more ocmmon

than the use of training devices and lectures/demonstrations for Air

Defense Artillery teams. This high agreement among the combat arms regarding the relative amount of time devoted to each form of training was

reflected in a coefficient of concordance value of .91.

Some significant differences did occur among the combat arms in

terms of the absolute frequency with which the different forms of training occurred (Table 22). On the average, Field Artillery teams received

more unit training than did Engineer teams (once a month versus several

times a year). Field Artillery and Armor teams received more

lectures/demonstrations than Air Defense Artillery teams (monthly versus

once a year). Field Artillery teams made more use of training devices

(monthly) than did Air Defense Artillery teams (several times a year).

4

39
Table 22

TYPES OF TRAINING RECEIVED AND NEEDED: MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

TRAINING AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

RECEIVED ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Special 0.4 (0.5) 1.2 (1.0) 0.8 (1.2) 0.9 (1.1) 1.2 (1.3) 1.1 (1.1)

Schools

Field 1.8 (1.4) 2.4 (1.4) 1.8 (1.3) 2.2 (1.7) 1.7 (1.3) 1.9 (1.5)

Unita 3.4 (0.5) 3.2 (1.2) 2.9 (0.3) 3.9 (1.1) 3.2 (1.2) 3.2 (1.0)

Lectures/ 2.1 (2.5) 3.8 (1.4) 2.9 (1.8) 3.9 (2.0) 3.1 (1.9) 3.2 (1.8)

Demob

Training 2.6 (2.8) 3.4 (1.7) 3.9 (1.8) 4.4 (2.4) 4.2 (2.2) 3.7 (2.1)

Devices C

On-The-Job 6.0 (1.7) 5.8 (1.7) 6.1 (1.7) 6.2 (1.8) 5.9 (1.9) 5.7 (1.9)

TRAINING

NEEDED

Speciald 1.6 (1.5) 2.6 (0.9) 2.3 (1.0) 3.2 (1.4) 2.6 (1.2) 2.6 (1.2)

Schools

Field 2.7 (1.9) 3.4 (1.2) 2.6 (1.5) 3.2 (1.6) 2.7 (1.4) 2.8 (1.5)

Unite 3.3 (0.6) 3.6 (1.0) 3.2 (0.7) 4.0 (1.1) 3.5 (1.2) 3.4 (0.9)

Lectures/ 4.4 (1.7) 4.9 (1.2) 4.1 (1.2) 5.0 (1.3) 4.1 (1.5) 4.4 (1.4)

Demo

f

Training 4.6 (2.3) 5.1 (1.3) 5.1 (1.4) 5.3 (1.8) 5.1 (1.8) 4.8 (1.7)

Devices

On-The-Job 6.4 (1.8) .5 (1.0) 6.9 (1.3) 6.6 (1.2) 6.4 (1.5) 6.3 (1.5)

Note. The nine response categories were coded as follows: 8-Daily; 7-Several

Times a Week; 6-Once a Week; 5-Several times a Month; 4-Once a Month;

3-Several Times a Year; 2-Once a Year; 1-Less Than Once a Year; 0-Never

Significant differences among the Combat Arms

a c e

F=3.85, df=4/179, p=.005 F=2.69, df=4/179, p=.03 F=2.98, df=4/179, p=.02

bF=3.43, df=4/179, p=.01 d F=5..2, df=4/179, p=.0004 fF=3.93, df=4/178, p=.0044

40

......... . .. ... ... . -/ i

-- A
Team Training Needed

For each form of training, the amount needed was higher than the

amount received (Table 22). Yet the rank orderings on the amounts of

training received and needed were identical. On the average, on-the-job

training was needed the most, from one to two times a week. Lectures/

demonstrations and training devices were needed from once a month to

several times a month. Unit training was needed several times a year to

once a month. Instruction in special schools and field training just

for the team were needed several times a year.

As with the amount of training received, the rank orderings on the

amount of training needed within each of the combat arms corresponded to

that obtained for all branches combined and the agreement among the

combat arms was high (coefficient of concordance was 1.0). Some

significant differences did occur among the combat arms, however, in

terms of the absolute amount of training needed. On the average, the

need for both special school instruction and unit training was higher

for Field Artillery teams than for Air Defense Artillery teams (several

times a year as opposed to once a year or less for special schools; once

a month as opposed to several times a year for unit training). The need

for lectures/demonstrations was rated higher for Armor and Field

Artillery than for Engineer and Infantry teams (several times a month as

opposed to once a month).

Table 23 summarizes the frequency of training needed and received

for each of the types of training. The increase in the amount judged as

needed compared to that received is clearly indicated in the table, as

well as the large variations in the frequency with which certain types

of training were received. A more detailed breakout of the frequency

distributions for each type of training is given in Appendix E.

Infantry Teams

Infantry teams were again divided into the four major categories of

combat, medical, aviation and support teams in order to determine if the

training received by these teams differed (Table 24). Significant differences occurred on three types of training. On-the-job training was

more frequent for aviation teams. They received on-the-job training

almost daily; the other teams received it several times a month. On the

other hand, unit training was more likely to occur for combat and

medical teams than other teams (monthly vs. several times a year). In

addition, field training just for the team was more common for combat

teams than for the other teams (several times a year vs. once a year or

less). It should also be noted that aviation teams used training devices more frequently than the other teams although this difference was

not significant. For all categories of teams, instruction at special

41
rP

Table 23

SUMMARY OF TRAINING RECEIVED AND NEEDED

FOR ALL BRANCHES

SPECIAL LECTURES/ TRAINING ON-THE

SCHOOLS FIELD UNIT DEMONSTRATIONS DEVICES JOB

FREQUENCY R N R N R N R N R N R N

Never X X

Less than X

once a year

Once a year X X X X X

Several per X X X .X X X X X

year

Once a X X X x x X

month

Several X X N X X

per month

Once a X X X

week

Several per X X

week

Daily X X

% of teams 77.4 68.3 72.9 67.9 61.5 72.9 70.6 75.5 68.2 67.6 71.0 67.2

Note. "R' stands for amount of training received; "N" for amount of training

needed. The Xs in each column reflect those training categories which

collectively accounted for at least 60% of the responses.

42

] -
Table 24

TRAINING RECEIVED AND NEEDED

FOR DIFFERENT INFANTRY TEAMS:

MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

TRAINING

RECEIVED COMBAT SUPPORT AVIATION MEDICAL

Special 1.5 (0.9) 1.1 (1.3) 1.2 (1.6) 0.5 (0.6)

Schools

Fielda 2.7 (1.1) 1.7 (1.1) 1.2 (1.3) 1.1 (1.3)

Unitb 4.0 (1.3) 3.2 (0.9) 2.4 (1.0) 3.7 (1.2)

Lectures/ 3.9 (1.2) 3.0 (1.9) 2.8 (2.4) 2.5 (1.3)

Demonstrations

Training 3.8 (1.4) 3.8 (1.9) 5.1 (2.8) 2.9 (1.8)

Devices

On-The-Jobc 5.1 (1.5) 5.6 (1.7) 7.3 (1.2) 4.5 (3.1)

TRAINING

NEEDED

Special 3.0 (0.8) 2.2 (0.9) 2.8 (1.5) 1.9 (1.3)

Schools

Fieldd 3.8 (1.1) 2.7 (1.1) 2.0 (1.6) 2.4 (1.4)

Unit 4.0 (0.8) 3.4 (0.8) 3.1 (1.6) 3.6 (0.7)

Lectures/ 5.0 (1.5) 4.0 (1.1) 3.7 (1.8) 4.0 (1.5)

Demonstrations

Training 5.4 (1.3) 4,7 (1.2) 5.3 (2.5) 5.0 (1.6)

Devices

On-The-Jobe 5.9 (1.2) 6.0 (1.6) 7.3 (1.0) 5.5 (1.8)

n 15 21 21 6

Note. Response Codes: 8-Daily; 7-Several Times a Week; 6-Once a Week;

5-Several Times a month; 4-Once a Month; 3-Several Times a Year;

2-Once a Year; 1-Less Than Once a Year; 0-Never

4 F=4.90, df=3/59, p=.0041 CF=7.86, df=3/59, p=.0002 eF=5.16, df=3/59, p=.0031

b F=7.21, df=3/59, p=.0003 dF=5.93, df=3/59, p=.0013

43

0II~
schools was the least common form of training and on-the-job training

was the most common.

In terms of training needed, on-the-job training was again rated

high for aviation teams (Table 24) and field training was again rated

high for combat teams. No other significant differences occurred.

LEADER SATISFACTION WITH TRAINING

In general, leaders were moderately satisfied with the present

level of team training (Table 25). There were no significant

differences among the combat branches in leader satisfaction.

TRAINING CONSTRAINTS

Lack of time to conduct training was rated as the most important

training constraint (Table 25). Scheduling or being unable to keep team

members together for a sustait;ed training program was the next most

important training constraint. Lack of training facilities, lack of

realism, an emphasis upon individual training, lack of programs of instruction, and lack of training devices were rated next. Lack of

trainers was the factor that least inhibited training.

The training constraint responses were not viewed as severe problems for the teams, but rather as "moderate" constraints upon training

adequacy. However, it may be that trainers learned how to adapt to such

constraints and, therefore, did not really perceive them as serious

problems.

In general, the combat branches ranked the training constraints in

a manner similar to that obtained for all branches combined (coefficient

of concordance among the combat branches was .75). Inconsistency among

combat branches occurred primarily on programs of instruction, realistic

training, and emphasis upon individual training. Lack of programs of

instruction was ranked as the second most important constraint for

Engineers but was ranked seventh for Armor teams. Training realism was

rated as the third most important constraint for Armor teams, but the

least important constraint for Air Defense Artillery teams. Emphasis

upon individual training was rated as the third most important constraint for Air Defense Artillery teams and the sixth most important

constraint for Armor teams. The only significant difference among the

combat arms on the constraint items was on lack of realism, where Armor

teams rated lack of realism as more of a training constraint than did

the other branches.

OPERATIONAL PRCBLEMS

Responses to the sixteen operational problem areas indicated three

groups of problems (Table 26). The areas that were rated as most severe

i -44
Table 25

LEADER SATISFACTION WITH TRAINING AND TRAINING CONSTRAINTS:

MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

ITEM ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEER ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Leader

Satisfaction 1.9 (0.9) 2.4 (0.7) 2.3 (0.6) 2.1 (1.0) 2.3 (0.8) 2.3 (0.8)

TRAINING

CONSTRAINTS

Lack 1.3 (0.8) 1.4 (0.9) 1.4 (1.0) 1.2 (1.1) 1.3 (0.8) 1.3 (0.9)

Trainers

Lack 1.7 (1.0) 1.8 (1.1) 1.3 (0.8) 1.4 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.0)

Training

Devices

Lack POI 1.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.9) 1.9 (0.9) 1.4 (1.1) 1.6 (1.1) 1.6 (1.0)

Lack a 1.3 (0.9) 2.0 (0.9) 1.6 (1.1) 1.3 (0.9) 1.5 (1.1) 1.6 (1.2)

Realism

Individual 2.2 (1.3) 1.7 (1.0) 1.6 (1.1) 1.3 (0.9) 1.6 (1.0) 1.6 (1.1)

Training

Emphasis

Lack 1.8 (1.1) 1.8 (1.0) 1.6 (0.9) 1.6 (1.0) 1.6 (1.0) 1.7 (1.0)

Facilities

Scheduling 2.5 (1.0) 2.1 (1.1) 1.8 (1.2) 1.9 (1.1) 2.0 (1.0) 2.1 (1.1)

I Lack 2.7 (1.2) 2.5 (0.9) 2.6 (1.2) 2.1 (1.0) 2.2 (1.0) 2.4 (1.1)

Time

aF= 2 .7 5 , df=4/173,p<.03

45

is - /1

... " " " " " "" ... - - . .. -- , . 7.,.

' .-- . '' -" -' a h , ... . i , i .. ... 1 -L |
Table 26

OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS: MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

ITEM ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEER ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Insufficient 2.2 (1.3) 2.1 (1.0) 1.8 (1.0) 1.6 (1.0) 1.6 (0.9) 1.8 (1.0)

Training

Turbulence 1.6 (0.9) 1.6 (0.8) 2.0 (1.0) 1.7 (1.0) 1.5 (0.9) 1.7 (0.9)

Unqualified 1.8 (1.2) 1.6 (0.8) 1.7 (0.8) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (0.9) 1.6 (0.9)

Personnel

a Understrength 1.9 (1.2) 1.6 (1.0) 2.2 (1.2) 1.8 (1.1) 1.4 (1.1) 1.6 (1.1)

Unrealistic 2.0 (1.1) 1.6 (0.9) 2.0 (1.0) 1.4 (1.0) 1.3 (0.9) 1.5 (1.0)

Trainingb

Lack 1.6 (0.8) 1.5 (1.0) 1.3 (0.9) 1.6 (1.3) 1.4 (1.1) 1.4 (1.1)

Equipment

No Unit 1.8 (1.4) 1.6 (0.8) 1.4 (1.0) 1.3 (1.1) 1.1 (0.8) 1.3 (1.0)

Training

Poor Equipment 1.8 (1.2) 1.2 (0.8) 1.7 (1.0) 1.3 (1.1) 1.1 (0.9) 1.3 (1.0)

Design c

Communication/ 1.9 (1.2) 1.2 (0.8) 1.2 (1.2) 1.3 (1.0) 1.1 (0.8) 1.3 (0.9)

Coordination

Inappropriate 1.9 (0.9) 1.3 (0.9) 1.4 (1.3) 1.5 (1.1) 1.2 (1.0) 1.3 (1.0)

Configuration

Lack Spirit 1.4 (0.9) 1.1 (0.9) 1.1 (0.5) 1.3 (1.2) 1.0 (0.8) 1.1 (0.9)

Leadership 1.4 (0.8) 1.1 (0.9) 1.3 (1.2) 1.1 (1.1) 1.0 (0.8) 1.1 (0.9)

Inappropriate 1.5 (1.0) 1.0 (0.7) 1.1 (1.0) 1.1 (0.9) 1.1 (0.9) 1.1 (0.9)

Tactics

Overextended 1.3 (0.9) 0.9 (0.6) 1.2 (1.0) 0.9 (1.1) 1.0 (0.7) 1.1 (1.0)

Social 0.8 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) 1.0 (0.8) 1.0 (0.9) 0.8 (0.7) 0.9 (0.8)

Problems

Discipline 1.3 (1.0) 0.9 (0.8) 1.1 (1.0) 0.9 (0.9) 0.8 (0.8) 0.9 (0.9)

aF=2.67, df=4/178, p=.03

bF=3.4, df=4/178, p=.Ol

c F=2.87, df:4/178, p:.02 -,

46

-
(i.e., "moderate problems") were insufficient training, turbulence,

unqualified personnel, understrength teams, and unrealistic training.

The areas that received the lowest ratings ("to some extent" response)

were lack of team spirit, poor leadership, inappropriate tactics, overextended teams, social problems, and discipline. The remaining five

areas received ratings between these two extremes: lack of equipment,

poor equipment design, communication/coordination problems, lack of unit

training, and inappropriate team configuration. Thus, in general, no

specific area was rated as being a severe problem. This tendency to indicate few operational problems may reflect a need to give socially

desirable responses by the respondents. Such a response bias may have

been strongest for the Infantry respondents since the study was

conducted by the ARI Field Unit located at the US Army Infantry Center

and School.

Significant differences did occur among the combat branches on

three operational problems: understrength teams, unrealistic training,

and poor equipment design. In each case #ir Defense Artillery and

Engineer personnel rated these problems as more severe than Infantry

personnel. In addition, Field Artillery gave low problem ratings to

unrealistic training, and both Field Artillery and Armor gave low

ratings to poorly designed equipment.

Although similar rankings were given to the sixteen problem areas

by the combat branches (coefficient of concordance was .84), there were

some discrepancies of interest. Insufficient training was ranked as the

first and most important problem for Armor, Infantry, and Air Defense

Artillery teams, yet it was clearly distinguished in severity from the

other problem areas for Armor teams only. Engineer ratings indicated

that three operational problems were of more concern than others:

understrength teams, turbulence, and lack of equipment. In addition,

poorly designed equipment received a higher problem ranking for Engineer

teams than was the case for the other branches. For Air Defense

Artillery teams problems with communication/coordination and inappropriate configuration were rated as more severe and turbulence as less J.

severe than was the case for the other branches.

EVALUATION

The data on performance evaluations are not reported due to the

inconsistency of responses across items, and therefore an apparent lack

of validity. For example, responses to item 10 on the questionnaire

(Appendix B) indicatd that 63 teams were not evaluated as part of

ARTEPs, ORTTs, or other forms of evaluation external to those made by

unit leaders. However, responses to item 12a indicated that only 8

teams never had external evaluations. Similar inconsistencies occurred

on the internal evaluation questions.

47

-- . A
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

TEAM DEFINITION

Several recent reviews of team training in the military (Collins,

1977; Hall & Rizzo, 1975; Wagner et al., 1977) have stressed that there

is no consensus on the definition of a team. Although respondents in

the TRADOC and FORSCOM studies were given the same definition of team,

the lists of teams from the two studies were not identical even though

the TOEs represented in the two studies were essentially the same.

The problem of team definition within the military does not seem to

stem from identifying groups of persons who are formally assigned

specific responsibilities and tasks to perform, but rather from two

other areas: determining the size boundaries of a team and determining

when a group is actually involved in teamwork. The first problem

results from the hierarchical nature of Army units which makes it

difficult to determine team boundaries. For examplet within the

Infantry, which of the following groups functions as a team -- the fire

team, the rifle squad, or the rifle platoon? It is also difficult to

determine when sufficient teamwork has occurred to justify the label of

"team." The definition of team used in the study stated that such

groups of individuals should "normally perform their tasks in an

interactive and interdependent manner." However, field observations

conducted after completion of the survey indicate that at least a few of

the reported teams require little, if any, coordination among team

members. This is true, for example, of some Signal teams, where some

teamwork is involved in establishing a communications center or site,

but the actual communication activity consists of a single individual

operating one piece of equipment. In addition, some individuals within

a designated team may work at individual tasks, while the remaining

members function in an interactive manner. The degree of teamwork

required of a particular group may also vary with the military mission.

Resolution of these two definitional issues of team boundaries and

teamwork would greatly assist future team research.

FORMAL STRUCTURE OF TEAMS

The results on the structural characteristics of teams indicate

that Army teams are quite diverse and that it is misleading to refer to

a "typical" Army team. When all teams were examined on the characteristics of size, member rank and MOS, and leader rank, four major types

of teams emerged: small, homogeneous (with respect to member rank and

MOS) teams led by enlisted men; medium-sized, homogeneous teams led by $

enlisted men; medium-sized, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted

men or officers; and large, heterogeneous teams led by senior enlisted

men or officers. Small teams were characteristic of Armor, while medium

and large heterogeneous teams were more characteristic of Infantry and

Field Artillery. In general, all teams were more likely to have more

48

£ -
members at the lower skill levels ( and 2) than at the higher skill

levels (3 and 4). Armor teams were distinct in that a greater proportion had no members at either of the higher skill levels than was the

case for the other combat branches.

The TRADOC structural profiles may not necessarily correspond to

the present FORSCOM "reality." FORSCOM teams are understrength, forcing

some individuals to perform the functions of two or more individuals or

forcing some teams to operate without certain positions, thereby reducing the team's overall capability. In addition, the ranks of the

team leader and subteam leaders may be lower than those indicated in the

TRADOC data due to shortages of personnel. FORSCOM battalion commanders

can modify their designated TOE to better meet local needs. Thus

special teams may be created or the composition of teams may be changed.

Despite these precautionary statements, it is probably safe to assume

that the structural profiles obtained from the TRADOC data provide a

usable estimate of team structure within FORSCOM units.

EMERGENT AND ESTABLISHED TEAMS

The teams identified as peforming mainly emergent tasks can be

placed in one of two categories. The largest category consists of teams

that must face and adapt to a constantly changing threat situation

(e.g., rifle squad, anti-tank squad, tank crew, armed helicopter crew,

aeroscout crew, chaparral squad). The remaining emergent teams do not

come in direct contact with the enemy, but must perform a variety of

tasks/missions where it cannot be predicted when or which specific

tasks/missions should be performed (e.g., aidman team, engineer squad,

construction squad, diving team).

Field observations of selected teams classified as emergent and

established suggest that more forms of teamwork (e.g., team orientation,

organization, cooperation, Nieva et al., 1978) may be required in

emergent as opposed to established tasks, and that the required amount

of each of these forms may be higher in emergent than established teams.

In fact, these characteristics probably apply to any team performing

emergent tasks.

Development of training programs and of evaluation procedures may

be more difficult for emergent than established activities. With more

established tasks, team input is relatively constant, a.lowing training

programs to repeatedly focus on the same or similar skills until the

desired performance is achieved. On the other hand, when the input is

unexpected and constantly changing, as is the case with emergent activities, team training must accommodate to a variety of situations, and

teams must master a variety of skills as well as decide which skills/behavior are appropriate in each situation. In the evaluation of emergent

tasks, more than one approach may be appropriate for a specific task,

and a variety of tasks should probably be presented in order to

49

1
adequately evaluate team performance. In evaluating established tasks,

team procedures are fairly well standardized across tasks and a limited

number of tasks should provide an adequate sample for evaluation

purposes.

TEAM TRAINING

Respondents indicated that on-the-job training was the most frequent form of team training, followed by training devices, lectures and

demonstrations, training with other units, field exercises for the team,

and finally special schools. When respondents were asked to indicate

the amount of training actually needed, the different types of training

were ordered similarly, but respondents indicated that more of each type

of training was needed. The study did not examine which forms of training and what amounts of training are best for different types of teams.

However, the analysis of different categories of Infantry teams (combat,

aviation, medical, and support) indicated substantial variations in the

training actually received. Future training research should focus on

the issue of the optimal match between various forms of training and

different types of teams.

Although the ratings of training constraints and performance

problems were obtained approximately three years prior to publication of

this report, many of the ratings are valid today (e.g., Funk and others,

1980). Lack of time to conduct training and turbulence within units

still place major constraints upon training quality. Insufficient time

to train, turbulence, unqualified personnel, understrength teams, and

unrealistic training also continue to create team performance problems.

TEAM CHARACTERISTICS

Leader and member coordination, knowledge of team members, transfer

of information, task dependency, dependency upon equipment, and the need

for team spirit were each rated as characteristic of teams in all

branches. Yet it would be inappropriate to conclude that all Army teams

are alike. All teams did not receive identical ratings on the characteristics examined. Field observations also indicate that Army teams

differ greatly on these characteristics.

Only one team dimension was rated as uncharacteristic of most teams

-- the ability of team members to compensate for inadequate performance

of other team members. There could be several reasons for the low

rating on compensatory performance. One, compensatory behavior may, in

fact, be low due to the structure and sequence of individual tasks within some teams. Given the division of mission responsibility among team

members, the equipment used by the team, and the chain-like sequencing

of tasks in some Army teams, members may not have the time to attend to

another individual's behavior and/or are not in a physical position to

correct or make up for another's behavior even if it is observed. Two,

50

___ - . ---.-. ,-- .
team members and leader may view the completion of individual tasks with

precision and skill as so important that they overlook situations where

compensatory behavior may be crucial to overall team success (and may in

fact, be taking place). Three, compensatory behavior may be viewed as

undesirable. If a team member must adapt or adjust his actions to those

of another team member, then the latter member may be perceived as not

doing his job. An illustration of these last two points was reported in

Boguslaw and Porter (1962). The exceptional ability and motivation of

an individual in an Air Defense Crew actually hindered the performance

of the team as a whole, since other team members could not maintain the

same pace. This individual was in fact creating an overload situation

for other members and needed to adjust his behavior.

TEAM DATA BANK

The list of teams obtained from the TRADOC survey, their structure,

and their activities provide a useful data base for selecting Army teams

for future research. The authors are unaware of prior studies that have

obtained such an inventory of Army teams. In addition, such descriptive

information cannot be deduced from TOEs without military assistance and

is not easily derived from Department of the Army field, soldier, and

training manuals. The FORSCOM data provide supplementary information on

the "dynamic" characteristics of teams that may also be useful in

selecting teams for future research.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON MILITARY TEAMS

The results of the surveys reinforce previous literature reviews

(Glaser et al., 1962; Hall & Rizzo, 1975; Wagner et al., 1977) that

distinguished military teams from the groups typically created in social

science small group research (Hare, 1976). Such research generally

focuses on impromptu groups whose internal member organization is often

unspecified, in contrast to military teams that are embedded in organizations over time and whose internal organizations are specified. In

addition, the tasks assigned to such impromptu groups are often problemsolving tasks that require little if any prior training, rather than

tasks that usually combine problem-solving with psychomotor skills

requiring special training. Such discrepancies make it difficult to

apply small group research findings and theories to military team

training problems.

Much of the experimental research conducted during the 1950s and

1960s (Briggs & Johnson, 1965; Horrocks, Krug & Heermann, 1960; Klaus &

Glaser, 1968) which attempted to simulate military team activity within

the laboratory failed to approximate military reality. In order to

achieve high internal validity, external validity was lowered. There

were, however, some notable exceptions that studied military teams in

the field (e.g., Havron, Gorham, Nordlie & Bradford, 1955; Havron &

McGrath, 1961). In addition, research during these decades focused on a

51

/1

" " -.. ' -- '. " . .. .. . . - ' ,. i " , ., - t .. f. . , ' , , :
Kq

limited variety of teams from the three branches of service (e.g., air

traffic control teams within the Navy, bomber crews within the Air

Force, Infantry squads within the Army), with little effort to determine

common elements of team interaction, structure, functioning, and training that could be generalized to other teams.

Given the limitations in previous research on small groups and

military teams, many basic questions regarding team structure, dynamics,

training, and the interaction among team structure, team characteristics, and training requirements remain unanswered. The surveys

described in this report simply provide prerequisite background information for future research directed at these unanswered questions within

the population of Army teams. It is hoped that small group researchers

will find these survey data useful in extending their efforts to groups

whose characteristics are more similar to those of military teams.

I

'1'

52

/I
REFERENCES

Army Regulation 10-6 Branches of the Army. Headquarters, Department of

the Army, June 1970.

Briggs, G.E. & Johnston, W.A. Team training research (Technical Report

NAVTRADEVCEN 1327-2). Columbus, Ohio: Human Performance Center,

Ohio State University, November 1965. (DTIC No. AD-477 963)

Boguslaw, R. Situation analy s and the problem of action. Social

Problems, 1961, 3, 212-M19.

Boguslaw, R., & Porter, E.H. Team functions and training. In R.M.

(,,one (Ed.), Psychological principles in system development. New

Yor-K: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

Chapman, R.L. Kennedy, J.L., Newell, A., & Biel, W.D. The systems

research laboratory's air defense experiments. anagement Science,

1959, 5, 250-269.

Collins, J.J. A.study of potential contributions of small group behavior

research to team training technology development (Final technical

report for Office of Naval Research). Alexandria, Va.: Essex

Corporation, 1977.

Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 310-3. Index of doctrinal,

training, and organizational publications. Headquarters, Department of the Army, September 1978.

Finley, D.L., Rheinlander, T.W., Thompson, E.A., & Sullivan, D.J.

Training effectiveness evaluation of naval training devices, Part

I: A study of the effectiveness of a carrier air traffic control

center training device. (Technical Report NAVTRADEVCEN

70-C-0258-1). Orlando, Fla.: Naval Training Device Center, 1971.

(DTIC No. AD-751 556)

Funk, S.L., Johnson, C.A., Batzer, E., Gambell, T., Vandecaveye, G., &

Hiller, J. Combat training detractors in a sample of FORSCOM

divisions: Reported impact and recommended approaches for mitigating their efforts (ARI Technical Report). Alexandria, Va.:

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, May

1980.

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

through training: 2. The acquisition and extinction of a team

response. (Technical Report AIR - B64-5/62, Prepared for Office of

Naval Research). Pittsburgh, Pa.: American Institute for

Research, 1962. (DTIC No. AD-276 429)

53

L - ............................ .......................
Hackman, J.R. & Morris, C.G. Group tasks, group interaction process, and

group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press, 1975, p. 45-99.

(DTIC No. AD-785 287)

Hall, E.R., & Rizzo, W.A. An assessment of US Navy tactical team

training (TAEG Report No. 18). Orlando, Fla.: Training Analysis

and Evaluation Group, March 1975.

Hare, A.P. (Ed.) Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York:

Free Press, 1976.

Havron, M.D., Gorham, W.A., Nordlie, P.G., & Bradford, R.G. Tactical

Training of the Infantry rifle squad (HumRRO Technical Report 18).

Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, June 1955.

Havron, M.D. & McGrath, J.E. The contribution of the leader to the

effectiveness of small groups. In L. Petrullo & B.M. Bass (Eds.).

Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart

and Winston, 1961, p. 167-178.

Horrocks, J.E., Krug, R.E., & Heermann, E. Team training II: Individual

learning and team performance (Technical Report: NAVTRADEVCEN

198-2). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Research

Foundation, August 1960. (DTIC No. AD-247 147)

Klaus, D.J. & Glaser, R. Increasing team proficiency through training:

8. Final summary report (AIR-E1-6/68-FR). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Team

Training Laboratory, American Institute for Research, May 1968.

(DTIC No. AD-669 688)

Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A., & Rieck, A. Team dimensions: Their

identity, their measurement and their relationships (Final Technical Report for US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences). Washington, D.C.: Advanced Research Resources

Organization, 1978.

Smillie, R.J. Shelnutt, J.B., & Bercos, J. A survey of Army team

operations (prepared for the Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Contract Number DAHC 19-77-C.-011).

Ft. Benning, Ga.: Litton-Mellonics, December 1977.

Steiner, I.D. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic

Press, 1972.

54

i/

tI'

-\
Wagner, H., Hibbits, N., Rosenblatt, R.D., & Schulz, R. Team training

and evaluation strategies: State-of-the-Art (HumRRO Technical

Report 77-1). Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research

Organization, February 1977.

55
APPENDIX A

TOE UNITS IN TRADOC AND FORSCOM SURVEYS

When listing teams, the TRADOC subject matter experts divided the

battalions and squadrons into their component companies/batteries/

troops. The list of TRADOC TOE units in this appendix corresponds to

this breakout. On the other hand, team questionnaires from the FORSCOM

units were designated only at the battalion/squadron TOE level and are

indicated as such in this appendix. However, in some cases it was clear

from the type of FORSCOM teams reported that not all companies/batteries/troops within a battalion had been surveyed.

56

'4,
Table A-i

SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF BATTALIONS AND SEPARATE COMPANIES

IN TRADOC AND FORSCOM SURVEYS

j-DISTINCT TOE DESIGNATIONS

TOTAL NUMBER OF

BRANCH TRADOC1 FORSCOM FORSCOM UNITS2

Air Defense Artillery 8 3 5

Armor 14 9 12

Aviation 4 3 3

Chemical 1 0 0

Engineer 21 10 11

Field Artillery 21 13 15

Infantry 11 10 18

Medical NS 13 19

Military Police NS 5 8

Missile & Munitions 3 1 6

Ordnance 6 NS NS

Quartermaster 9 5 5

Signal 7 4 5

Transportation 9 7 7

Total 114 83 114

Note - NS stands for "Not Surveyed."

llncludes units not in FORSCOM.

Numbers reflect responses from more than one unit for selected TOE designations.

57

'[I
H H- H- (n m'~ 0

0 0 1

H- N H- - H1 

0

Z 0

H Hq Nf HD r- H CHH 

H f H HH

HH H H1 H H- H- 14C

H H H ~0 H HC IN

CXN H- H- -11 %0 r0 z0

zO0 0 1-4H H -_ _ _

z HC M 0 HrIN H H- H 0~ u1 (.i H H i U L) 0O 0__ _ _

z- w C14 r- 01 1Z4N

U) CA - 1 C4 N fI rIN r H- -

0 4

H r-4

1-.4

$4 HN U)

N q Hd

H4 H a) H4 H4 t-4 H 000 V

H H C

U) _ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ _____58
IK

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCON SURVEY

(All units listed below were in TRADOC Survey)

44-235H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Hawk 0

44-236H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-237H Air Defense Artillery Battery

44-245H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Improved Hawk 1

44-246H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-247H Air Defense Artillery Battery

44-255H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Hawk Self-Propelled 0

44-256H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-257H Air Defense Artillery Battery

44-265H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Improved Hawk, Triad 0

44-266H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-267H Air Defense Artillery Battery

44-325H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Chaparral/Vulcan

Self-Propelled from Armored Division, Infantry

Division, or Infantry Division (Mechanized) 3

44-326H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-327H Air Defense Artillery Battery, Vulcan,

Self-Propelled

44-328H Air Defense Artillery Battery, Chaparral,

Self-Propelled

44-425H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Vulcan Towed,

Airborne Division 0

44-426H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-427H Air Defense Artillery Battery, Vulcan, Towed

44-435H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Vulcan, Towed,

Airmobile Division

44-436H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-437H Air Defense Artillery Battery, Vulcan,

Towed

59
411-725H Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Chaparral

(Self-Propelled)/Vulcan(Towed) 0

44-726H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

44-727H Air Defense Artillery Battery, Vulcan (Towed)

ARMOR

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in TRADOC Survey)

17-15H Separate Armor Battalion (Light) 0

17-16H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

17-18H Armor Company (Light)

17-19H Combat Support Company

17-35H Tank Battalion from Armored Division, Infantry

Division, Infantry Division (Mechanized),

Separate Armored Brigade, Separate Infantry

Brigade or Separate Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) 4i

17-36H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

17-37H Tank Company

17-39H Combat Support Company

17-51H Armored Cavalry Regiment 0

17-52H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-55H Armored Cavalry Squadron from

Armored Cavalry Regiment 0

17-56H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-57H Armored Cavalry Troop

17-58H Air Cavalry Troop 1

17-95H Air Cavalry Squadron, Airmobile Division 1

17-96H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-98H Air Cavalry Troop

17-99H Cavalry Troop

60

IA

-i

, /I
17-105H Armored Cavalry Squadron from Armored Division, 4 Infantry Division or Infantry Division (Mechanized) 1

17-106H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-107H Armored Cavalry Troop

17-111H (No Title Located) 1

17-157H Armored Cavalry Troop, Armored Cavalry Squadron,

Armored Cavalry Regiment 0

17-200H Air Cavalry Combat Brigade 0

17-205H Air Cavalry Squadron, Infantry Division 0

17-206H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-207H Armored Cavalry Troop

17-208H Air Cavalry Troop

17-215H Armor Battalion (Airborne) from Airborne Division

or Separate Airborne Brigade 1

17-216H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

17-218H Armor Company

17-235H Tank Battalion, 152mm from Armored Division,

Infantry Division, Infantry Division (Mechanized),

Separate Armored Brigade, Separate Infantry Brigade,

or Separate Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) 1

17-236H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

17-237H Tank Company

17-239H Combat Support Company

17-275H Air Cavalry Squadron, Airborne Division 1

17-276H Headquarters and Headquarters Troop

17-277H Cavalry Troop

17-278H Air Cavalry Troop

17-307H Armored Cavalry Troop from Armored Cavalry Squadron,

Armored Division or Air Cavalry Squadron, Infantry

Division or Armored Cavalry Squadron, Infantry

Division (Mechanized) or Separate Armored Brigade

or Separate Infantry Brigade or Separate Infantry

Brigade (Mechanized) 0

61
r!

I-I

17-385H Attack Helicopter Battalion 1

17-386H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

17-387H Attack Helicopter Company

AVIATION

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units except 1-256H were in TRADOC Survey)

1-127H Corps Aviation Company 1

1-207H Aviation Air Traffic Control Unit, Army 0

1-256H Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Combat

Aviation Battalion 1

1-500H Aviation Operating Teams 1

CHEMICAL

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(Units were only included in TRADOC Survey)

3-500H Chemical Service Organization 0

ENGINEER

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below except 5-54H, 5-77H,

and 5-78H were in TRADOC Survey)

5-25H Engineer Battalion, Airborne Division 1

5-26H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

5-27H Engineer Company

5-54H Engineer Light Equipment Company, Airborne 1

5-57H Engineer Atomic Demolition Munitions Company (Corps) 0

62

, /
5-64H Engineer Assault Brigade Company, (Mobile) 0

5-77H Engineer Panel Bridge Company 1

5-78H Engineer Float Bridge Company 1

5-107H Engineer Company, Separate Infantry Brigade 1

5-114H Engineer Construction Support Company 0

5-115H Engineer Construction Battalion 2

5-116H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

5-117H Engineer Equipment and Maintenance Company

5-118H Engineer Construction Company

5-127H Engineer Company, Separate Armored Brigade or

Separate Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) 0

5-145H Engineer Battalion, Armored Division or Infantry

Division (Mechanized) I

5-146H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

5-147H Combat Engineer Company

5-148H Bridge Company

5-155H Engineer Battalion, Infantry Division 1

5-156H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

5-157H Engineer Company

5-177H Engineer Pipeline Construction Support Company 0

5-201H Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Engineer

Command 

0

5-203H Engineer Facilities Engineering Group 0I

5-204H Engineer Facilities Engineering Company 0

5-207H Engineer Company, Separate Light Infantry Brigade I

5-215H Engineer Battalion, Airmobile Division 0

5-216H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

5-217H Combat Engineer Company

5-510H Engineer Firefighting Teams 0

63
5-540H Engineer Topographic and Intelligence Teams 1

5-550H Engineer Dredge Teams 0

FIELD ARTILLERY

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in TRADOC Survey)

6-37H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm, Self-Propelled,

Armored Cavalry Squadron, Armored Cavalry Regiment 0

6-115H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed, Separate

Light Infantry Brigade 1

6-11611 Headquarters, Headquarters and Service Battery

6-117H Field Artillery battery

6-155H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed, Infantry

Division 2

6-156H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-157H Field Artillery Battery

6-159H Service Battery

6-165H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm Towed, 203ma,

Self-Propelled, Infantry Division

6-166H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-167H Field Artillery Battery

6-169H Service Battery

6-185H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed, Separate

Infantry Brigade

6-186H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-200H Airborne Division Artillery

6-201H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-205H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed from

Airborne Division or Separate Airborne Brigade

6-20611 Headquarters, Headquarters and Service Battery

6-207H Field Artillery Battery

64

- - ~- ~ -i#Ijj
6-300H Armored Division Artillery or Infantry Division

(Mechanized) Artillery

6-302H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 1

6-365H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm, Self-Propelled

from Armored Division or Infantry Division

(Mechanized) 2

6-366H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-367H Field Artillery Battery

6-369H Service Battery

6-375H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm, Self-Propelled

from Armored Brigade or Separate Infantry Brigade

(Mechanized) 0

6-376H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-395H Field Artillery Battalion, 203mm, Self-Propelled

from Armored Division or Infantry Division

(Mechanized) 0

6-396H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-397H Field Artillery Battery

6-399H Service Battery

6-405H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed 0

6-406H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-407H Field Artillery Battery

6-409H Service Battery

6-425H Field Artillery Battalion, 155m, Towed 1

6-426H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-427H Field Artillery Battery

6-429H Service Battery

6-435H Field Artillery Battalion, 175mm, Self-Propelled 0

6-436H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-437H Field Artillery Battery

6-439H Service Battery

65

- -- ----- -- -
6-445H Field Artillery Battalion, 8-inch, Self-Propelled 0

6-446H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-447H Field Artillery Battery

6-449H Service Battery

6-455H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm, Self-Propelled 1

6-456H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-457H Field Artillery Battery

6-459H Service Battery

6-595H Field Artillery Battalion, Lance 0

6-596H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-597H Field Artillery Battery

6-599H Service Battery

6-615H Field Artillery Battalion, Pershing 0

6-616H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-617H Field Artillery Battery

6-619H Service Battery

6-700H Airmobile Division Artillery

6-701H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 1

6-702H Aviation Battery 1

6-705H Field Artillery Battalion, 105mm, Towed,

Airmobile Division 1

6-706H Headquarters, Headquarters and Service Battery

6-707H Field Artillery Battery

6-715H Field Artillery Battalion, 155mm, Towed,

Airmobile Division 0

6-716H Headquarters and Headquarters Battery

6-717H Field Artillery Battery 6-719H Service Battery

66

SfA

I ml
IN INFANTRY

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in TRADOC Survey)

07-015H Infantry Battalion from Infantry Division or

Separate Infantry Brigade 5

07-016H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-018H Rifle Company

07-028H Combat Support Company

07-035H Infantry Battalion (Airborne) from Airborne

Division or from Separate Airborne Brigade 1

07-036H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-037H Rifle Company

07-038H Combat Support Company

07-045H Infantry Battalion (Mechanized) from Armored Division,

Infantry Division, Infantry Division (Mechanized),

Separate Armored Brigade, or Separate Infantry

Brigade (Mechanized) 3

07-046H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-047H Rifle Company

07-048H Combat Support Company

07-055H Infantry Battalion from Airmobile Division 2

07-05611 Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-057H Rifle Company

07-058H Combat Support Company

07-085H Ranger Infantry Battalion 1

07-086H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-087H Ranger Company

07-107H Antiarmor Company (Separate) 0

07-175H Infantry Battalion (Light Infantry) from

Separate Light Infantry Brigade

07-176H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-177H Rifle Company

07-178H Combat Support Company

67

,~
07-200H Aviation Group Airmobile Division 1

07-201H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

07-202H General Support Aviation Company

07-357H Assault Helicopter Company, Separate 2

37-087H Division Aviation Company from Infantry Division

(Mechanized) 1

57-055H Combat Aviation Battalion from Airborne Division

or Infantry Division 1

57-056H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

57-057H Assault Helicopter Company

57-058H Aviation General Support Company

MEDICAL

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were only in the

FORSCOM Survey) I

8-25H Medical Battalion, Airmobile Division 1

8-35H Medical Battalion from Armored Division, Infantry

Division, or Infantry Division (Mechanized) 2

8-65H Medical Battalion, Airborne Division 1

8-123H Combat Support Hospital 3

8-126H Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, Medical

Battalion 1

8-127H Medical Ambulance Company 1

8-128H Medical Clearing Company 2

8-137H Medical Air Ambulance Company 1

8-147H Medical Company from Separate Armored Brigade,

Separate Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) or Armored

Cavalry Regiment 1

68

-- Ad
8-510H Field Hospital 1

8-581G Evacuation Hospital 1

8-620H Medical Dep~artment Organization Area and Unit,

Medical Support Teams 1

8-660H Medical Department Organization, Medical Evacuation

Teams 3

MILITARY POLICE

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were only in the

FORSCOM Survey)

19-27H Military Police Company from Armored Division,

Infantry Division, or Infantry Division

(Mechanized) 2

19-67H Military Police Company, Airborne Division 1

19-76H Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment from

Military Police Battalion 1

19-77H Military Police Company, Airmobile Division 3

19-87H Military Police Company, Airmobile Division 1

MISSILE AND MUNITIONS

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in TRADOC Survey)

9-47H Ordnance Special Ammunition Direct Support

Company 0

9-520H Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams 6

9-550H Ordnance Rocket and Missile Support Teams 0

69
ORDNANCE

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(Units were only included in TRADOC Survey)

29-15H Maintenance Battalion, Infantry Division 0

29-18H Heavy Maintenance Company

29-25H Maintenance Battalion, Infantry Division

(Mechanized) 0

29-28H Heavy Maintenance Company

29-35H Maintenance Battalion, Armored Division 0

29-38H Heavy Maintenance Company

29-600H Organizational Maintenance Teams 0

29-610H Mechanical Direct Support/General Support

Maintenance Teams 0

29-620H Collection and Classification Teams 0

QUARTERMASTER

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in the TRADOC

Survey except 29-197H)

10-7H Supply and Service Company, Supply and Transport Battalion from Armored Division, Infantry

Division, or Infantry Division (Mechanized) 0

10-227H Petroleum Supply Company 0

10-437H Laundry and Renovation Company, General Support 0

29-45H Supply and Service Battalion, Airborne Division 1

29-47H Main Supply and Service Company 29-48H Forward Supply and Service Detachment 1

70

i- ,
29-75H Support Battalion, Separate Armored Brigade or

Separate Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) 1

29-77H Supply and Transport Company

29-95H Supply and Service Battalion, Airmobile Division 1

29-97H Main Supply and Service Company

29-98H Forward Supply and Service Detachment

29-114H Field Service Company, General Support, Forward 0

29-147H Supply and Service Company, Direct Support 0

29-155H Support Battalion, Air Cavalry Combat Brigade 0

29-157H Supply and Transport Company

29-197H (No title located) 1

SIGNAL

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in the TRADOC

Survey except 11-415H)

11-35H Signal Battalion from Armored Division, Infantry

Division, or Infantry Division (Mechanized) 2

11-37H Command Operations Company

11-38H Forward Communications Company

11-39H Signal Support Operations Company

11-85H Army Area Signal Battalion 0

11-86H Headquarters and Headquarters Company

11-87H Army Area Signal Company

11-175H Air Defense Artillery Signal Operations Battalion 0

11-177H Signal Operations Company (Air Defense

Artillery Brigade)

11-178H Signal Operations Company (Air Defense

Artillery Group)

71
11-205H Signal Battalion, Airmobile Division 0

11-207H Command Communications Company

11-208H Forward Communications Company

11-215H Signal Battalion, Airborne Division 1

11-217H Signal Command Operations Company

11-218H Signal Support Operations Company

11-225H Airborne Corps Signal Battalion 1

11-227H Command Signal Operations Company

11-228H Base and Support Signal Operations Company

11-415H Corps Area Signal Battalion 1

TRANSPORTATION

TOE # TITLE # UNITS IN

FORSCOM SURVEY

(All units listed below were in the TRADOC

Survey except 55-11811)

55-117H Transportation Terminal Service Company 1

55-118H Transportation Terminal Transfer Company 1

55-119T (No title located) 0

55-128H Transportation Medium Boat Company 1

55-129H Transportation Heavy Boat Company 1

55-139H Transportation Medium Amphibian Company 0

55-157H Transportatihn Floating Craft General Support

Maintenance ,,,npany 1

55-53011 Transportation Watercraft Teams 1

55-550H Transportation Watercraft Maintenance Teams 1

72
APPENDIX B

TRADOC AND FORSCOM SURVEYS: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

73
TRADOC SURVEY: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEETS AND TEAM

QUESTIONNAIRE

Contents

Inclosure 1. A definition of "team" as it is to be used in this study.

2. Instructions for providing a list of team names.

3. Instructions for completing the team questionnaire for

school personnel.

4. Instructions for reviewing the questions in the Team

Survey which will be sent to FORSCOM units.

5. Team Identification Worksheets.

6. Team Questionnaires for school personnel.

7. A draft copy of the Team Survey which will be sent to

FORSCOM units.

Inclosure 1. Definition of a "team."

Since the term "team" is used in many different ways in various

branches of the Army, it is necessary to first define "team" so that the

use of the term will be consistent across branches. For the purpose of

the present study, the definition of "team" needs to be limited to the

following:

a. A "team" is a small group of usually 2 to 11 men who

normally perform their tasks in an interactive and

interdependent manner.

b. Position or member assignments within a "team" must be

formally defined. The team members may be dedicated

(e.g., tank crews) or designated (e.g., a tank killer or

anti-armor squad). This means that ad hoe or informal,

temporary teams (e.g., "take four men and scout that

ridge") are not to be included in the present study.

The scope of the present study is also limited to certain types of

teams. At present, we are interested in the combat, combat support,

combat service support and other types of teams which are formed at

company and platoon level. We are not interested in teams which mainly

perform r-mmand and control and staff functions above the platoon level.

74

... .. .... ..I '
The above definition of a "team" is not inviolate. You are asked

to attempt the use this definition and inform Litton and ARI personnel

of any need for revision or extension of the definition to make it

usable for your branch.

Inclosure 2. Instructions for providing a list of teams.

One of the primary objectives of this study is to identify the

various teams that exist in different branches of the Army. The

following procedures have been developed to help identify teams and to

structure the identification process so that it will be done systematically and consistently across the different branches.

The following materials have also been provided to help you.

Appendix A contains a list of selected TOE numbers and titles for companies and smaller units within your branch. If your school has proponency for other TOE (units of company size or smaller), please add these

TOE to the list.

Appendix B contains several copies of a Team Identification Worksheet which provides a place for you to write your list of teams.

The steps for filling in the Team Identification Worksheets using

information in the TOE are as follows:

a. Obtain copies of the TOE listed in Appendix A.

b. Select the first TOE unit from the list.

c. F,ter the TOE number of the unit in the upper right

corner of a Team Identification Worksheet (Appendix B).

d. Using the organizational chart for that TOE unit,

identify all of the teams in each platoon or section.

e. Enter the name of each team in the right column of the

Team Identification Worksheet.

f. In the left column of the same worksheet, enter the

platoon or section in which the teams are found.

g. After you have identified every team in every platoon or

section in the company, select the next unit from the TOE

list in Appendix A and enter its number on the next Team

Identification Worksheet. List all of the teams within

the platoons or sections in this unit. Follow this

procedure until all TOE units are covered.

75

}'
To reduce the amount of work that you will need to perform, this

procedure can be modified to eliminate redundant listing of teams by

listing only additional or different teams for successive units. Each

time you select a new unit (after the first unit), determine if it is

similar to a unit previously covered (for example, teams found in rifle

companies in airborne battalions are similar to those found in rifle

companies in airmobile battalions). If so, simply enter the phrase

"similar to TOE number (enter TOE number of the previous unit) except

for the following "teams" and then describe the following differences

between the units:

a. Determine if there are any additional teams which can be

found in platoons or sections in the unit which are not

found in the previous units you have covered. If so,

enter the team(s) and its section/platoon on the Team

Identification Worksheet.

b. Determine also if there are any similar teams, found in

the present unit and in the preceding unit, which have

sufficiently different composition and training requirements to warrant their study as separate teams. If so,

enter these teams on the worksheet.

c. Finally, determine if there are teams occurring in the

previous unit and not in the present unit. If so,

identify these teams as not occurring in the present unit

on the worksheet.

The above procedures are difficult, but a very importL-. part of

this study. The success of this project depends on your sincere efforts

to carry them out. If you have any difficulty interpreting these

instructions or any questions, please call the ARI/Litton POC.

After all the teams have been identified, please call the

Litton/ARI POC and give us the list of teams that you have identified.

Then proceed to the next section of work.

Inclosure 3. Instructions for completing the Team Questionnaire for

school personnel.

Once teams have been identified (and the ARI/Litton POC has been

given the list of teams), it is necessary to obtain some basic information about each team. Appendix C contains several copies of a Team

Questionnaire which you will need to complete (one for each team that

you have identified).

Use the Team Identification Worksheets to insure that all teams

that you have identified are included as subjects for the questionnaires. Enter a team name on each questionnaire and supply the informa76
tion requested for each team. If you have any questions, please call

ARI/Litton POC.

Inclosure 4. Instructions for reviewing the questions in the team

survey which will be sent to FORSCOM units:

Appendix D contains a draft copy of the Team Survey which will be

sent to FORSCOM units. At present, personnel in the S3/G3 shops are

expected to be the respondents for this survey. They will fill out one

survey form for each team that you have identified.

The draft needs to be reviewed to determine the interpretability

and meaningfulness of the questions. We want to know if the questions

are clearly worded and unambiguous. We also want to know if the questions can be meaningfully answered. If a question cannot be meaningfully answered, we need to know why (for example, it may be impossible

to give a brief, simple answer, it is improbable that anyone will know

the real answer, or there is too much variability within a certain type

of team to use just one description to apply to all teams).

To review the survey, pick a team from the list of teams that you

generated. Answer the questions in the survey with respect to this

team. Write your comments concerning the interpretability of the questions and meaningfulness of possible answers in the margin of the draft

copy or on the back of the survey forms.

If you have any questions, please call the ARI/Litton POC. When

you are finished with the questionnaires and survey, please return them

to:

77
%A

TRADOC SURVEY: TEAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET

TOE NUMBER

Platoon or Section Team Name(s)

(enter plat or see (enter all names formal and informal)

the team is found in)

78*

; 78

'4 p
TRADOC SURVEY: TEAM .QUESTIONNAIRE

Page 1 of questionnaire TOE Number: J__

TEAM QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

(fill in one questionnaire for each team)

TEAM NAME:

1. List each team member by position (title or function) and provide

the information requested for each member.

Position Authorized Rank Authorized MOS Major Equipment

Page 2 of Questionnaire

2. Given the battalion is engaged in a defensive mission (for example,

the defense mission in ARTEP 7-15), describe the major job activities

performed by the team to accomplish the team's part of the battalion

mission. Identify, for each of these job activities, the team members

(e.g., individual members or subteams) who usually perform the activity

by entering their position(s) in the column on the right. If the entire

team usually performs the task, enter "team" in this column.

JOB ACTIVITIES WHO PERFORMS THE ACTIVITY

Page 3 of Questionnaire

3. Investigators involved in team research have found it useful to

distinguish between two types of team job activities and situations:

a. established: the situations are routine and the job activities consist of completely specified procedures.

b. emergent: each situation tends to present a relatively unique

problem; the team must decide what activities to perform and

how to perform them in order to solve the problem.

For Army teams, established activities consist of very proceduralized

tasks like loading, aiming and firing a cannon. Emergent activities are

performed usually in response to changing knowledge of the enemy threat.

For example, rifle squads continually modify their activities in response to enemy activity. The concepts of established and emergent

actually represent extremes of a single continuum. Some activities and

situations are established, some emergent, and some are somewhere in between two extremes.

79
Select the phrase listed below which best describes the general

nature of the majority of job activities performed by this team.

Established

More established than emergent

About equally established and emergent

More emergent than established

Emergent

Page 4 of Questionnaire

4. Please list any source documents, field manuals, TMs, ARTEPs,

studies or other publications which can be used to obtain information

about this team.

80

V

m mm nm m wum m~mmmm m • m='..
FORSCOM SURVEY: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEAM QUESTIONNAIRE

The cover letter for the questionnaire asked the point of contact

at each installation to provide the following forms of support:

a. Identification of specific units to be surveyed: Inclosure 2

is a list of TO&E units at your installation which include teams of

interest to our survey. We require your assistance in selecting one

specific unit at the installation to represent each of the TO&Es listed.

b. Identification of unit personnel to complete the survey:

Inclosure 3 is a sample copy of our survey instrument. This is to be

completed for each identified team within each TO&E unit. We also

require your assistance in working with the units selected (para a,

above) to determine the best individual(s) to complete the instrument

for each team.

c. Assist in survey completion and return: Finally, your

assistance is required in distribution of the surveys to the identified

personnel, in monitoring progress of the survey, in insuring that survey

materials are completed promptly, and in returning all completed survey

forms to us.

INSTRUCTION BOOKLET

This package is for teams

in units organized under

the following TOE:

(TOE # inserted before mailing to units)

ARMY TEAM OPERATIONS SURVEY

UNIT QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAGE

This survey will provide the US Army with information defining the

characteristics, training/evaluation requirements, and problems of

operational teams (crews, groups, squads, elements, etc.) in the basic

branches.

This information will be used to develop methods of better meeting

team training and evaluation requirements and resolving team problems to

improve operational effectiveness.

Please answer the following questions about yourself. This information will be used for administrative and statistical control purposes.

81
NAME: __________________________

(LsFirst, Middle)

*1 ~~~What is your current position? ________________ I ~ ~~~What is your rank? _______________________

What is your unit? _____________________

(Full designation, e.g.,

ICo A, 1st Bn, 3d Inf)

What is an Autovon telephone number at which you can be

contacted if clarification of your answers is necessary?

82
DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

TITLE: Army Team Operations Survey

PRESCRIBING DIRECTIVE: AR 70-I

AUTHORITY: 10 USC Sec 45003

PURPOSE(S): The data collected with the attached forms are to be used

for research purposes only:

This is a survey instrument developed by the US Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1.

Your participation in this research is voluntary and you

are encouraged to provide complete and accurate information. Several of these questionnaire response items require judgments. Please make these judgments to the best

of your ability.

POINTS OF

CONTACT FOR

THE ARMY RESEARCH

INSTITUTE: If you have any questions about this survey (interpretation of questions, etc.), please call or

write:

WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED WITH THESE QUESTIONNAIRES, RETURN THE

ENTIRE PACKAGE TO THE INSTALLATION, DIVISION, OR OTHER LOCAL POINT

OF CONTACT FOR THIS SURVEY.

Several copies of the team questionnaires are enclosed with this

instruction booklet. Fill in one questionnaire for each team found in

your unit. Check the TOE number which is listed in the upper right

corner of the first page of this booklet to insure that you have the

survey whic' was designed for your unit.

(Question for Separate Companie3)

What is the current assigned strength for your unit?

(Questions for Battalion/Company)

How many companies in your battalion are organized

under this TOE?

83
What is the current assigned strength for the

company which you selected for this survey?

(Questions for Battalion/Battery)

How many batteries in your battalion are organized

under this TOE?

What is the current assigned strength for the

battery which you selected for this survey?

(Questions for Squadron/Troop)

How many troops in your squadron are organized

under this TOE?

What is the current assigned strength for the

troop which you selected for this survey?

INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING TEAMS

To help you specify teams within this unit, a list of teams is provided on the next page. This list was generated by personnel in the

TRADOC school which has proponency for the TOE under which the unit is

organized. The list includes all the teams which they identified, on a

preliminary basis, for selected units in your branch.

Select the teams from the list which can be found in the unit and

fill in one of the attached questionnaires for each team. Be sure to

list each team's name in the space provided in the upper right corner of

each questionnaire. Answer the questions in terms of your experience

with the teams in your unit.

After you have finished with the teams on the list, identify any

additional teams in the unit which were not on the preliminary list and

fill out a separate questionnaire for each of these toi.ns. Again, be

sure to insert the name of each team in the upper right corner. Since

the term "team" is used in many different ways in various branches of

the Army, it is necessary to define "team" so that tik uise of the term

will be consistent across branches:

a. A "team" is a small grnup of individuals (smaller than

platoon size) who interactively perform coordinated job

activities.

b. Position or member assignments within a "team" must be

formally defined on a relatively permanent basis. This

means that ad hoe or informal, temporary teams (e.g.,

"take four men and scout that ridge") are not to be

included in the present study.

84
c. We are also not interested in teams which mainly perform

command and control and staff functions above platoon

level.

(A list of teams within the appropriate branch of the Army was then

enclosed. These teams had been identified in the TRADOC survey.)

85
PT 5165B

TEAM NAME

TEAM QUESTION1 AIRE

W 22-23

(Fill in one questionnaire for each team)

1. "How many of these teams are in your unit at present? 24-26

2. What is the average number of members on this team in

your unit at present? ........ ................ L_ 27-28

3. What percentage of these teams in your unit are not up

to full authorized strength for this team? .. ..... 29-30

4. How frequently are the following types of team training used to train this team

in your unit?

Team training, as opposed to individual training, focuses on the development of team skillb

(such as coordination and communication) and the ability of the team tb perform together

as an effective unit.

Daily Several Once a Several Once a Several Once a Less than Never

times week times month Limes year once a

a week a month a year year

a. On-the-job team 1: Ei l D 0I 1 0 El LI 31

training.

b. Unit (bn, co,

plt, etc.)

maneuvers, exer-'

cises, tests (FTX,

ARTEP,etc.). 0I [1 El 12 0J MJ EJ [J 1 32

c. Field training

exercises just

for the team. 0 0 E E E 0 El 0 0 3 3

d. Classroom lectures and demonstrations which

emphasize team

skills. Li L'34 .J L L .

e. Use of team

trainingdevices. L] L. LI LI LI [ L LI LI35

f. Special schools

or courses for

the team as a

whole (outside

tne unit). Li 1 Li Li [1 ri l El [36

g. Others (describe and

give frequency):

86

J ,-
I

5. How frequently should the following types of team training be used for this team?

Daily Several Once a Several Once a Several Once a Less than Never

times week times month times year once a

a week a month a year year

a. On-the-job team training. [ L L I L L LI L L 37

b. Unit (bn, co,

plt, etc.)

maneuvers, exercises, tests (FT-X,.

ARTEP, etc.). L 0 Ei Ei E Li L El [138

c. Field training

exercises just

for the team. L Li Li Li T Ei Ei [i 3

d. Classroom lectures and demonstrations which

emphasize team

skills. L L L L L 0 E L4o 0 

e. Use of team

trainin gdevices. L L . Li L 0 0 L L I 41

f. Special schools

or courses for

the team as a

whole (outside

the unit). 0 D f 0 42

g. Others (describe and

give frequency):

6. To what extent are the leaders in your unit satisfied with the present level of

team training (even if there is none) for this team?

To no extea~t To a little To a moderate To quite an extent To a great extent

(completely extent extent (completely satisfied)*

dissatisfied)

0 El [ [ 43

* If the leaders are completely satisfied skip to question number 8.

87

- -r~a

4 -
7. To what extent do the factors listed below prevent your unit from conducting

additional or better team training?

To no To a To a To quite To a

extent little moderate an extent great

extent extent extent

a. Lack of programs of instruction for team training. E- L] I-"1 0 44

b. Lack of realistic training for the team. 0 0 Li0 -- 5

c. Lack of trainers to conduct team training. 0 []C] L 0 46

d. Lack of time to conduct team training (team has

to perform other peacetime duties). L] U U 0 47

e. Lack of facilities and support equipment. [3 0] 0 L 48

f. Lack of team training devices, team training aids, etc. L E U 49

g. Difficulty of keeping pU the team together for aua 

sustained training program. 11 Li D l Li s0

h. Individual training is more important. 0 0 0 0 51

i. Others (describe and indicate extent):

88

i ,
4 8. To what extent do each of the following characteristics apply to this team?

To no To a To a To quite To a

extent little moderate an extent great

extent extent extent

a. Except for transfers, team members on a given team are usually the same individuals from

hour to hour and from day to day. l ED E 52

b. The team's tasks are mainly composed of the

activities needed to operate one or more items

of equipment. Li C 0L 53

c. Successful task/mission performance requires

team members to obtain information about the

work situation and to pass it on to other team

members. 0 F- 1 L 54

d. Successful task/mission performance is dependent on a leader to closely coordinate the

activities of all team members. 0 0 ED 0 ,5

e. Successful task/mission performance requires

team members to coordinate their activities

directly with each other. Li D 0 D Li 56

f. The tasks are such that if ona member cannot

perform adequately (e.g., fast enough), another 0 0 0 - 0

member can "make up for" that performance. Li L 57

g. The team members need to express a "team spirit"

in their work activities. L Li Li L 58

h. Task performance by team members is dependent

on timing, quality, and/or completeness of

the performance of other team members. Li L 0 Li 59

i. A team member needs to know his mates and know

how they All react in certain situations. i i Li [ 60

j. Others (describe and indicate extent):

8

" 89

I, f
9. To what extent do the factors listed below cause frequent or critical problems

in the performance of this team?

To no To a To a To quite To a

extent little moderate an extent great

extent extent extenL

a. Frequent turnover in team personnel (turbulence). j] El Ii E1 D- 61

b. Some team members are not qualified for their

positions.

c. Inadequate amount of team training. f-1 El 0 E- L 63

d. Team training is not meaningful or realistic. 0 [] Li L L 64

e. Team is not given the opportunity to train with

other units. Li 3 L L l 65

f. Lack of team spirit. Li E0 L EJ66

g, Social problems (e.%., hostility between members). L 11 I i L .67

h. Lack of technically and tactically proficient

leadership. L L Li L 68

i. Lack o! discipline. Li] L Li 69

j. Poor design of equipment that the team needs to

operate. 1 70

k. Lack of equipment that the team would normally use. Li El L Li Li 71

1. Team is employed using inappropriate tactics. Li- Li Li72

m. Team is employed beyond its capabilities. i i Li Li Li

n. LaCK of communicacion and coozdination. [. L tI L Li74

o. The current configuration of the team is inadequate

(e.g., more or fewer members ate needed or different

types of personnel are needed). 0 75

p. Teams are frequently understrength and thus lack

the manpower to effectively perform team missions. Li Li Li L 76

q. Others (describe and indicate extent):

90

-
XO. During external (ARTEP, ORTT, etc.) evaluations, is the performance of this

team evaluated as a complete and separate element of the unit?

Yes No Sometimes* ZD 0 ,

* Explain:

11. a. How frequently is the performance of this team (as a separate element af

the unit) internally evaluated within your unit (i.e., separate from

platoon eval-uat ns or independr 4t e-valuations of-individual members)?

Daily Several Once a Several Once a Several Once a Less than Never

times weelc times monch Limes year once a

a week a month a year year

0 [J 0 [3 1 -78

b. If the team is internally evaluated by unit leaders, describe the methods

you use to test the teams. Theise methods might include procedures (e.j., doe3

the team follow the correct procedures), quantitative standards checklists

(e.j., number of ,its, time it takes to perform a task), and overall ratings

of mission accomplishment.

12. If this team is prevently evalucted, to what extent are these evaluations a

satisfactory eatimate of the team's ability to perform its wartime missions.

Team is To no To a To a To quite To a

not extent little moderate an extent great

evaluated extent extent extent

a. External evaluation. 11 11 R 79

b. Internal evaluation. 0 E 1:1 80

13. Please list any source documents, field manuals, THs, ARTEPs, Training Circulars,

studies or publicaitions which can be used to obtain information about this team.

91

A

-!
APPENDIX C

TRADOC AND FORSCOM SURVEYS: TYPES OF TEAMS IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIBED

The teams in this appendix are listed by branch and include teams

identified in the TRADOC survey for which descriptive data were obtained

as well as teams identified in the TRADOC survey for which no descriptive data were obtained. The existence of FORSCOM data for each of

these teams is indicated. Teams identified in the FORSCOM survey and

not in the TRADOC survey are listed as well. A summary of the number of

teams identified/described in both surveys and the correspondence between the teams in the two surveys follows the list of teams. Teams

classified in the TRADOC survey as performing mainly emergent activities

are also identified. The classification of Infantry teams as combat,

medical, aviation, or support is presented in the Infantry section.

92
4VU

LA0O ) 1 4- c' C- I n -o 00 Lfi m cn t- Nq --t 'T H HkrH

E-4 ) CeA H -T

z - U )

wo

ou EE-4

EnH

H n \> c) m L , c r - n \ \ -

U ~ ~ __ ~ _ _ ~ _ __ ~ _ _ e _ __ M_ _ _ _ __ _ r_4_ _ _ 

0H r, rN Hi U r- Lfn cvA C% aN \~0 LA LAi Ln

H *.: C4 t-I H ' H H H- H LAl

E-4 U) 1

C-3 C.) \D Nq \ -I C ,0) en r4 %D '0 0 \.

Ho N1 HIT C-4 ' ~ CV)

C)H

C))

U)H I- LA 0 0' LA '-i : ON CY\ t CAUn)00 Ln P

0 (1)

H 0u 0

0H0

04 p 0 r-4

H 0 Q), 0H 0 L) 4H U) 0 0

V) 4) ~ o 4-) 4.4 0 p ).4 > 0 e w 0 vi4 4 0H mH pH p) H 4

01 ( () i.m c 4- 0 " H 0 41 0 - 01 0 0 H 44 (n 0 w0 r $4 -i o 044 trJ H- (n 0 00 J 0 0

-H > ~ ~ ~ H -H V . 3I- 0 z oo E- 0.

93

........
AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Acquisition Radar Section

Forward Area Alerting Radar (FAAR) Section X

Command-Acquisition Section X

Fire Distribution Section

Firing Section (Hawk) X

Vulcan Squad X

Chaparral Squad X

Descriptive Data Not Obtained - TRADOC

Electronics and Radar Support Section

Fire Control Section

Fire Distribution Support Section

Fire Section-Towed

Fire Platoon Support Section

Support Platoon Headquarters X

Electronics Section

Security Section X

Engineer Section X

Improved Hawk Mechanical Support Section X

Assembly Service Maintenance Section

Missile Ground Handling Support Section

System Maintenance Section

Power Air-Conditioning Support Section

Missile Ground Handling Equipment Support Section

Ground Guidance Equipment Support Section

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Battery Headquarters

Vulcan System Maintenance Chief

Redeye

Transport Crew

94
SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 27

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 23

Descriptive Data Obtained: 7

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 13

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 9

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 5

Emergent Teams

Forward Area Alerting Radar (FAAR) Section

Vulcan Squad i

Chaparral Squad

ARMOR

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Ambulance Team

Aidman Team X

Clinical Specialist Team X

Radio Teletype Team (RATT) X

Field Communications-Electronic (C-E) Equipment

Mech Team X

Radio Operator Team X

Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR) Crew X

Tank Crew (M551) X

Tank Crew (M6OA1-M6OA2) X

Track Vehicle Mechanic Team X

Tank Turret Mechanic Team X

Sheridan Turret Mechanic Team

Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic Team X

Recovery Team X

Welder Team X

Scout Squad X

Antitank (TOW) Team X

Redeye Team X

AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge) Team/Crew X

Power Generator Equipment Operator/Mechanic Team X

Food Service or Mess Team X

Heavy Mortar (4.2in) Squad X

Rifle Squad X

Attack Helicopter (AH) Repairman Crew X

4

4 95
Utility Helicopter (UH-1) Repairman Team X

Observation Crew X

Observation Helicopter (OH) Repairman Team X

Airframe Repairman Crew

Aircraft Turbine Engine Repairman Crew

Aircraft Armament Mechanic Team X

Rotor Repairman Team

Aircraft Fire Control Repairman Team

Aeroscout Crew X

Reconnaissance Squad or Aerorifle Crew X

Aeroweapons Crew X

Aircraft Fuel Handling Team X

Aircraft Ammunition Handlers Team

No Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Communications Team X

Radar Operators Team X

Ammunition Handling/Handler Team X

Transport Crew X

Power Train Repairman Team

Attack Helicopter (AH) Crew X

Utility Helicopter (UH) Crew X

Avionics Mechanic Team X

Airmobile Scout Squad

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Wire Team

Supply

Rifle Platoon Headquarters

M60-MG Team

Antitank (DRAGON) Team

81mm Mortar Headquarters

Heavy Mortar (4.2in) Platoon Headquarters

Reconnaissance Squad

Flight Operations Team

Summary

Total Number of Teams: 55

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 46

Descriptive Data Obtained: 37

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 46

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 37

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 30

96
Emergent Teams:

Aidman Team

Tank Crew (M551)

Tank Crew (M60A1 or M60A2)

Scout Squad

Antitank (TOW) Team

Heavy Mortar (4.2inch) Squad

AVLB Crew

Rifle Squad

Observation Crew

Aeroscout Crew

Reconnaissance Squad or Aerorifle Crew

Aeroweapons Crew

AVIATION

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Section (Tower) X

Ground Control Approach (GCA) Section X

Flight Operations Center/Flight Coordination Center

Team X

U-21 Flight Crew (TM-FB, Airplane Command or Utility) X

UH-1 Crew (TM-FE, Helicopter Utility) X

Attack Helicopter (AH-1G) Crew (TM-FC, Weapons

System Ship) X

CH-47 Crew (TM-FF, Troop/Cargo Transport) X

CH-54 Crew (TM-FG, Transport Heavy)

Aerial Radar OV-1B Crew (TM-FH)

Aerial Infrared OV-1C Crew (TM-FI)

Aviation Fire/Crash Rescue Team (TM-FP) X

Descriptive Data Not Obtained - TRADOC

Control Tower X

Additional Teams Identified in FORSCOM Phase

Operations, S2/S3 Section

OV-ID Crew (TM-FH, Aerial Survival)

C-12 Crew

UH-1H Crew (TM-FE, Troop Transport)

97
Summary

Total Number of Teams: 16

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 12

Descriptive Data Obtained: 11

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 13

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 9

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 8

No Emergent Teams

CHEMICAL

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Decontamination Team

CBR Element Team

CBR Agent Sampling and Analysis, Team KA

CBR Reconnaissance, Team LA

CBR Reconnaissance, Team LB (Special)

Team OA, CBR Staff (Special Forces)

Team PA, Chemic-l Combat Support

Mechanized Flame Thrower Team

Descriptive Data Not Obtained - TRADOC

Team EN, Chemical Equipment Repair

No FORSCOM data obtained on Chemical TOE Units

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 9

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 9

Descriptive Data Obtained: 8

No Emergent Teams

98
ENGINEER

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Mess Team X

Administrative Firing Squad

Pipeline Construction Squad

Construction Squad X

Engineer Squad X

CEV (Combat Engineer Vehicle Crew) X

MAB (Mobile Assault Bridge) Crew

AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge) Crew X

Survey Team X

Demolitions Team X

Firefighting Team

Heavy Raft Section

Communication Team (Engineer Co) X

Communication Team or Section (HHQ Co) X

Radio Teletype Team (RATT) X

Medical Section x

Aviation Section

No Descriptive Data Obtained - TRADOC

Geodetic Survey Team

Dredge Team

Equipment Maintenance Section X

Equipment Maintenance Team X

Bridge Section X

Pipeline Cutterhead Team

Hopper Operation Team

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Engineer Horizontal Construction Platoon

Engineer Vertical Construction Platoon

LTR Team

Diving Team

Float Bridge Section

Supply Section

Water Purification Section

Operations Section

Battalion Operations

Mess Section

DS (Direct Support) Maintenance

99
SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 35

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 24

Descriptive Data Obtained: 17

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 25

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 14

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 11

Emergent Teams:

Firefighting Team

Medical Section

Construction Squad

Engineer Squad

Demolitions Team

FIELD ARTILLERY

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Headquarters Support Section

Battery Headquarters Section X

Battalion Headquarters Section

Mess Section X

Battery Maintenance Section X

Battalion Maintenance Section X

Forward Observer Section X

Fire Direction Center X

Fire Direction Section X

Howitzer Section (105mm towed, 155mm towed, 155mm

self-propelled, 8in self-propelled, 175mm selfpropelled) X

Ammunition Section X

Survey Section X

Survey Information Section X

Counter Mortar Radar Section X

Surveillance Radar Section X

Air Defense Section X

Battalion Supply Section X

Communication Section X

Wire Section X

Radio Section X

Radio-Teletype (RATT) Section X

100
Radio/Telephone (RTT) Section x

Medical Section X

MET Section (METRO) X

Microwave Section

Aviation Section X

Flight Operations Section X

Aircraft Maintenance Section X

Organizational Maintenance Section

Direct Support Aviation Section

General Support Aviation Section

Firing Section (Lance)

Assembly and Transport Section (Lance)

Communications and Electronics Section (Lance)

Ammunition Security Section (Pershing)

Firing Section (Pershing)

Battery Control Center Section (Pershing)

Electronics Control Section (Pershing)

Support Platoon (Pershing)

Security Section (Pershing)

Technical Supply Section (Pershing)

Electronics-Mechanic Section (Pershing)

Support Equipment Maintenance Section (Pershing)

Communication Maintenance Section (Pershing)

Communication Center Section (Pershing)

No Descriptive Data Obtained - TRADOC

Direct Support Aircraft Maintenance

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

FIST (Fire Support Team)

Redeye Section

Gun Sections

Operations/Intelligence

Technical Supply Section (AMBL Div Arty)

Communication Maintenance Section (AMBL Div Arty)

Liaison

SAC (Survey Administration Center)

MAC (MET Administration Center)

PAC (Personnel Administration Center)

Battalion Fire Support Section

CBR (Chemical, Biological, and Radiological) Team

101
SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams Identified: 58

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 46

Descriptive Data Obtained: 45

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 37

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 25

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 25

No Emergent Teams

INFANTRY

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Commo Platoon X

Commo Section (Ranger) X

Transportation Section 

X

Supply & Transportation Section x

Supply Section x

Mess Team x

Battalion Food Service Section (Ranger)

Battalion Maintenance Platoon

Mainienance Section X

Aid Station Section x

Aidman Section x

Evacuation Section

Aid Station/Evacuation Section X

Medical Section (Ranger) 

X

Medical Section* 

X

Rifle Platoon Headquarters x

M60 Machine Gun Team 

X

Rifle Squad 

X

Antitank (DRAGON) Team (Ranger)

81mm Mortar Section Headquarters x

81mm Mortar Squad

60mm Mortar Section Headquarters (Ranger)

60mm Mortar Squad (Ranger) X

Heavy Mortar (4.2in) Platoon Headquarters X

Heavy Mortar (4.2in) Squad X

Antitank (TOW) Squad 

X

Scout Squad x

Redeye Team 

x

Sniper Team

102
RATT (Radio Teletype) Section*

Commo Section/Wire Section*

nommo Section* X

Aircraft Organic Maintenance Section* X

Aircraft Direct Support Maintenance Section* X

Aircraft Maintenance Section* (Div Aviation Co) X

Aircraft Maintenance Section* (Avn GS Co)

Maintenance/Supply Section*

Motor Maintenance Section*

Pathfinder Team* X

Army Aviation Element*

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Platoon Headquarters* X

Flight Coordination Center* X

Air Field Control Team, VER*

Air Field Control Team, IFR*

Air Field TML Control Section*

Surveillance Section*

Command and Control Section*

Utility Support Section* X

Support Section*

Utility Section*

Service Platoon Headquarters*

Flight Operations Platoon* X

Flight Operations Section (Aslt Hel Co Separate)* X

Flight Operations Section* X

Division Operations Section*

Air Field Service Section* X

Airlift Section* X

Armed Helicopter Seection*

Weapons Section (A:,It Hel co)*

UH-I Aircraft Crew*

AH-i Aircraft Crew"

Aircraft Armament Repair Section*

Liaison Section* X

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Personnel Administration Center (PAC)

Radio Repair Team

Radio Team

Wire Team

Message Center or Comm Center

Anti-tank Squad other than TOW or DRAGON

Scout Platoon HQ

Antitank Platoon HQ

Ground Surveillance Radar Section

Demolition Team

NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) Detector Team

Chemical Detector Team

I( 103o

f 1
Decontamination Team

Supply Team (GS Aviation Co)*

Support Platoon*

Avionics*

DS/GS Maintenance

Organizational Maintenance*

Aircraft Phase Team*

Airfield DS Maintenance Section*

Crash Rescue Team*

*Aviation Battalion/Company/Group

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 84

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 63

Descriptive Data Obtained: 63

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 63

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 42

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Dats: 42

Emergent Teams:

Aid Station/Evacuation Section

Aidman Section

Redeye Team

Rifle Platoon Headquarters

M60 Machine Gun Team

Rifle Squad

Antitank (DRAGON) Team (Ranger)

Antitank (TOW) Squad

Scout Squad

Command and Control Section (Aviation elements)

Utility Support Section (Aviation elements)

Armed Helicopter Section

CATEGORIES OF INFANTRY TEAMS - FORSCOM SURVEY

Combat

M60 Machine Gun Team

Rifle Platoon Headquarters

Rifle Squad

Anti-tank (TOW) Squad

Anti-tank Platoon Headquarters

Anti-tank Squad (other than TOW or DRAGON)

104

!/
81mm Mortar Squad

81mm Mortar Section (Platoon) Headquarters

4.2in Mortar Squad

4.2in Mortar Platoon Headquarters

60mm Mortar Squad

Scout Squad

Scout Platoon Headquarters

Sniper Team

Redeye Team

Medical

Aid Station Section

Evacuation Section

Aid Station/Evacuation Section

Aidman Section

Battalion Medical Section

Battalion Medical Section (Aviation)

Aviation

Supply Team

Flight Operations Section

Flight Operations Section (Aslt Hel Co., Separate)

Flight Operations Platoon

Air Traffic Control Platoon Headquarters

FlJSht Coordination Center

Pathfinder Team

Airlift Section

Aircraft Organizational Maintenance Section

Aircraft Direct Support Maintenance Section

Utility Support Section

Support Platoon

Avionics

Service Platoon Headquarters

Aircraft Phase Team

Aircraft Direct Support Maintenance Section

Crash Rescue Team

Direct Support/General Support Maintenance

Organizational Maintenance

Airfield Service Section

Aircraft Maintenance

* Support

Liaison

Radio Repair Team

Radio Team

Wire Team

105
Message Center or COMM Center

Commo Section

Commo Section (Aviation)

COMM Platoon

Transportation Section

Supply Section

Supply and Transportation Section

Mess Team

Battalion Food Service Section

Maintenance Section

Battalion Maintenance Platoon

Personnel Administration Center (PAC)

Demolition Team

Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR) Section

Decontamination Team

NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) Detector Team

Chemical Detector Team

MEDICAL SERVICES

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM SURVEY

Ambulance Crew

Air Ambulance Crew

Operating Room (OR) Team (Surgical Team)

Intensive Care Unit

Emergency Medical Team (EMT)

Intensive Care Ward

Intermediate Care Ward

Ward, Surgical

Ward

Post Op

Pre OP

Team LD - Epidemiology

Clinical Specialist Team

Dental Team

Litter Bearer Team

X-Ray

Holding

Mental Hygiene Section

Flight Operations Section

Organic Aircraft Maintenance Section

Direct Support (DS) Aircraft Maintenance Section

Aircraft Maintenance Section

Motor Maintenance Section (Motor Pool)

Food Service Section (Dining, Mess)

Communications Section

Administrative and Disposition (A&D) Section

(Patient Administration)

106

L _.__---
Center Materiel Supply (CMS)

Unit Supply Section

Medical Supply Section

Medical Maintenance

Pharmacy

Laboratory

Dispensary

CBR (Chemical, Biological, Radiological) Decontamination

Hospital Laundry

Personnel Administration Center (PAC)

Registrar

SUMMARY

No data were collected on Medical teams in the TRADOC phase.

Total Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 37

MILITARY POLICE

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM SURVEY

M60 Machine Gun Crew

90mm Recoiless Rifle Teams

CBR Team (Survey & Monitoring)

CBT Team (Decontamination)

CBR Team (Type-Undesignated)

Motor Pool

Supply Section

Military Police Squad

NBC Control Party

SUMMARY

No Data were collected on Military Police in the TRADOC phase.

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 9

MISSILE AND MUNITIONS

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Security Squad

Team FA - Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Team,

Conventional Augmentation X

Team FC - EOD Team, Nuclear Augmentation X

Team FD - EOD Team, Toxic Chemical X

107
Team FE - EOD Team, VIP Support

Team BA - Technical Supply Team

Team EC - LCSS Test Equipment DS/GS Team

Team ED - TOW/Dragon Missile Maintenance DS/GS Team

Team EE - Shillelagh Missile Maintenance DS/GS Team

Team EF - Redeye Missile Maintenance DS/GS Team

Team EG - Lance Missile Maintenance DS/GS Team

Team ED - Chaparral/Vulcan/FAAR Maintenance DS/GS Team

No Descriptive Data Obtained - TRADOC

Team EB - Missile Maintenance Shop Control Team

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 13

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 13

Descriptive Data Obtained: 12

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 3

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 3

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 3

ORDNANCE

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SUREY

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Team ED, Automotive Repair (Track/Wheel)

Team EG, Automotive Repair

Team DI, Automotive Maintenance (Wheel)

Team DJ, Automotive Maintenance (Track)

Team DR, Automotive Maintenance (Wheel)

Team DL, Automotive Maintenance (Track)

Team EJ, Mechanical Maintenance

Team EK, Maintenance Support

Team EM, Small Arms Repair

Team EP, Tire Repair

Team ER, Mechanical-Metal Repair

Team ES, Metal Body and Welding Repair

Mobile Maintenance Team (30 members)

(Hvy Maint Co, Inf Div)

Mobile Maintenance Team (40 members)

(Mvy Maint Co., Inf Div Mech)

Mobile Maintenance Team (50 members)

(Hvy Maint Co., Armored Div)

108
NF

Team FA, Collection and Classification

Team (Comm-EL)

Team FB, Collection and Classification

Team (General Purpose)

Team FC, Collection and Classification

Team (Track-Automotive)

Team FD, Collection and Classification

Team (Comnposite)

No Descriptive Data Obtained - TRADOC

Team DA, Commnunications and Electronics Maintenance

Team DB, Power Generation Equipment Maintenance

Team DC, Engineer Equipment Maintenance

Team DD, Material Handling Equipment Maintenance

Team DE, Motor Sergeant

Team DF, Wheel Vehicle Maintenance

Team DG, Track Vehicle Maintenance

Team DH, Wheel/Track Vehicle Maintenance

Tear. DM, QM Heavy Equipment Maintenance

Team EA, Fuel/Electrical Systems Repair

Team EB, Field Artillery Repair

Team EC, Turret Artillery Repair

Team EE, Field Control Instrument Repair

Team EF, Machine Shop Support

Team EH, Turret Artillery Repair (GS)

Team El, Field Artillery Repair (GS)

Team EL, Construction Equipment Repair

Team EQ, Power Generation Repair

Team EQ. Refrigeration Repair

Team ET, Automotive Repair (Supervisor)

Team EU, Small Arms Repair

Team EV, Automotive Repair

No FORSCOM data obtained on Ordnance TOE Units

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 41

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 41

Descriptive Data Obtained: 19

No Emergent Teams

109

I ... I ; : ..•, I , I I L ] J L,. I ,= .... - - ~ ~-~ - - -- I
QUARTERMASTER

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Forward Area Refueling Equipment (FARE) System X

Fuel System Supply Point (FSSP) X

Laundry Team X

Decontamination Team X

Bakery Team X

Clothing Exchange and Bath Team X

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Trans Team

Class I, II, IV Team

Class V Team (Ammunition)

Cargo Handling Section

POL Storage Team

Graves Registration

Renovation Section

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 13

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 6

Descriptive Data, Obtained: 6

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 13

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 6

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 6

No Emergent Teams

SIGNAL

The limited information provided on the Signal teams and the

variety of synonyms used for some of the teams made it difficult to

classify the teams. Therefore, similarities may exist among teams that

have been listed separately and differences may exist among teams that

have been grouped together.

110

Ii

.. _ - I.. ,
rEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TRADOC

Switchboard Team (AN/MTC-1O)

Switchboard Team (SB-22/PT or SB-86/P)

Switchboard Team (AN/TTC-29, AN/TTC-23, including

Manual Central Office Teams of various sizes) X

Switchboard Team (AN/MTC-1)

Telecommunications Center (COMMCEN) Teams (with

varying equipment and of varying sizes) X

Patch Panel Team (SB-675 or AN/TSC-76) X

Radio Teletypewriter (RATT) Team (also called

AM Voice, AM Single-sideband or HF teams) X

Microwave Team

Messenger Team

Radio Team (AM and FM)

AM Radio Team

FM Radio Team X

Multichannel Teams (also called VHF, UHF, Radio

Relay, Radio Terminal, Radio Repeater, Line of

Site, Cable Repeater, FDM, PCM, Carrier, Multiplexer, MUX, Telephone Terminal, or Radio Relay

Repeater Teams) X

Cable or Wire Teams (also called Cable

Installation Teams) X

Radio Wire Integration (RWI) Team X

No Descriptive Data Obtained - TRADOC

Pole Line Team

Cable Splicing Team

Telephone Installer

Power Team

Circuit Control Team X

Tactical Circuit Control Team X

Technical Control Teams (including Fixed Station

Technical Control, Communications Technical

Control, and Video Technical Control)

Trophispheric (Tropo) Team

Weather Support Team

Field Telephone Switchboard Operations

Multiplex Terminal Teams (also called FDM, PCM,

Carrier, Multiplexer, MUX or Telephone Terminal

Teams) X

Multiplex Equipment Teams (also called FDM, PCM,

Carrier, Multiplexer, MUX or Telephone Terminal

Teams)

Multiple Terminal Station

I'I

- #
Teletypewriter Tape Relay Facility

Mobile Radio Teletypewriter

Multichannel Equipment Team (maintenance) X

Telephone Repeater Team (or Cable Attended

Repeater Team)

Fixed Station HF radio team (low or high power)

HF Radio Receiver

HF Radio Transmitter

Radio Repeater Team

Carrier Repeater Team

Radio Communication Central (low to medium power)

Microwave Radio Teams

Tactical Microwave Teams X

Message Center X

Motor Messages

Communications-Electronics (or Signal)

Maintenance Team X

Communications-Security (COMSEC) Repair

(CRYPTO) Teams X

Crypto Materiel Control

Pictorial Team

Photo Team

Photographic Lab Team

No Additional FORSCOM Teams

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 48

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOC: 48

Descriptive Data Obtained: 15

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 16

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 16

Number- of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 8

No Emergent Teams

TRANSPORTATION

TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN TRADOC SURVEY FORSCOM DATA

Descriptive Data - TPADOC

Hatch Gang X

Container Hatch Gang

Boat Crew (LCM8) X

112

t
Boat Crew (LCU) X

Amphibian Crew X

Diving Team X

Transportation Watercraft Team FB (Picket Boat)

Transportation Watercraft Team FD (Harbor Tug 45 ft)

Transportation Watercraft Team FE (Pax/CGO/Picket

Boat)

Transportation Watercraft Team FB (Harbor Tug

70 ft)

Transportation Watercraft Team FJ (Harbor Tug

100 ft)

Transportation Watercraft Team FK (Ocean

Going Tug 126 ft)

Transportation Watercraft Team FL (Liquid/Dry

Cargo Vessel)

Transportation Watercraft Team FN (Lighter

Amphibian, Larc LX)

Transportation Watercraft Team FO (Ocean Going

Tug 143 ft)

No Descriptive Dat'\ obtained - TRADOC

Water Maintenance Team - Diver Team IA

ADDITIONAL TEAMS IDENTIFIED IN FORSCOM PHASE

Boat Crew (FMS-788)

Lighterage Maintenance Team (Direct Supply)

Blocking and Bracing

CBR Teams (Radiological, Chemical Detection or

Decontamination/Survey/Monitoring)

SUMMARY

Total Number of Teams: 20

Number of Teams Identified - TRADOOC: 16

Descriptive Data Obtained: 15

Number of Teams Identified - FORSCOM: 9

Number of Teams Common to TRADOC and FORSCOM: 5

Number of Teams with TRADOC and FORSCOM Descriptive Data: 5

Emergent Teams:

Diving Team

113
APPENDIX D

TRADOC SURVEY: RESULTS ON ALL BRANCHES

11

114
H c - -I~ N - H- H HA H 0 

H<

z ~ N C14 I I CCA H

0 I

Z Iz N C4 04 I N-4N

HZU))

H z

H 04 <U)N Cq Y

LzIT

H N1 - *

-- e~

I0 H N I H N - 0I I

H H4 CCAT t 0% rq e r 1

H~ Hiri r- 4 t

H11
r- Nq N1 -11 q -It Vf al M' Nq L o ir Lt) -It N Nq H- H H

E-4 H 1 H 0I r IN N H N m CO f

r4 0 H

I Lr) NC N 04 N H N -31 ON

HO Cl) V) I N H- I I I

-q TH

(n Z r H -4 N H 04 N 1 H I H - 0N

E- H- H

Nn N

H-I HEn I I I I

H

rX4

Il 1-4 I N 0 U'l - 0 N* N4 O N Lf)

I- I N I N I -

~44

z C4 14C1

H4 \O-1-4H H I I

I 'C0 - C Ib C C) N

OZ) C) co i r CN0On - e

0 H ND

0~~ 1I0J

116
q I% OD I- m n I C 14 I -I H1 Ir V

H- H- N H- I I I I I I I

Hn H

cz

rI N- 0t0 HI I H I I

0 zI I O - I I N 0

H 0

I- I HI I Hq I H I 1 r H1

In I Nm

I Cl) (C I I I I

r-I 44E-4

H cH

0 4 I I Ut1 -.0 cN O II H

H w

H H4 T C4 m %04 Cf Ln

1- ClI O N t I H -ICO NC

H H4

0 l r- 0 -4 H - N Cl 0

'Ir- r 0 0

zH

1171 I0
m o n

E-11

N %D q 4 HZ 

C4 0

~0 H

H0 H

i0H > HHC ~ - __ __ __U)__ _

H

$4 ) a))4 -

HEl I I I '

("04cj

z H

04 > ~ m C C\ H- Ln

z I Cl) Cl H I I

w 4H

-4 H- Cl)

Z

$4 H- CN Cl) - I '

~ ~118

ZC~ 9f
O 0 (1 cn 1.0 --T 00 1- C1 tL

4 H4

EL <4 1 C4 A I -4 I

OHb

Cl) 0 04 1 I I

W -z

z z I CN LA LA) N I I I

9 0 H

oz

0O Cl) C14 I I -.T -4

>/~ HHi

(n) H: z H1

U)) z 11 E-A 0) HH

IA I A I N

E-4W L

Cl N) Hzw

1-4S

HE-4

Cl -t L b N O H C

z C14 CF V0 \0 NH* 0T -

0<J

U) n cn o 1 C CH

119
z NT I- I co

0 H

c/z

H - H 

HO

V 0 CAr I ('

H Z a -

r4 rZ H- H I

WH

CAl

CA I -~ I

~zIT

11 z

120
C -I tr r .C4 -1 i

0 .4 'A) H cH '

C4 0

OH

H U)

W ~z _____4___________ ___

4- HI

La H

99

E-N4 iAi I I

HO

,..) H1

0e 0

H ~ ~ ~ AH* 0IT4 

HH

CA~O NN

(nI I I C

r-I~I- * n N1 o CA 

H N 40

H~-4 ____ ____ _121
a% 00 00- H m' Lr) Cf ON H C'I m -:T m f f

C- *4 CN -:r C -It C14 C14 LfY) ~ 00 

o T m Cl H c VH CN 1e 

rI r04 0a'14 c N , r- %D rCl Hn M. t0 rl eI N I

ItrOH- HL HH

0 H

H'0 N i rT H N) M .m ' LI l Cl '.Ia

ozH> H H

HH

v ~ E-H

0Z0t

CZ E-4

.0

a' N H - CO 0 C H i I a% H- -zr a\ -#r N I

W. T r Hq , N t Nn Nn , Ho N -

>4

w Cl4 NC)ric N1 N H4 H C

z

N 'Tl . 0 a\ U, o '.0 Nq Hi \.D 'T N M

e% H- H- cn N H N Hq H4 Hi H- Ml

C) ) a) $-4 0) 4-

w) $ 4 U, w w) - p- 0 w 0 w) 5-4 0 5-4 1' 0)0 C 0 0- ) C0 2 4 0 C) .04

w ) . 0 2 ) .r = C ) p wJ 0 0 4 O H

00 zC 0C 00 0 0w ) 0 ) 0W 0C 0) (.

00 0 0 0 co0)

Cl N H

122
-T cc un 00 '0 tn cc N mf 

E- H1 H 04 ~ -I c H~ 

-- _ _ I I n 00 

a. -

0 

0 H

1H4 H v- 0 Or 0

H

z Hn

(A' z M C1 H % 0 .0

Qi 0'

H 1-4

0Z4

W I (

w 4 W

04 C cc) N - N - 1 1-4 1 0 Hr

H wA

kI

4 c H H '0I

H N n N 01A ..t %r, N c C14 H

r-0 r1

FX4E Z

(A c cn NT l % r- 00123v

1.~~P W 1- ----.-.- -U- - w--- -------- )-

'-n Pit 41

1.- 4 0
t C) n

H

0 z i 

0Hn H \ -

HH H U

-, 0

Q) H

00H cn N r- 0

H H

I -1 1 CV I 1

0' CO N

z 4 4.) 4 V. (An 413

H O 0 >' HSb ~4 H c0 0

0.0w ~4.1 0 ~' 0 C

41 (a 14 V) 1 i41w . 41 a) 413 C

Cfl4 0d 44 vu 0 0 r

124
APPENDIX E

FORSCOM SURVEY: DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES FOR COMBAT BRANCHES

125

I

i - .-.--.-----.--------- - -- - ----------- -
Table E-1

TEAM CHARACTERISTICS

Continuity (%)

AIR DEFENSE I FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 7.7 - - 10.8 4.8 I 3.9

Little .50-.99 ..- 0.4

Extent 0-. 49 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 1.6 7.0

Moderate -1.5-1.99 - - - 10.8 3.2 3.9

Extent 2.0-2.49 23.1 22.2 29.2 16.2 22.2 20.3

Quite 2.5-2.99 7.7 24.4 8.3 13.5 11.1 12.0

Extent 3.0-3.49 23.1 26.7 12.5 16.2 25.4 213

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 30.8 20.0 41.7 24.3 31.7 31.2

n 12 45 24 37 63 .282

Equipment Tasks (%)

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 2.2 4.0 8.1 6.3 4.6

Little j .50-.99 - 2.2 - 2.7 - 0.7

Extent 1.0-1.49 15.4 8.9 8.0 5.4 9.5 9.9

Moderate 1.5-1.99 7.7 4.4 8.1 3.2 5.7

Extent 12.0-2.49 7.7 20.0 16.0 27.0 25.4 20.9

Quite j2.5-2 99 15.4 15.6 8.0 13.5 9.5 12.1

Extent L3.0-3.49 23.1 33.3 32.0 16.2 23.8 1 24.8

Great

Extent 3,5-4.0 15.4 13.3 32.0 18.9 22.2 21.3

n 13 45 25 37 63 282

126

II
Table E-1 (continued)

Information Transfer (%)

AIR DEFENSEI FIELD I ALL I CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS. ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49, 2.2 4.0 10.8 4.8 3.9

Little .50-.99 .....- 0.4

Extent 1i.0-1.49 15.4 4.4 4.0 - 3.2 5.0

Moderate 1.5-1.99 - 8.9 4.0 2.7 4.8 4.2

Extent L2.0-2.49 23.1 1 33.3 36.0 24.3 19.4 26.0

Quite f2.5-2.99'! 7.7 17.8 8.0 8.1 21.0 13.5

Extent L3.0-3.49, 23.1 17.8 20.0 40.5 29.0 26.0

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 30.8 15.6 24.0 13.5 17.7 21.0

n 13 45 25 37 62 281

Leader Coordination (%)

No Extent 0-.49 1 7.7 2.3 - 8.1 6.3 3.9

Little .50-.99 - - 4.0 - - 0.7

Extent Li.0-1.49' 7.7 - 16.0 5.4 3.2 5.0

Moderate 15-199 - 11.4 - 2.7 1.6 3.6

Extent 2.0-2.49 7.7 9.1 28.0 18.9 17.5 1 17.0

Quite 2.5-L99 - 15.9 12.0 5.4 17.5 12.5

Extent L3 .0-3 .49 ; 53.8 31.8 20.0 37.8 33.3 33.8

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 23.1 29.5 20.0 21.6 20.6 23.5

n 13 44 25 37 63 281

127

-~ - ~ ~-- ---- --- !
Table E-1 (continued)

Member Coordination (%)

AIR DEFENSE "FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY, INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 2.2 1 10.8 1 6.3 I 3.5 t I

Little --'50-.99 4.0 - - 0.4

Extent 1.0-1.49 7.7 8.9 4.0 1 2.7 4.8 4.3

M'oderate 1.5-1.99 - 2.2 - 5.4 4.8 2.9

Extent 2.0-249 15.4 24.4 44.0 27.0 22.2 24.8

Quite F2.5-2.99 15.4 15.6 8.0 j 16.2 19.0 12.8

L3.0-3.49 30.8 26.7 20.0 21.6 30.2 31.2

Great I

Extent 3.5-4.0 30.8 20.0 20.0 16.2 12.7 15.6

n 13 45 25 37 63 282

Performance Compensation (%)

I j o I o

No Extent 0-. 49 7.7 -4.0 10.3 6.3 5.7

Little .50-.99 I - I 6.7 4.0 - - 1.9

Extent I. 0-.4 i£i

1.0-1.49 - 20.0 8.0 16.2 12.7 14.9

Moderate 1.5-1.99 7.7 1 17.8 8.0 10.8 7.9 10.0

Extent 12.0-2.49 38.5 37.8 36.0 1 27.0 34.9 31.7

Quite 2.5-2.99 15.4 13.3 4.0 16.2 15.9 11.7

L3.0-3.49 1 15.4 ; 2.2 28.0 ' 13.5 12.7 16.0

GreatI

Extent 3.5-4.0 4 15.4 2.2 8.0 5.4 9.5 8.2

n 13 45 25 37 63 281

128

\ - - I :/
Table E-1 (continued)

Team Spirit (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERYj INFANTRY BRANCIES

No Extent 0-.49 7.7 4.4 10.8 6.3 5.3

Little .50-.99 - 2.2 - - - 0.4

Extent .0-.49 8.9 8.0 13.5 4.8 8.5

Moderate 1l.5-1.99 - 4.4 - 8.1 i 1.6 2.8

Extent 2.0-2.49 15.4 24.4 24.0 1.8.9 28.6 25.2

Quite Extent j2.5-2.99 7.7 I 17.8 12.0 I 5.4 19.0 14.5

3.0-3.49 46.2 24.4 24.0 21.6 23.8 22.4

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 23.1 1 13.3 32.0 21.6 15.9 20.9

13 145 25 37 63 282

Task Interdependence (%)

No Extent 0-.49 - 2.2 13.5 3.2 3.9

Little .50-.99 . - -

Extent .0-1.49 7.7 11.1 5.4 6.3 7.8

Moderate 1.5-1.991 7.7 6.7 - 2.7 4.8 3.6

Extent L2.0-2.49i 23.1 24.4 28.0 29.7 27.0 23.8

Quite F'2.5-2.99 - 13.3 12.0 8.1 9.5 9.3

Extent !3.0-3.49: 53.8 20.0 36.0 21.6 25.4 29.2

Great 24.

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 22.2 24.0 18.9 23.8 22.4

n 13 45 25 37 63 ,281

129

t ,
Table E-l (continued)

Personal Knowledge(%

AIR DEFENSE* I FIL AL jCATEGORY/AVERAGE jARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS IARTILLERY IINFANTRY BRNCHES

No Extent 0-.49 -2.2 I- 8.1 I 4.8 3.A

Little 50- .99 ---

Exet L1.o-.49 4.4I 5.4 1.6 1 3.9

Moderate 1.5-1.99 - 15.6 - I 5.4 6.5 6.4

Exet 2.0-2.49 16.7 17.8 24.0 29.7 19.4 20.7

Quite 72.5-2.99 - 15.6 8.0 5.4 16.1 11.5

Extent 3.0-3.49 58.3 15.6 44.0 18.9 30.6 27.1

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 25.0 28.9 8.0 27.0 21.0 26.8

n 12 45 25 37 62 280

130
Table E-2

TRAINING RECEIVED AND NEEDED

On the Job Training Received (%)

AIR DEFENSE* FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY1 INFAN4TRYj BRANCHES

Never O-9 2.2 - S4 .6231

Less than

* once yr 1-1.99, _ _ _ -00

Once yr 2-2.99 - 2,2 4,0 - 48 4.2

Several

times yr 3-3.99 15.4 8.9 8.0 - 6.,3 12.4

Once mo 4-4.99 - 13.3 8.0 5.4 14.3 10.2

Several

times mo 5-5.99 30.8 17.8 120 21.6 19.0 1639

Once wk 6-6.99 13.4 22.2 20.0 18.9 12.7 15.9

Several

times wk 7-7.99 23.1 24.4 28.0 32.4 12.7 1911

Daily 8.00 15.4 8.9 20.0 16.2 28.6 19.1

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Unit Training Received (%)

Never 0-.99 - 2.2 1 332 1.8

Less than I

once yr 1-1.99 - 2,2 - 2.7 32 1,4

Once yr 2-2.99 - 32.6 12.0 I 5.4 12.7 15,9

Several j

times yr 3-3.99 69.2 43.5 88.0 40.5 63.5 61,5

Once mo 4-4.99 30.8 8.7 - 29.7 9,5 12.0

Several

times mo 5-5.99 i - 6.5 - 10.8 3.2 4.2

Once wk 6-6.99 I - 2.2 10.8 3.2 2.5

Several

times wk 7-7.99 - 2,2 - - - 0.7

Daily 8.00 - - - - 1.6 03

n 13 46 25 37 63 283

131

A

, - -- / 
I

Table E-2 (continued)

Field Training Received (%)

' AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGOR ./AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Never 0-.99 30.8 17.4 24.0 27.0 33.3 29.2

Less than

one yr 1-1.99 7.7 13.0 32.0 13.5 11.1 17.9

Once yr 2-2.99 23.1 28.3 12.0 16.2 25.4 20.1

Several I

times yr 3-3,99 38.5 23.9 24.0 29.7 27.0 23.6

Once mo 4-4.99 - 10.9 8.0 10.8 3.2 6.7

Several

times mo 5-5.99 - 6.5 - - - 1.4

Once wk 6-6.99 .... 0.3

Several

times wk 7-7.99 - - - 2.7 - 0.3

Daily 8.00 ....- - 0.3

n 13 46J 25 1 37 63 284

Classroom Lectures Received (%)

Never 0-.99 46.2 2.2 16.0 8.1 14.3 11.3

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 7.7 6.5 16.0 5.4 9.5 9.5

Once yr 2-2.99 7.7 13.0 8.0 10.8 15.9 15.5

Several

times yr 3-3.99 7.7 32.6 24.0 21.6 20.6 24.7

Once mo 4-4.99 7.7 17.4 20.0 18.9 20.6 16.3

Several

times mo 5-5.99 7.7 21.7 12.0 16.2 11.1 14.1

Once wk 6-6.99 15.4 4.3 4.0 8.1 4.8 5.3

Several

times wk 7-7.99 - 2.2 - 10.8 - 2.1

Daily 8.00 - - - 3.2 1 1.1

13 46 25 37 63

132
Table E-2 (continued)

Instruction Received with Training Devices (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Never 0-.99 38.5 10.9 8.0 13.5 11.1 11.3

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 15.4 8.7 - 5.4 3.2 7.4

Once yr 2-2.99 - 10.9 12.0 2.7 6.3 11.7

Several

times yr 3-3.99 7.7 17.4 28.0 8.1 19.0 19.4

Once mo 4-4.99 7.7 32.6 12.0 16.2 25.4 20.5

Several

times mo 5-5.99 7.7 15.2 24.0 29.7 14.3 16.6

Once wk 6-6.99 15.4 4.3 8.0 8.1 6.3 4.9

Several

times wk 7-7.99 7.7 - 8.0 8.1 1.6 2.8

Daily 8.00 - - - 8.1 12.7 5.3

n 13 46 25 37 63 283

Special Schools Attended (%)

Never 0-.99 69.2 39.1 60.0 56.8 46.8 48.8

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 30.8 37.0 28.0 27.0 27.4 28.6

Once yr 2-2.99 - 10.9 4.0 13.5 11.3 11.7

Several

times yr 3-3.99 - 10.9 4.0 - 8.1 8.1

Once mo 4-4.99 - 2.2 - - 3.2 1.4

Several

times mo 5-5.99 - - 4.0 - 3.2 1.1

Once wk 6-6.99 - - 2.7 - 0.3

Several

times wk 7-7.99 ... - -

Daily 8.00 - - - - -

n 13 46 25 2 62 283

133
Table E-2 (continued)

On the Job Training Needed()

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Never 0 .699 8 2 0.3

Less than

once yr 2-8.399 6. ...

Once yr 2-2.99 .. .. 3 .6 2.6

Several

times yr 3-3.99 7.7 - - 2.7 4.8 5.3

Once mo 4-4.99 15.4 6.5 8.0 8.1 6.3 9.5

Several

times mo 5-5.99 7.7 19.6 12.0 8.1 20.6 16.5

Once wk 6-6.99 15.4 28.3 16.0 32.4 19.0 21.5

Several

times wk -. 99 15.4 41.3 8.0 12 22.2 24.6

Daily 8.00 3 5 .3 6.0 24.3 25.4 21.

n 13 46 25 37 63 284

Unit Training Needed()

Never 0-.99 1.6 0.3

Less than once yr 1-1. 99 - 2.2 - 4.8 1. 8

Once yr 2-2.99 7.7 10.9 16.0 8.1 7.9 15.8

Several

times yr 3-3.99 61.5 56.5 68.0 32.4 54.0 54.6

Once mo 4-4.99 30.8 21.7 8.0 35.1 20.6 18.3

Several

times mo 5-5.99 - 4.3 8.0 16.2 6.3 6.3

Once wk 6-6.99 -- -8.1 3.2 1. 8

Several

times wk 7-7.99 -4.3 -- 1.6 1.1

Daily 8.0O0 .....

n '13 4 6 25 37 6328

134
Table E-2 (continued)

Field Training Needed (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Never 0-.99 23.1 4.3 8.0 5.4 1.1 11.3

Less than 1-1.99 7.7 8.7 16.0 13.5 14.3 12.7

once yr

Once yr 2-2.99 7.7 17.4 28.0 16.2 17.5 17.9

Several

times yr 3-3.99 23.1 28.3 24.0 24.3 34.9 29.9

Once mo 4-4.99 23.1 28.3 16.0 27.0 14.3 20.1

Several

times mo 5-5.99 15.4 13.0 4.0 8.1 7.9 6.7

Once wk 6-6.99 4.0 5.4 - 1.4

Several

times wk 7-7.99 .-

Daily 8.00 -.....-

n 13 46 25 37 63 , 284

Classroom Lectures Needed (%)

Never 0-.99 7.7 ' - 4.8 2.1

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 - - 8.0 - 1.6 1.8

Once yr 2-2.99 7.7 4.3 2.7 6.5 4.9

Several

times yr 3-3.99 - 10.9 16.0 10.8 19.4 16.9

Once mo 4-4.99 30.8 30.4 44.0 32.4 30.6 34.6

Several

times mo 5-5.99 38.5 30.4 28.0 24.3 22.6 24.0

Once wk 6-6.99 15.4 19.6 4.0 18.9 11.3 12.4

Several

times wk 7-7.99 - 4.3 - 8.1 3.2 2.8

y.00 __- -- 2.7 - 0.3 Daily 0 1

n _13 1 46 25 37 63 283

135

zz/
Table E--2 (continued)

Instruction Needed with Training Devices (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

Never 0-.99 7.7 2.2 5.4 3.2 3.2

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 7.7 - - - 1.7

Once yr 2-2.99 7.7 2.2 - 2.7 4.8 3.2

Several

times yr 3-3.99 - 6.5 16.0 8.1 11.1 12.7

Once mo 4-4.99 15.4 23.9 24.0 10,8 19.0 21.8

Several

times mo 5-5.99 2J.i 41.3 28.0 24.3 27.0 27.8

Once wk 6-6.99 15.4 15.2 20.0 32.4 20.6 18.0

Several

times wk 7-7.99 23.1 8.7 8.0 13.5 3.2 7.0

Daily 8.00 - - 4.0 2.7 11.1 4.6

n 13 46 25 37 63 284

Special Schools Needed (%)

Never 0-.99 38.5 2.2 8.0 2.7 7.9 7.0

Less than

once yr 1-1.99 7.7 15.2 12.0 5.4 12.7 13.1

Once yr 2-2.99 15.4 37.0 44.0 24.3 33.3 34.5

Several

times yr 3-3.99 38.5 39.1 32.0 40.5 31.7 33.8

Once mo 4-4.99 - 4.3 - 18.9 11.1 7.7

Several

times mo 5-5.99 - 2.2 4.0 2.7 1.6 2.1

Once wk 6-6.99 - - - - 0.7

Several

times wk 7-7.99 - - - 2.7 1.6 0.7

Daily 8.00 - - - 2.7 - 0.3

n 13 46 25 37 63 284

136

i,
r

Table E-3

LEADER SATISFACTION (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALl,

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0- .49 - 8.1 1.6 1.8

Little .50-.99 - - - - -

Extent

i.0-1. 4 9 30.8 4.5 4.2 10.8 7.9 8.2

Moderate 5-1.99 - 15.9 8.3 2.7 19.0 9,6

Extent E 2.0-2.49 53.8 40,9 54.2 40.5 30.2 41.1

Quite -2.5-2.99 - 11.4 12.5 13.5 6.3 8.9

Extent I

3.0-3.49 7.7 18.2 16.7 16.2 j 31.7 22.9

(Creat

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 9.1 4.2 8.1 3.2 7.5

n 13 44 24 37 63 280

137
F

Table E-4 .9

TRAINING CONSTRAINTS

Lack Programs of Instruction (%)

I S,

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 8.9 4.2 13.9 12.7 12.9 - i

Eitte 1:0,1:49 6.7, - 13.9 957.7

Exen I e 1.0-1.49 33.3 33.3-1 25.0 22.2 i 25.4 25.4

Moderate r.5-1.99 25.0 J 17.8 - 16.7 I 14.3 13.2

Extent 2.0-2.49 25.0 17,8 50.0 19.4 17.5 23.5

Quite -2.5-2.99 - ' 8.9 4.2 2.8 4.8 4.4

Extent 1"0

3.0-3.49 - 4.4 8.3 5.6 4.8 6.3

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 8.3 2.2 8.3 5.6 11.1 6.6

n 12 45 24 36 63 272

Lack Realism (%)

No Extent 0.-.491, 25.0 6.7 17.4 16.7 21.0 16.5

Little -. 50-.9 - - - 5.6 4.8 3.7

Extent

L1.0-1.49r 16.7 22.2 30,4 33.3 I 21.0 22.8

Moderate 1.5-1.99 8.3 15.6 8.7 1 22.2 17.7 13.3 Extent I 2 62 .

E2.0-2.49 9.7 I 26.7 17.4 . 22.6 22.7

Quite .-2.5-2.99 15.6 8.7 , - 1.6 5.5 Extent I 3.0-3.49 - 6.7 13.0 8.3 4.8 10.3

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - 6.7 4.3 1 2.8 6.5 48

n 12 45 23 36 62 272

138 * '

-;j2-
Table E-4 (continued)

Lack of Trainers (%)

AIR DEFENSE IFIELD K ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY' INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.491! 8.3 20.5 I 21.7 1 30.6 15.0 20.4

Little F .50-.99,! - 4.5 4.3 8.3 I 3.3 4.9

E1.0-1.49 58.3 22.7 26.1 19.4 41.7 32.7

Moderate 1.5-1.991i 8.3 15.9 13.0 13.9 15.0 11.9

Extent L2.0-2.49 16.7 20.5 26.1 19.4 16.7 18.2

Quite j2.5-2.99; - 6.8 -3.3 3.0

Extent L3.0-3.49 8.3 9.1 4.3 2.8 3.3 7.0

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - 4.3 5.6 1.7 1.9

n 12 44 23 36 60 269

Lack of Time (%)

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 4.4 4.2 8.3 4.8 6.6

Little 50--.99 -. 8.. . 1.6 0.4

Extent L.-i.49 - 8.9 16.7 11.1 14 o5 9.1

Moderate 11.5-1.99 8.3 6.7 4.2 16.7 4.8 1 7.7

Extent 1-L2.0-2.49 16.7 24.4 16.7 27.8 32.3 25.3

Quite 12.5-2.99I - 17.8 8.3 11.1 22.6 12.8

2 Extent _3.0-3.49 41.7 26.7 16.7 16.7 8.1 19.4

Great I

Extent 3.5-4;0 25.0 11.1 33.3 8.3 11.3 18.7

n 12 j45 24 36 62 4273

139

i I

4 -e- - -- I -- -g-
r

Table E-4 (continued)

Lack of Facilities (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 8.9 8.3 13.9 14.5 1L4

Little V .50-.99 - 4.4 - 8.3 4.8 4.0

Extent -1.49 25.0 24.4 41.7 16.7 242 24.5

Moderate -1.5-1.99 8.3 15.6 4.2 16.7 1 .4.5 12.8

Extent I

E2.0-2.49 41.7 17.8 29.2 30.6 258 26.4

Quite 2.5-2.99 - 178 4.2 - 6.5 5.1

Extent E3.0-3.49 8.3 4.4 8.3 5.6 4.8 8.5

Great , Extent 3.5-4.0 8.3 6.7 4.2 83 4.8 7.3

n 12 45 24 36 162 273

Lack of Training Devices (%)

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 13.3 20.8 13.9 13.1 13.6

Little .50-.99 - 6.7 4.2 11.1 8.2 8.4

E 1.0-149 I 25.0 17.8 25.0 36.1 295 27.1

Moderate 1.5-i,99 16.7 15.6 20.8 5.6 148 13.2

Extent I2.0-2o49 33.3 22.2 250 194 23.0 22,1

Quite I-2.5-2.99 8.3 89 I - - 4.9 4.0

Extent 3.0-3.49 - 6.7 4.2 8.3 4.9 6.6

Great I

Extent 3.5-4.0 8.3 8.9 - 5.6 1.6 4.8

12 45 24 36 61 272

140
Table E-4 (continued)

i Scheduling M%

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 11.1 8.3 11.1 8.1 7.7

Little .50-.99 - l.1 12.5 5.6 -

Extent 1. 0-1. 49 L 6,7 25.0 8.3 19.4 16.5

Moderate 1.5-1.99 - 11.1 8.3 13.9 14.5 9.9

L2.0-2.49 25.0 31.1 12.5 60.6 24.2 24.1

Quite 2.5-2.99 16.7 15.6 8.3 8.3 9.7 9.9

i Extent I

[3.0-3.49 41.7 8.9 : 12.5 , 13.9 194 16.1

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 8.3 13.3 1 12.5 8.3 4.8 12.5

n 12 45 24 36 62 273

Individual Training Emphasis (%) I *I

No Extent 0-.49 8.3 6.7 12.5 13.9 14.5 1 13.6

Little r.50-.99 - 13.3 - 13.9 1.6 5.9

Extent 1

0-1.49 16.7 20.0 41.7 30.6 25.8 24.3

Moderate F1.5-1.99 16.7 17.8 4.2 1 13.9 17.7 13.9

Extent I

L2.0-2.49 16.7 22.2 20.8 19.4 22.6 23.2

Quite 2.5-2.99 8.3 4.4 4.2 - 4.8 4.0

Extent L3.0-3.49 8.3 8.9 8.3 5.6 6.5 M

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 25.0 6.7 8.3 2.8 6.5 7.0

n 12 45 24 36 62 272

141

t -
Table E-5

OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS

Turbulence (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.,49 7.7 6.7 4.0 5.4 7.9 6,7

Little - .50-.99 - 4.4 4.0 10.8 4.8 39

Extent 1.0-149 30.8 28.9 28.0 I 27.0 36.5 29A0

Moderate 1.5-1.99 23.1 15.6 4.0 13.5 17.5 13.4

Extent 2.0-2.49 15.4 33.3 32.0 27.0 23.8 29.0

r

Quite -2.5-2.99 7.7 8.9 4.0 1 - 3.2 5.3

Extent

3.0-3.49 15.4 - 12.0 5.4 1.6 6.7

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - 2.2 12.0 10.8 4.8 6A0

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Unqualified Personnel (%)

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 4.4 4.0 21.6 9.5 11.3

Little .50-.99 7.7 8.9 8.0 8.1 4.8 5.3

Extent 1.0-1.49 1,5.4 26.7 32.0 10.8 33.3 24.0 - .I

Moderate 1 5-1.99 7.7 22.2 - 18.9 20,6 14.8

Extent

Q2,0-2.49 23.1 26.7 40.0 27.0 15.9 27.9

Quite 2.5-2.99 7.7 8.9 4.0 2,7 4.8 4.6

Extent

3,0-3.49 15.4 - 12.0 5.4 79 88

Great I

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 2.2 - 5.4 3.2 3.2

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

142

! e - -'
Table E-5 (continued)

Insufficient Training (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 4.4 4.0 10.8 6.3 7.1

Little 50-.99 - 6.7 12.0 8.1 6.3 5.6

Extent 1.0-1.49 15.4 15.6 24.0 29.7 33.3 25,5

Moderate 1.5-1.99 - j 11.1 4,0 10.8 9.5 9.1

Extent

E2.0-2.49 15.4 1 20.0 32.0 29.7 22.2 25.5

Quite F2.5-2.99 23.1. 20.0 I 4. * 7.9 9.2

L3.0-3.491 77 7Extent 15.6 12.0 - 12.7 11.3

Great I

Extent 3.5-4.0 23.1 6.7 1 8.0 10.8 1.6 6.7 ---- -- i *1 i n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Unrealistic Training (%)

No Extent 0-.491 7.7 6.7 - 13.5 12.7 11.0

Little .50-.99i - 8.9 I 4.0 8.1 12.7 8.1

ExtenI E .0-1.491 30.8 22.2 32.0 37.8 34.9 314

Moderate Extet ( 1.5-1.99 I 22.2 221. I 80 2.7 11.1 13.1

2.0 -2 .49 15.4 22.2 20.0 29.7 17.5 19.4

Exte Quite L-3-.9 5-2.99 23.1 J 6.7 ; 4.0 - I 1.6 3.9

Extent 3,0-3.491 15.4 8.9 24.0 2.7 6.3 9.2

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 2.2 8.0 5.4 3.2 3.9

i

n 13 i 45 25 37 63 283

143

A*i
Table E-5 (continued)

No Unit Training (%)

AIR DEFENSE o.FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 23.1 6.7 16.0 21.6 19.0 18.4

Little .50-.99 - 11.1 4.0 8.1 15.9 10.9

Extent L1.0-1.49 23.1 26.7 40.0 37.8 31.7 27.9

Moderate 1.5-1.99 7.7 13.3 - 5.4 11.1 9.6

Ext L2.0-2.49 7.7 28.9 28.0 16.2 17.5 21.6,

Quite 2.5-2.99 7.7 8°9 4.0 - l6 3.5

Extent L3.0-3.49 15.4 4.4 4.0 - 1.6 3.5

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 15.4 - 4.0 10.8 1.6 I 4.6

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Lack Spirit

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 24.4 8.0 24.3 20.6 23.0

Little 50-.99 - 15.6 4.0 16.2 17.5 11.6

Extent 1.0-1.49 38.5 28.9 68A0 16.2 42.9 34.7

Moderate 1.5-1.99 15.4 13.3 12.0 5.4 6.3 9.5

Extent L2.0-2.49 15.4 8.9 4.0 24.3 9.5 t 12.7

Quite -2,5-2,99 7,7 22 4.0 - - 1oi

Extent 30-349 7.7 6,7 - 5.4 1.6 4,9

Great

Extent 3 5-4.0 - - - 8.1 1.6 2.5

n 13 45 25 37 63 1283

144
Table E-5 (continued)

Social Problems M%

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

-+

No Extent 0-.49 I 30.8 40.0 32.0 29.7 33.3 31.2

Little j.50-.99 - 22.2 4.0 16.2 17.5 17.0

Extent L. 0-1.49 53.8 28.9 24.0 29.7 33.3 33.0

Moderate p1.5-1.99 15.4 4.4 16.0 5.4 6.3 6.7

Extent

L.-.9- 4.4 24.0 16.2 7.9 9.6

Quite J2.5-2.99 -- - - 1.6 0.4

Extent L3.o0-3.49 Y---- - 1.1

Great

Extent 3.5-4,, - 2.7 -1.1

n 13 4525 37 63 282

Leadership(%

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 26.7 28.0 24.3 27.0 25.4

Little I 50-.9911 20.0 8.0 27.0 14.3 13.5

Extent.4 L 30.8 20.0 20.0 16.2 34.9 30.7

Moderate 1.5-1.99 1 7.7 15.6 12.0 2.7 7.9 8.8

Extent 12,0-2.49 38.5 8.9 12.0 18.9 9.5 13.1

Quite 2.5-2.99 7.7 4.4 4.0 - 1.6 1.8

Exten t L3.0-3.49 ;- 2.2 12.0 5.4 3.2 3.9

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 -2.2 4.0 5.4 1.6 2.8

n 345 I 2 j37 63 283

145
Table E-5 (continued)

Discipline(%

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 23.1 31.1 24.0 29.7 34.9 31.6

Little .50-.99 - 20.0 8.0 21.6 17.5 14.1

Extent L1.0-1.49 i 38.5 28.9 48.0 27.0 31.7 34.4 S~ii

Moderate -1.5-1.99 , - 4.4 4.0 8.1 1.6 4.7

Extent 2.0-2.49 23.1 11.1 4.0 8.1 11.1 9.2

Quite 12.5-2.99 7.7 - 4.0 2.7 1.6 1.4

Extent 3.0-3.49 7.7 4.4 4.0 - 1 1.6 2.8

Great H

Extent 3.5-4.0 ', - 4.0 2.7 - 1.8

n 13 45 25 37 63 282

Poor Equipment Design (%)

No Extent 0-.49 i 15.4 20.0 12.0 18.9 25.4 21.6

Little .50-.99 -8.9 8.0 10.8 14.3 9.8

Extent .0-149 30.8 35.6 24.0 35.1 28.6 31.9

Moderate 1.5-1-99 - 20.0 - 10.8 9.5 8.1

Extent 1 2.0-2,49 23.1 6.7 32.0 10.8 15.9 15.9

Quite 1-2.5-2.99 7.7 4.4 8.0 - 3.2 2.8

Extent L3.0-3.49 15.4 4.4 12.0 5.4 1.6 5.3

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 - 4.0 8.1 1.6 4.6

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

146

.- I'/
ITable E-5 (continued)

Lack Equipment (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIEL ALL CATEGORY/AVERAGE IARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY1 INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 7.7 17.8 16.0 18.9 17.5 18.7

Little .50-.99 - 4.4 4.0 10.8 12.7 7.4

Extent I .0-1.49 38.5 26.7 40.0 32.4 33.3 32.2

Moderate -1.5-1.99 15.4 22.2 8.0 2.7 7.9 10.3

Extent _2.0-2.49 23.1 13.3 28.0 10.8 12.7 16.2

Quite 2.5-2.99 - 6.7 - 2.7 4.8 2.8

Extent E3.0-3.49 15.4 4.4 8.1 4.8 5.3

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - 4.4 4.0 13.5 6.3 7.1

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Inappropriate Tactics (%)

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 24.4 24.0 24.3 23.8 25.8

Little .50-.99 7.7 11.1 12.0 18.9 23.8 16.6

Extent L1.0-1 .49 15.4 40.0 36.0 29.7 20.6 31.1

Moderate 1.5-1.99 15.4 15.6 - 2.7 6.3 5.7

Extent 2.0-2.49 30.8 6.7 20.0 16.2 19.0 13.0

Quite 2.5-2.99 - - - 2.7 - 0.7

E x ten t 112 E3.0-3.49 15.4 2.2 4.0 2.7 7 4.8 . 5.0

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - - 4.0 2.7 1.6 2.1

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

147

1-- - - -

I'
Table E-5 (continued)

Overextended (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD ALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BRANCHES

No Extent 0-.49 7.7 24.4 24.0 40.5 19.0 23.7

Little .50-.99 7.7 26.7 - 18.9 19.0 15.9

Extent 1.0-1.49 8.8 28.9 48.0 18.9 39.7 32.1

Moderate I 1.5-1.99 - 8.9 8.0 8.1 4.8 6.7

Extent

L 2 .

0 - 2 .

4 9 7.7 11.1 8.0 2.7 14.3 12.8

Quite 2.5-2.99 - - - 2.7 - 0.3

Extent

L3.0-3.49 15.4 8.0 - 3.2 4.2

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - - 4.0 8.1 492

n 13 45 25 37 63 283

Communication/Coordination (%)

No Extent 0-.49 23.1 17.8 28.0 16.2 21.0 18.9

Little ,50 -.99 - 13.3 4.0 13.5 16.1 10.6

Extent 1.0-1.49 - 33.3 36.0 32.4 24.2 31.4

Moderate F1.5-1.99 7.7 15.6 12.0 8.1 16.1 12.1

Extent 1

L2.0-2.49 23.1 8.9 4.0 21.6 17.7 16.3

Quite [2.5-2.99 15.4 4.4 - - 3.2 2.5

Extent 3.0-3.49 30.8 6.7 8.0 2.7 1.6 4.6

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - - 8.0 5.4 - 3.6

n 13 45 25 37 62 281

148

t - /.~- 
Table E-5 (continued)

Inappropriate Configuration (%)

AIR DEFENSE FIELD BRALL

CATEGORY/AVERAGE ARTILLERY ARMOR ENGINEERS ARTILLERY INFANTRY BACHES

No Extent 0-.49 - 11.1 28.0 13.5 20.6 19.1

Little [ .50-.99, 7.7 15,6 8.0 10.8 12.7 11.8

Extent 1.0-1.49 30.8 333 160 27.0 365 297

Moderate 1.5-1.99 - 11.1 16.0 10.8 9.5 10.7

Extent L20-249 308 178 120 27.0 9°5 15.2

Quite F2.5-2.99 7.7 6.7 - - 1.6 2.9

Extent L3.0-3.49 23.1 2.2 8.0 2.7 4.8 5.3

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 - 2.2 12.0 8.1 4.8 5.3

n 13 45 25 37 63 282

Understrength (%)

No Extent 0-.49 15.4 15.6 8.0 13.5 20.6 18.1

Little .50-.99 - 2.2 4.0 8 1 11.1 6.7

Extent L1.O-1.49 15.4 24.4 12.0 13.5 28.6 22.4

Moderate 1.5-1.99 7.7 17.8 8.0 13.5 7.9 11.0

Extent 2.0-2.49 30.8 17.8 40.0 27.0 19.0 21.2

Quite F2.5-2.99 - 13.3 - 2.7 1.6 5.0

Extent L3.0-3.49 23A 4,4 8.0 13.5 32 6.4

Great

Extent 3.5-4.0 7.7 4.4 20.0 8.1 7.9 9.2

n 13 45 2537 63 282

149// - Il

!.
DISTRIBUTION

1 US ARMY WESTERN COMMAND AITN; APPE

I DEPAHTMENT OF THE NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION GROUP

I HQDA ATTN: DAAG-ED

1 HQ, ICATA ATTN: ATCAT-OP-Q

2 HQDA RESEARCH AND STUDIES OFC

I MILIIARY OCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIV DAPC-MSP-O, RM 852C HOFMAN BLDG 1

4 OASD (MRA AND L)

I HO TCATA TECHNICAL LIURARY

I HODA ODCSPER

I HQODA ATTN: DAMI-ISI

I USA AVIATION SYSTEMS COMO ATTN: DRSAV-ZOR

I USA cORADCOM ATTN: AMSEL-PA-RH

I USA mRRADCOM ATT': ATFE-LO-AC

1 HEADuUARTERS US MARINE CORPS AITN: CODE HTMT

HEADuUARTERS, US MARINE CORPS ATTN: CODE MPI-2O

2 US AmMY EUROPE AND SEVENT.H ARMY

1 IST INFANTRY DIVISION AND FT. RILEY ATTNI AFZNOPr T

1 USA INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND ATTN; IAOPS4V4G-T

2 HO THADOC TECHNICAL LIBRARY

I NAVAL. TRAINING EQUIPMENT CEN ATIN: TECHNICAL LIBRARY

I MILIIARY OCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MS--, RM 3N33 HOFFMAN BLDG II

1 DATA ANALYSIS DIVISION ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MD, HOFPMAN BLDG II

I USA MILPERCEN ATTN: DAPC-POO-T

1 TH INFANTRY DIVISION

1 HODA ARMY FORCE MODERNIZATION CUORDINATION OFFICE

I HQDA ATTN: DASG-PrB

1 NAVAL AIR SYSTEM COMMAND /

I 123D USARCOM RESERVE CENTER

1 US AMMY SOLDIER SUPPORT CLNTER /

I USA FORCES COMMAND AFLG - DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS

I DIRETORATE OF TRAINING AITNI ATZQ-T

I DIREt.TORATE OF COMBAT DEVLLOPMENTS AITN: ATZQ.O

I HQDAxCOM MARINE CORPS LIAISON UFC

I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY INTELL'IGENCE + SECURITY COMMAND

1 USA MISSILE COMMAND ATTNI DRSMI-NTN

I US ARMY CECOM ATTN: DRSEL-ATDU

I USA FORCES COMMAND

I PM THADE /

I US MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OFC OF EQUAL ORPORTUNITY

I NAVAL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL COMD SOUTHERN FLD DIV

22 ARI LIAISON OFFICE

I 7TH ARMY TRAINING COMMAND

I HODA. DCSOPS UNIT TRAINING

I HQUA* DCSOPS 1RAINING DIRECTORATE

1 HQDA. DCSLOG MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT

1 HQDA. OCS STUDY OFFICE

I U.S. NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS EVALUATION GROUP

I USACuEC ATTN: ATEC-EX-E HUMAN FACTORS

I ATTN: SM-ALC/DPCR I OASA (RDA) DEPUTY FOR SCILNCL AND TECHNOLOGY ...

I OFC uF NAVAL RESEARCH /

I AFHRL/LRT

1 AFHRL/LRLG

I AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAB ATTN: AFHRL/TSR I AFAMHL/BB

I NAVY PERSONNEL R AND D CENTER UIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS

I NAVY PERSONNEL R AND D CENTER /

2 OFC uF NAVAL RLSEARCH PLRSONNEL AND TRAINING MESEARCH PROGRAMS

I NAVAL PERSONNEL R + U CENTER /

I OFC UF NAVAL RESEARCH PROJECT OFFICER9 ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY

I OFC uF NAVAL RSCH ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PRO.

151

.. . .. ....... . a ".
I NAVAI AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSCH LAB AIRBORNE RANGER RESEARCH

I NAVAl AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSCH LAB AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

I USA IRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-TCA

1 HEADuUARTERS, COAST GUARD CHIEF* FSYCfOLOGlA'-3$' FIR

1 USA HESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LAB /

1 USA ENGINEER TOPOGRAPHIC LABS ATTN: ETL-GSL

I USA MOBILITY EuUIPMENT R-AND 0'COMO"ATTNT Rt-i ( ibCML

I FT. mELVOIR, VA 22060

1 ATTN: ATT6-ATB-TA

1 USA HUMAN ENGINEERING LAB

I USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: DRXS¥-C

1 USA ARCTIC TEST CEN ATTN: AMSTE-PL-TS

1 USA COLD REGIONS TEST CEN ATTN: STECRIOP. .

I USA LONCEPTS ANALYSIS AGCY ATTN! CSCA-ROP

I USA USACACDA LONCEPTS ATTN: ANALYSIS ATZL-CAC-i AGCY ATTN$ CSCA-JF "

I USACACDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-IM

1 USACAC ATTN: ATL-CAC-IA

I USACACDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-A

I USA NSCH DEVEL STANDARUIZA GPs UoKo

I USA HESEARCH AND DEVELOPMLNT LAUS CHIEF, BEHAV SCIENCES DIVs FOOD SCI LAB

I TRAJANA ATTN: SAUS-OR

I NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND ATTN: AIR-5313

I USACwEC TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

I USAAHL LIBRARY

I USA iRAUOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)

I UNIFuRMED SERVICES UNIT OF THE HLALTH SCI DEPARIMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

I USA LOMPUTER SYSTEMS COMMAND AITN: COMMAND TECHNICAL LI.RAY-H69' -

I GRONINGER LIBRARY ATTN: ATZF-RS-L BLUG 1313

I CENTtR FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS

I NAVAl HEALTH 9SCH CEN LIURARY

I NAVAL PERSONNEL R AND U CtN LIBRARY ATTN: CODE P106

I AIR rORCE HUMAN RESOURCLS LAB ATTN: AFHRL/OTS

I HQ, tI. HUACHUCA ATTN: TLCH RE1 UiV

I USA ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCILNCES STIMSON LIBRARY (DOCUMENTS)

I SCilOuL OF SYSTLMS AND LOGSTICS /

I DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUAT"ONF0W

1 US14A DEPT OF BEHAVIORAL bCI ANU LEADERSHIP

I USA cOMMAND AND bENEHAL STAFF CULLLGE ATTN: LIBRARY

1 USA IRANSPORTATION SCHOOL USA IMANSP TECH INFO AND RSCH-tEN.

I USA ADMINCEN TECHNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARY

I USA iFIELD ARTY BD / I INSTITUTE FOR uEFENSE ANALYSES--

1 USA iWAINING SUPPORT CENTEH ATIN: ATIC-UST-PA

I AFHRL TECHNOLObY DFC (H)

I USA I4OBILITY EQUIOMENT R AND U COMMAND' ATTN. ORUME-ZG

I DA Uh ARMY RETRAINING HUE RLSEARCH + EVALUATION DIVISION

I US MiLITARY ACAEA UEPTI OF HISTURY BLDG 60 D

I MARITE CORPS INSTITUTE

I NAVAL SAFETY CNTER /

I GALLAUDET COL.LGE LtARNINb CLNTRR

I USAANC AND FT JCKER AIIN: ATLC-ES

I US AmMY AVN TN. LIBRARY ATTN CHIEF L16RARIAN

I USA AIR DEFENSL SCHOOL AITN: ATSA-DT

I USAAvNC ATTN; ATZQ-D

I US MILITARY ACAI)EmY DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RSCH

I USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL AITN: ATSA-CU-MS

I USAAuS-LIBRARY-OOCUMNTS

I USA AIR DEFENSE BOARD ATTN: FILtS REPOSITORY

I USA INFANTRY BOARD ATTN: ATZB-IB-AE

I USA INTELLIGENCF CEN AND SCH ATTN: ATSI-DT-SFL

I USA uRDNANCE CLN AND SCH ATTN% ATSL-I-TAC

152
I USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN: AIZK-Tb

1 USA ARMOR CENTER DIRECTORATE OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS

I NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCH AITN: oUULLY KNOX LIBRARY (CODE 1424)

I USA tRANSPORTATION SCHOOL DEPUTY ASST. COMMANDANT "EOCAtY'ECHN6OCV

I USA SIGNAL SCHOOL AND FT, GORDON ATTN,: ATZH-ET

1 USA wUARTERMASTER SCH ATTN: ATSM-TNG-TM-ET

1 USA mILITARY POLICE SCHOOL ATTN. LIBRARY

I USA ARMOR CENTER + FT. KNOX OFFICE OFI ARMOR FORCE MGT 4 STANUARDIZATION

I CHIEe OF NAVAL EOJCATION AND TNb /

I USA NIGNAL SCHOOL + FT. GURDON EDUCATIONAL TEQHNOLOGy DIVISION

I HO AiC/XPTD TRAI4ING SYSTLMS UEVELOPMENT

1 USA INSTITUTE FUR MILITARY ASSISTANCE ATTN: ATSU-TD-TA

5 USA iNTELLIGENCE CEN AND SCH ATTN: ATSI-ERM

I US ANMY ARMOR CENTER ATTN: ATZK-TD-P4U

I USA AIR DEFENSE CENTER, FT. BLISS ATIN: ATZC-DIM

1 USA wUARTERMASTER SCHOOL UIRECTORATE OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTS.

1 US CuAST GUARD ACADEMY /

I USA IRANSPORTATIO4 SCHOOL DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING +.DOCTRINE

I USA iNFANTRY SCHODL LIBRARY /

I USA iNFANTRY SCHODL ATTN: ATSH-1-V

I US AHMY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-C

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-UOT-LRD

I USA INFANTRY SCHO3L ATTN: ATSH-EV

I USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNt CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN ATTNI ATZ NPTS

I USA II.P * CHEM SCH/TNG CEN * FT, MCCLELLAN DIRE COMeAT DEVELOPMENT

I USA HP * CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + FT. MCCLLLLAN DIR. TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

I USA HP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN ATTN: ATZN-MP-ACE

I USA INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION ATTN: RESIDENt'TRAINING-MANAGEMENT

I USA FIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL MORRIS SWETT LIBRARY

I USA INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC LIBRARY .

I USA wAR COLLEGE ATTN: LIbHARY

1 USA tNGINEER SCHUOL LIBRARY ANU LEAR'ING RESOURCES CENTER

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL (USARMS) ATTN: LIBRARY

I US CoAST GUARD ACADEMY LIBRARY

I USA IRANSPORTATIN SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRARY

1 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CEN + SCH ATTN$ LIBRARIAN

1 US AAMY INTELLIbENCE CENTLR + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TP

I US AWMY INTELLIGE4CE CLNTLH * SCHOOL ATIN: ATSI-RM-M

I US ARMY INTELLIGENCE CENTER + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-ES

1 USA eIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL DIRECTORATE OF COURSE UEV TRAINING

I DEPARTMENT OF IrHE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY (ATC)

I HQ THADOC TRAINING DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

2 BRITISH EMBASSY BRITISH UEFENCL STAFF

2 CANAuIAN JOINT STAFF

I COLS (W) LIBRARY

I FRENCH ARMY ATTACriE

I AUSTRIAN EMBASSY UEFENSE, MILIrARY AND AIR ATYACHE

3 CA;4AiIAN DEFENCE LIAISON STAFF ATTN: COUNSELLOR, ,;vJENCE R AND D,

I ROYAl NETHERLANDS EMBASSY MILII'ARY ATTACHE

I CANAoIIAN FORCES bAbE CORNWALLIS ATTN: PERSONNEL SELECTION

2 CANAulAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPL RSCH U41T

1 ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

6 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS EXCHANGE AND GIFT DIV

I DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CEN ATTN: DTIC-0DA-2

140 LIBRmRY OF CONGRESS UNIT UOCUMLNTS EXPEDITING PROJECT

I US GuVERNMENT PRINTING OFC LIBRARY, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT

I US GuVERNMENT PRINTING OFC LIBHARY ANU STATUTORY?_ .IR DIV (SLL)

I THE ARMY LIBRARY ATTN: ARMY STUUIES SEC

3/ /

/ /

153

!

II