Technical Report 397 LE<

A TASK-BASED ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION

REQUIREMENTS OF TACTICAL MAPS

Betty M. Landee, Michael G. Samet,

and Dennis R. Foley

Perceptronics, Inc.

LqL

i 

HUM AN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

August 1979

U. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

80 7 10 0371

- -
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, U S Army Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Perceptronics, Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been mnadl by ARI. PISAm address correspondenz's conCerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciencps. ATTN. PERI-P, 5001 Eisenthower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL ISPOITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. P19826 do not return it to

the U. S. Army Resrch I nstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

~~LThe findings in this report are not to be construed as an off iciali Department Cif the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documenits.
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dotes Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 39776 ~ __ _ _ __ _ _

4. and Subtitle S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Annual Technical A ASK-,PASED .NALYSIS OF TNFORMATION Mar. 16, 1978 - Mar. 15, 197i

E QUIREMENTS OF TACTICAL MAPS IkAPSM ER __ji PATR-263-79--

/ Betty M./Landee 8 UMUER7-C0 

Michael G./Samet1 1

Denni R.I Foley-"_____________

S.i PEWRICbOANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Perceptronics, Inc:/ .' AEA & WORK U.NIT NUMBERS

App. re fRpbi eese;rc distutfrithBeio unliited

S and SociENalY NSine ftNM O AE

KsIN HooErC cNtriute i toR Chapretr 2. Motollnitorfied tehncal CAS(othrymondtC byURT 

Sioky, ARI.

Apnfomatio reuireese Sitruation islys ed

20~l. KEYWOADS (Cot~ine on revmee aide I neceye d identify by block nuber)

atas-aedapoahfripefynlndaayzna information rasTakbsee-ayi

qeoiraents wastevlieoped and deosted ATeiwoeleterlteatr

coring potheaappn p Toess icle method for setn reniromental

datoatiesnon aeqir map.s Svntuaticltsreeenig omon battle-s

faidfunction performed bydffr nfusrsmatin ceos- eemnto

ofaenemyaeso approach byr aspecfficerad tnatheindivisifain evwresairplet an analed nd derte. Ar repaing and dlctrdiaterifi-e

cation procedure was used to divide tasks into subtasks so that :; (Continued)

143 EgiwFwm6m~~~T Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When DateEntered)
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(WOh Data Enter@4)

Block 20 (Continued)

corresponding information requirements could be specified. Each subtask

(e.g., identification of obstacles to movement) in turnas broken down

into basic tactical questions about the environment. e.g., "Are there any

vegetated areas through which the enemy canpqL_9aa~?', "Are there any

slopes enemy vehicles cannot climb?").4 The data required to answer each

question defined the information categories ve-7- getated area- 1 -lopes)

and 1 la0fo-ttiakl(e.g., tree spacing and trunk diameter, percent

slope necessary for successful task completion.

The resulting map-related information requirements were synthesized to

generate representative map development guidelines. This synthesis--which

emphasized information about vegetation, road networks, and built-up areas--

was accomplished across tasks to identify those specific information needs

which show either prominent commonality or uniqueness with respect to different tasks and user groups. Within the framework of these task-based

comparisons, examples illustrate the types of implications that can be derived from the task-based analysis of information requirements.

M C TAI

JustiftC.tton_

By____

Diat.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(ften Date Rntered)
Technical Report 397

A TASK-BASED ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION

REQUIREMENTS OF TACTICAL MAPS

Betty M. Landee, Michael G. Samet,

and Dennis R. Foley

Perceptronics, Inc.

Raymond C. Sidorsky, Team Chief

Submitted by: Edgar M. Johnson, Chief

HUMAN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

Approved by:

Frank J. Harris, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

1.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

August 1979

Army Project Number Information Processing

20782722A705 and Display

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

ii

hiti
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
FOREWORD

The Human Factors Technical Area is concerned with aiding users/

operators to cope with the ever-increasing complexity of the man-machine

systems being designed to acquire, transmit, process, disseminate, and

utilize tactical information on the battlefield. The research is focused on interface problems and interactions within command and control

centers and is concerned with such areas as topographic products and

procedures, tactical symbology, user oriented systems, information management, staff operations and procedures, sensor systems integration

and utilization, and issues of system development.

Maps are an essential component for both planning and conducting

military operations. In the planning phase, terrain and vegetation information affect many considerations, including mobility, vulnerability,

concealment, and cover. In the conduct of military operations, maps

are essential for navigation, self-location, and adjustment of fire,

to name only a few. Despite the importance of maps to military operations, surveys indicate that many map users have difficulty with current

military maps, particularly in terrain visualization and self-location.

Many individuals cannot make the transfer from the map, which represents

the terrain, to the actual terrain The present publication is concerned

with identifying and evaluating improved or new methods of portraying

topographic information. The goal is to aid users to e.cract combatrelevant information faster and more accurately from hardcopy or electronically generated maps.

Research leading to improved maps and other topographic products

is conducted as an in-house effort augmented through contracts with organizations selected for their specialized capabilities and unique facilities. The present study was conducted by personnel of Perceptronics,

Inc., under Contract DAHCl9-78-C-0018. This research is responsive to

requirements of Army Project 2Q762722A765, and related to special requirements of Engineer Topographic Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Va. Special

requirements are contained in Human Resource Need 78-35, Topographic

Products Design and Test Methodology.

Technical Director

v
A TASK-BASED ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OF TACTICAL MAPS

BRIEF

Requirement:

To make military maps more readable and informative in the performance of combat-related operations.

Procedure:

A task-based approach for specifying and analyzing map information

requirements was developed. Seven tactical tasks representing common

battlefield functions performed by different users and echelons were

sampled and analyzed in depth. A tactical role playing and doctrinal

verification procedure was used to divide tasks into operational subtasks. These subtasks were, in turn, broken down into basic tactical

questions about the environment. The resulting map-related information

requirements were synthesized to generate representative map development

guidelines.

Findings:

The comprehensive map-related information requirements derived from

the tactical tasks sampled appear to provide an objective, logical basis

for identifying those specific needs (information categories and levels

of detail) which show either prominent commonality or uniqueness with

respect to different tasks and user groups.

Utilization of Findings:

The products of this analysis will contribute to a methodology

which map makers will be able to apply to the map development process

in order to create more effective user-oriented map products.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. SUMMARY 1-1

1.1 Statement of the Problem 1-1

1.2 Technical Approach 1-1

1.2.1 Task-based Methodology for Development

of Map Information Requirements 1-1

1.2.2 Rationale for Task-Based Approach 1-2

1.2.3 Application of Task-Based Methodology 1-3

1.2.4 Implications for Military Map

Development 1-7

2. RATIONALE FOR TASK-BASED APPROACH 2-1

2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Map Development Issues 2-2

2.2.1 A Process Model of Mapping 2-4

2.2.2 The Environment 2-4

2.2.3 Selection of Data Base Elements 2-6

2.2.4 Map Information Abstraction 2-8

2.2.5 Specification of User Requirements 2-10

2.3 Determination of Tactical Map Requirements 2-12

2.3.1 Map Information Structure 2-14

2.3.2 ETL Map-Development Approach:

A Case Study 2-16

2.4 Summary and Conclusions 2-22

3. APPLICATION OF TASK-BASED METHODOLOGY 3-1

3.1 Overview 3-1

3.2 Task Selection Criteria 3-1

3.3 Method of Information Specification 3-3

3.4 Task Identification and Presentation 3-9

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Page

3.5 Exhibit Format 3-9

3.6 Exhibit A 3-13

3.7 Exhibit B 3-31

3.8 Exhibit C 3-41

3.9 Exhibit D 3-51

3.10 Exhibit E 3-59

3.11 Exhibit F 3-68

3.12 Exhibit G 3-77

4. IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY MAP DEVELOPMENT 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1

4.2 Cross-Task Analyses of Information Requirements 4-3

4.2.1 Vegetation 4-3

4.2.2 Road Networks 4-7

4.2.3 Built-Up Areas 4-10

4.3 Map Development Implications 4-13

4.3.1 Common User Requirements 4-15

4.3.2 Information Portrayal Alternatives 4-18

4.3.3 Map Evaluation Issues 4-25

4.4 Summary and Conclusions 4-27

5. REFERENCES 5-1

6. DISTRIBUTION 6-1
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:

ANALYSIS OF MAP-RELATED TASKS

Section Page

3.6 Exhibit A 3-13

User: Intelligence Section

Echelon: Division

Task: Determine Enemy Avenues of Approach

3.6.1 Background 3-13

3.6.2 Subtask Al: Identify Obstacles to Movement 3-14

3.6.3 Subtask A2: Identify Areas Sufficient for

Enemy Movement 3-20

3.6.4 Subtask A3: Identify Areas of Adequate Cover

and Concealment 3-21

3.6.5 Summary 3-24

3.7 Exhibit B 3-31

User: TOC G-4

Echelon: Corps

Task: Determine Main Supply Route (MSR)

3.7.1 Background 3-31

3.7.2 Subtask BI: Identify Possible Supply Routes 3-33

3.7.3 Subtask B2: Locate Potential Ambush Sites

Along Possible Routes 3-35

3.7.4 Summary 3-37

3.8 Exhibit C 3-41

User: Aviation Officer or S-3 Air

Echelon: Brigade

Task Select a One-Ship Helicopter Landing Zone

3.8.1 Background 3-31

3.8.2 Subtask Cl: Identify Surface Conditions

Adequate for Landing Zone 3-42

3.8.3 Subtask C2: Identify Landing Zones Which Are

of Adequate Size 3-45

Xi
Section Page

3.9 Exhibit D 3-51

User: Operations Section

Echelon: Division

Task: Determine Primary and Alternative Locations for

the Division Tactical Operating Centers (DTOC)

3.9.1 Background 3-51

3.9.2 Subtask D1: Determine Potential Locations

for DTOC 3-52

3.9.3 Summary 3-56

3.10 Exhibit E 3-59

User: Cav Squadron

Echelon: Battalion

Task: Plan Route for a Reconnaissance Mission of

Possible DTOC Locations

3.10.1 Background 3-59

3.10.2 Subtask El: Identify Fastest Route to

Reconnaissance Sites 3-62

3.10.3 Subtask E2: Determine Areas of Likely

Enemy Detection 3-63

3.10.4 Subtask E3: Identify Areas of Adequate

Concealment 3-64

3.10.5 Summary 3-65

3.11 Exhibit F 3-68

User: Commander

Echelon: Company

Task: Prepare a Company Level Defensive Fire Plan

Against Enemy Armored Attack

3.11.1 Background 3-68

3.11.2 Subtask Fl: Conduct a Map Reconnaissance 3-69

3.11.3 Subtask F2: Conduct a Terrain Evaluation 3-73

3.11.4 Summary 3-74

3.12 Exhibit G 3-77

User: G-1

Echelon: Corps

Task: Select POW Collection Sites

3.12.1 Background 3-77

3.12.2 Subtask GI: Identify Lines of Communication

Within the Area of Interest 3-78

3.12.3 Subtask G2: Evaluate the Possible Collection

Sites 3-81

3.12.4 Summary 3-82

xii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3-1. Tasks Selected for Analysis 3-8

3-2. Index to Map Information Categories 3-10

3-3. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis

for Exhibit A 3-15

3-4. Information Requirements for G-2/Div/Avenues

of Approach 3-25

3-5. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis for

Exhibit B 3-32

3-6. Information Requirements for G-4/Corps/Main

Supply Route 3-38

3-7. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis of

Exhibit C 3-43

3-8. Information Rquirements for S-3 Air/BDE/

Helicopter Landing Zone 3-48

3-9. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis for

Exhibit D 3-53

3-10. Information Requirements for G-3/Div/DTOC

Location 3-57

3-11. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis for

Exhibit E 3-61

3-12. Information Requirements for Cav Squad/BTN/

Reconnaissance Route 3-66

3-13. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis for

Exhibit F 3-70

3-14. Information Requirements for Commander/CO/

Defensive Fire Plan 3-75

3-15. Overview of Question-Based Task Analysis for

Exhibit G 3-79

3-16. Information Requirements for G-1/Corps/POW

Collection Sites 3-83

xiii

MO
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

Page

Table 4-1. Cross-Task Comparisons for Vegetation 4-5

4-2. Cross-Task Comparisons for Road Networks 4-9

4-3. Cross-Task Comparisons for Built-Up Areas 4-12

4-4. Innovative Examples with Implications for

Alternative Military Information Portrayal 4-20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Task-Based Methodology for Development of

Map Information Requirements 1-4

1-2. Examples of Task-Based Map Use "Questions" 1-6

2-1. The Mapping Process 2-5

2-2. Illustration of Task-Based Map Information

Structure

3-1. Overlay for Enemy Avenues of Approach 3-5

4-1. Task-Based Guideline Development of User-Oriented

Map Products 4-14

xiv AIL m
1. SUMMARY

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Hardcopy maps are an essential component of both the planning and conduct

of tactical operations. In the planning phase, terrain and vegetation

information impact on many considerations including: mobility, the

degree of vulnerability to attack, concealment, and cover. In the

operations phase, maps are essential for navigation, self-location, and

adjustment of fire, to name only a few of the many uses. Despite the

military importance of maps, surveys indicate that many map users have

difficulty with current tactical maps, particularly in the areas of

terrain visualization and self-location. Many individuals cannot make

the transfer from the map, which is a representation of a geographic

area, to the actual environment. Since the battlefield of the future

has been characterized as having greater lethality and complexity than

previously faced, it is vital that maps, as an integral part of the

battlefield information system, be as useful as possible for military

personnel. The goal of this research effort, therefore, was to develop

a methodology which map makers could apply to map development in an

attempt to create more effective user-oriented map products.

1.2 Technical Approach

1.2.1 Task-Based Methodology for Development of Map Information

Requirements. The development of improved military map products requires

the systematic analysis of specific map-related information needs. To

accomplish this research goal, a task-based methodology was developed

and applied, and its potential role in providing map development guidelines is illustrated. Chapter 2 gives the background and rationale for

L 1-1
adopting this research strategy in the context of considerations concerning

both the mapping process and tactical decision-making. Chapter 3 describes

the methodological procedures employed and provides several examples of how

they can be applied to the detailed analysis of representative, maprelated tasks. Chapter 4 then systematically integrates the findings of

these task analyses to illustrate the types of map-development implications

and guidelines which can be derived from the task-based methodology. The

following paragraphs provide a brief description of the topics covered in

each of the report chapters.

1.2.2 Rationale for Task-Based Approach (Chapter 2). The first phase

of the mapping process, which covers the generation and use of maps,

entails the selection of data from the environment that should be represented on a map. Despite the criticality of this selection, systematic

procedures for specifying map information content have been lacking in

the cartographic literature (cf, Potash, 1977). Although conventional

approaches to tactical map development have made progress in taking

advantage of a general form of such a task-based structure when determining information requirements, additional work is necessary to explore

the potential of increasing the specificity of the approach and extending

its application. Toward this goal, the present effort was inspired.

The philosophy which is emphasized is that different task objectives may

dictate different maps. Given the large set of map users, it is evident

that the delineation of purpose requires the identification and dissection

of particular tasks, in ordt- to prescribe appropriate guidelines for map

development. Traditionally, the military map maker has had less need for

such detailed analysis, as mips were typically designed for multiple

purposes. However, given the possibilities of the new mapping technology,

and the corresponding expansion of map uses, it becomes critical for the

map developer to investigate what map-related information is needed in

1-2
each unique situation. By the same token, a careful consideration of

user needs could support the improvement of map products.

1.2.3 Application of Task-Based Methodology (Chapter 3). Figure 1-1

provides an overview of the task-based methodology process. Since

systematic rules for the specification of map information content have

been lacking, the goal of this process was to develop a method for

identifying user-required information to form a map content database.

The database which was derived for a set of representative tactical tasks

provides a complete accounting of the map-based information required to

complete these tasks; and the analysis makes a distinction between

information which is, or is not, currently available on conventional maps.

The elements in the database were thus structured so that further analysis

could lead to implications for map-development guidelines.

To demonstrate the application of the task-based approach to specifying

information requirements, seven tactical tasks representing common battlefield functions performed by different users and echelons were sampled

and analyzed; an example of one task studied is the determination of

enemy avenues of approach for a Soviet motorized rifle unit by a G-2

officer at the division level. A military role-playing and doctrinal

verification procedure was used to decompose tasks into constituent

subtasks and to specify the information categories (e.g. concealment)

and the respective level of detail (e.g., vegetation taller than three

meters) needed to perform each subtask. As illustrated in Figure 1-2,

the analysis of enemy avenues of approach is predicated on the identification of: (1) obstacles to movement; (2) areas sufficient for movement;

and (3) cover and concealment potential of routes. Each of these define

subtasks which, in turn, lead the user to ask a number of basic "questions"

about the tactical environment. In the case of obstacles to movement,

the user might ask, "Are there any slopes which enemy vehicles cannot climb?";

"Are there any vegetated areas through which the enemy cannot pass?"; etc.

1-3
REPRESENTATIVE

USER/ECHELON/TASK

SAMPLING

MAP USE TASK

ROLE PLAY

TASK DECOMPOSITION I.

-- TACTICAL DOCTRINE1

I-- VERIFICATION

INFORMATION -

REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS

MAP CONTENT GUIDELINES FOR

DATA BASE MAP DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE I-1.

TASK-BASED METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF

MAP INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

1-4
I

The information required to answer each question defines the level of

detail which should, ideally, be included on the map. The generation of

"questions" in this task-based framework insures that the level of abstraction, at which each is stated, conforms to the tactical problem at hand;

that is, the resulting "answers" prescribe the level of detail required

for successful task completion. To the extent that task structures, such

as the one illustrated in Figure 1-2, can be codified by tactical doctrine, the present approach can enable the identification of both the

categories of information to be included on the map as well as the level

of detail required by the user.

At present, the answers to many task-based questions are not evident

from standard topographic or even special purpose map products. Such

questions, therefore, may prove useful in uncovering information deficiencies of conventional maps as well as suggesting new requirements for

future development efforts. A task-based approach, however, can most

likely generate requirements that are not always amenable to graphic

portrayal (e.g., timely weather information would be difficult to portray

due to technical limitations). Thus, while some tactical questions may

never be adequately answered by a map, a task-based analysis will offer

the map maker a relatively complete inventory of what the user actually

needs. In summary, an in-depth analysis of representative map use

"questions" may prove to be a valuable technique for specifying detailed

information requirements and, as a result, optimizing the match between

user needs and the map content.

The description and results of each task analysis are presented in a

separate exhibit which includes summary tables that highlight the

component task information needs and point out related adequacies and

inadequacies of the information content of standard topographic maps; I

an index to the exhibits appears on Page iii.

1-5
V44 to

44

WI-Z

o to

0 4

a..

VV

too

I-z

0W -

I- gZ4

=U - * uj~o

% V

10~ CV) I4A.

I- ~ 0

1-
1.2.4 Implications for Military Map Development (Chapter 4). The

comprehensive map-related information requirements, derived for the

tactical tasks sampled, were synthesized to identify those specific

needs (information categories and levels of detail) which show either

prominent commonality or uniqueness with respect to different tasks

arifuser groups. In particular, emphasis was placed on map information

requirements involving vegetation, road networks, and built-up areas.

Within the framework of these task-based comparisons, the systematic

projection of integrated guidelines for the development and evaluation

of improved military maps is illustrated. In addition, reference is

made to alternative, innovative methods of portraying map-related

information. Rather than to be interpreted definitively as recommendations for what information should be portrayed on military maps,

the guidelines given are intended to be examples of the types of

implications that can be derived from the task-based analysis of

map information requirements.

1-7
2. RATIONALE FOR TASK-BASED APPROACH

2.1 Introduction

Military maps provide representations of environments of military interest.

Their primary purpose is to provide information about the area mapped so

that a user can analyze the environment (e.g., terrain) well enough to plan

and/or conduct operations within it. As such, the maps are designed to

contain information at various levels of detail concerning selected elements

in the environment. However, the user is rarely expected to rely upon the

map alone in performing a task; rather, the user usually will combine use of

the map with other sources of knowledge such as experience, reconnaissance,

in intelligence (e.g., aerial photographs) and the like.

Therefore, one of the most basic problems in military cartography is

deciding what features of the environment to include on a map. At the very

outset, the map maker must answer two important questions:

(1) What categories of information should I include?

(2) What level of detail should I use?

A case in point is the map maker who decides to portray vegetation and is

then faced with the question of whether to indicate various types of vegetation, and if so, at what level of detail. Such decisions are basic to

the map-making process since they determine whether the final product will

meet the map user's needs.

In addition, the size and complexity of the cartographic database indirectly

regulates the perceptual clarity of the resulting map product. Unfortunately,

there are at present no agreed-upon guidelines for the identification of

essential cartographic information. The problem is particularly acute in

2-1
the development of military maps where the amount of relevt tactical

information can easily overwhelm even the experienced map user (cf Potash,

1976). The following excerpt from an Engineering Topographic Laboratories

(ETL) survey of user requirements seems fairly typical:

"Most expressions regarding (map) data needs are usually

couched in generalities whether the source is contained

in the literature or is derived from personal comunication. With few exceptions, critical threshold values of

terrain-related effects on specific functions are vague

or nonexistent." (ETL, 1973)

The objective of this chapter is to provide the technical background for

a task-based technique for identifying cartographic information requirements which may help overcome the limitations of previous user surveys.

Briefly, the approach calls for the dissection of complex map use tasks

into their corresponding subtask components, so that map information needs

can be determined according to task-based requirements.

The present chapter continues with a general discussion of map development

issues (Section 2.2) which will include review of relevant literature. The

subsequent section focuses upon trends in current military map development

(Section 2.3). Finally, the chapter ends with the summary and conclusion

statements (Section 2.4).

2.2 Map Development Issues

The general problem of making a map is that of creating a representation

that will allow an individual to gain information about a place and/or

situation. To state this in the general case, map-making involves:

2-2

_____
the use of a set of operations which translate information

taken from the spatial environment into an organized

representation, so that at a later date, this representation will be useful to us. (Downs and Stea, 1977, p. 62 --

underlining added for emphasis.)

There are a number of critical issues implicit in this definition. One

is the inherent choice of which information from the spatial environment

will be included in a representation and which will not. Another is the

necessary decision as to how this spatial information will be organized,

by itself and in terms of its relations to the spatial environment. A

third is the critical decision of how the "usefulness" or effectiveness

of different choices of environmental information and styles of organization should be compared.

Maps are designed to be used. It is thus crucial that map makers consider,

from the beginning, the needs of the ultimate map user. This requires that

the map maker become a bit of a psychologist, so as to deal with the display of information within a human framework of comprehension and understanding. Kolacyn (1969) phrased this concern well when he suggested that

a map must satisfy the consumer's needs and interests, that it must be

easily readable and understandable, that it must be attractive, and that it

must be emotive as well as rational. Muehercke (1972) echoed these sentiments when he asserted that maps should change their emphasis from

"physical to social," from "interesting to relevant," and that, in order

to fulfill their purposes, maps must be considered within a human context.

What does this mean to the map maker? First, it suggests a careful consideration of basic human perceptual and cognitive capabilities. Second, it

requires an acknowledgement of the fact that many map users are not very

well trained in map use. Third, it invites creativity in the design of

maps that will insure, or at least enhance comprehension. Fourth, it

2-3
dictates a consideration of the different limitations of map users; for

example, poor spatial relations, short attention spans, and poor imagery.

Finally, it calls for the personalization of maps wherever possible, and

suggests the use of multiple representations to provide the redundancy

required by most users.

2.2.1 A Process Model of Mapping

To better understand the aspect of the mapping process to which the present

research is addressed, a look at a simple flow diagram would be helpful.

Figure 2-1 presents an abstract model of the mapping process taken from

Hooper (1979). Although this basic scheme was intended to describe mapping

in general, it applies equally well to the fundamental processes involved

in the development of military maps and their uses. In brief terms, the

mapping process begins with the environment and ends with plans for action,

based on maps, taken in this environment. Of particular interest, however,

to the goals of this research is the very first portion of the model,

namely the environment, the data base, and the transformational process

of data selection that mediates between them. Because of the sequential

nature of the development process, these first steps are of critical

importance since all subsequent steps are based upon them.

2.2.2 The Environment

The environment consists of all the information that is available for

sampling in making a map. It includes, for example, sets of elements

(e.g., mountains, trees, rivers, bridges, soil, ditches, buildings, etc.),

the locational relationships between elements (e.g., bridge placements,

distances between trees, etc.), perceptual descriptions of elements (e.g.,

shape, size, height, color, etc.), and information concerning environmental

change (e.g., climate and seasonal effects, wind, etc.). Information must

be selected from this world to be mapped and then structured/organized to

2-4
MAKING A MAP USING A MAP

FIGURE 2-1. THE MAPPING PROCESS

2-5
establish a data base of those elements and element configurations that

are to be portrayed on the map. The sampling and storage of environmental data rely on such practical techniques as aerial photographs

(Berlin, 1971), ground level surveys, and the use of remote sensors

(Ralsheusky, 1970; Price, 1975).

2.2.3 Selection of Data Base Elements

To be useful, data included in an environmental data base must be meaningful to a map user. Usually, it will be the function of the map maker to

select which elements from the envrionmental data base are to be included

in the map presentation, as well as to dictate how elements chosen for

representation will be displayed to insure comprehension in particular

instances. Unfortunately, however, there are no precise rules available

for the choice of environmental elements or map elements in the desired

form of:

...if there exists a particular environment X, to map for

purpose Y, then include environmental elements e1 , e2, .. .en

using representational elements r,, r2, .. .rn.

While we are awaiting the development of such systematic rules, map

makers must continue to rely upon intuition, upon the examination of

examples, and upon scattered research. In the following paragraphs,

selected research relevant to the choice of environmental and map elements

is discussed.

The simplest approach to choosing items for map representation is to

include all known elements of an environment. In most situations this

approach is impractical, either because of the costs of data gathering,

or because of the limitations of the map presentation format. Yet, even

if these obstacles were eliminated, a nonselective approach would be

2-6
generally ineffective. The reason for this is that a map--especially

a military map consulted in a battlefield situation--is used to support

the accomplishment of a particular task be it planning, reconnaissance,

self-navigation of whatever. And, of course, within the context of this

task, some elements in the environment will be relevant and others will

not. The specific map-use task, therefore, can be viewed as the guiding

force in helping map developers select information for inclusion in the

map data base. In fact, for most situations, it is the function of a

map to develop conceptual understanding through selection of relevant

attributes and presentation of appropriate information. I

As an example, consider the inclusion of pictorial information in maps.

Such information explicitly represents perceptual characteristics of an

environment, in addition to its general spatial relations; it provides

users with a realistic sense of an environment as well as a spatial

characterization. Ancient maps included a large amount of pictorial

information--at the extreme showing ships at sea, monsters, beautiful

damsels, and fair young knights. Similarly, ancient Chinese scrolls

represented entire journeys in detail. Many modern representations, including the maps in the Michelin Guides and the pictorial displays prescribed by Lo (1973), have continued this tradition. They show detailed,

three-dimensional characteristics of objects, in addition to providing

two-dimensional displays of their location. In many ways, these kinds of

presentations subscribe to a non-selective approach to map making. Yet,

it is important to note that these representations are not totally

realistic nor all-inclusive. Just as pictorial maps accent selected

locational attributes, these maps accent certain perceptual characteristics

and not others. In addition, their very nature makes them ineffective for

many purposes. Southworth (1970), for example, showed that though

pictorial maps were preferred by map Users, and though they worked well

in tasks that required maps to be related directly to visual scenes, plan

2-7
views of a city were more efficient for route planting than were pictorial

maps, and they were easier to use for such tasks.

2.2.4 Map Information Abstraction

It seems, then, that in many instances of map making, environmental information should be abstracted; that is, there are instances in which details

should be omitted and certain aspects emphasized, and all this should be

done in due consideration of purpose. Wright (1947) suggested this in his

comments which described the tasks of the geographer to be a portrayal

which is done "with aesthetic imagination in selecting the emphasizing

aspects of the region that are distinctive or characteristic" (p. 6).

Imhof (1963) described this similarly as he stated that the cartographer's

task is to "transform, emphasize, eliminate, summarize, exaggerate, and

enlarge certain things," and that "in spite of the miniature detail, the

map should highlight the principal focus of the landscape and also some

characteristic details, and important features, such as main roads"

(p. 17). Potash (1977) further states that these processes of selection

and emphasis operate currently in even the most standard map making, since

features that are too small to be drawn to scale, for example, will be

either deleted or magnified, depending upon their importance to the

purpose of the map.

Within standard mapping practice there is a recognized need for information

summarization or generalization. Rhind (1973) for example, describes a

number of elaborate techniques for reducing line sinuosity (roads and

rivers), feature transportation (a way to deal with overlapping features

at small scales), amalgamation of datatypes (to show environmental data

as categories), and feature elimination (which mainly relies on amalgamation). However, these generalizations have been developed to deal with

scale changes, and to minimize drawing costs. It is not clear how effective

2-8
these changes are for map users. Yet, Watson (1970) has provided a number

of excellent examples which caution that generalizations must be based

on the purpose of maps. He describes, for example, how information about

the condition of road surfaces, height and density of vegetation, the

availability of water, the composition and nature of the ground surface,

and the traversibility of specific routes is lost with generalizations.

And he asserts that this loss is "to the detriment of the derived map and

to the disadvantage of the map-user" (p. 32). However, there are presently

no well-documented rules for the inclusion or emphasis of particular

environmental features in map presentations which can guide generalizations

and make them beneficial to the user. This is partly due to the fact that

maps have been typically made to serve multiple purposes. Because of

practical considerations, therefore, the general rule has been to include

anything that might be of use and which fits on the map. The technologies

which allow the generation of more special-purpose maps are likely to

force this issue to be attacked systematically.

From a military perspective, the abstraction process may provide an effective strategy for compressing discrete tactical and/or geographic concepts

into laiger conceptual chunks. For example, the availability of terrain

concealment can be portrayed by two different graphic symbols to preserve

a distinction between concealment for tanks and tactical operating centers;

or more generally, a single symbol can be used to denote concealment for

any tactical purpose. Since the geographic criteria for concealment are

more restrictive for tanks or tactical operating centers, the availability

of concealment as graphically portrayed may be necessarily diminished by

a singular category. The point is that information abstraction erases

conceptual distinctions in the interests of map simplification. However,

the resulting conceptual data base may or may not afford an adequate degree

of information specificity depending on the tactical purpose at hand.

2-9

_d
The use of abstraction (to simplify map content) and emphasis (to highlight

important features) has found widespread theoretical and empirical support.

For example, Granda (1976) studied map-based tactical performance

and showed that although detailed maps were preferred, no significant

differences in performance, amount of information requested, or time taken

for particular mapping tasks were observed between subjects using standard

maps and those using reduced detail maps. Similarly, enhancement that made

important features, such as rivers, roads and mountains appear distinct

was shown to improve map performance, and to be preferred by map users

(U.S. Army, 1974).

2.2.5 Specification of User Requirements

Once it is accepted that not all the available information needs to be

represented, and instead information must be selected for particular

purposes, the critical map-process task becomes the identification of

relevant environmental elements to be portrayed. An approach to such

identification is to simply ask map users what kinds of information they

would like included on a map. This technique has been used often, and has

generated a good amount of data. One study of pilots (Huizar, 1972, as

cited in Potash, 1977) showed that pilots want information included in

maps about the surfaces and widths of roads, apparently elements that they

find important in navigation. They also want information about the amount

of vegetative cover, because they can use this information in locating

themselves. Another study of pilots (McGrath and Borden, 1969) observed

that pilots request information that helps them to interpret contours; they

asked for explicit descriptions such as "depressions," "cuts," and "fills"

instead of contour lines or less specific descriptions. Pilots also

indicated that water bodies, water courses, and paved roads were important

to their orientation.

2-10
In studies of maps for common (i.e., nonmilitary) usage, Zannaras (1973)

found that traffic lights, open spaces, churches, and shopping centers

were important for navigation in urban areas, though the saliency of each

of these features varied across different cities. Shepard and Adams (1971)

in a study uf British road users, found that hills, railways, bridges,

turns and junctures were important features in the description of routes.

In another study of British road users (forty percent of whom were lorry

drivers), Astley (1969) found that these users would like eating facilities

and other services marked on the map as well as road-worthiness. They

would also prefer if unnecessary information, like churches and rivers and

ancient monuments and railways were removed from the map. The lorry driver,

in addition, would like heavy haulage maps to show low bridges, tight bends

and weight restrictions. As Astley states, "it seems from these results,

that many current road-maps show more of the things road-users say they

do not want than those they want" (p. 130).

The studies which have elicited user judgments suggest that map makers

should choose environmental elements based upon descriptions of mapping

tasks and particular user perspectives. However, as argued by Farrell (1977),

the validity of user statements of what information they need or prefer

on their maps may be questionable, since it cannot be assumed that user

preference and performance are Positively related. In fact, studies which

have correlated map content 1,ith user preferences have found the latter to

be rather poor predictors ef eventual map performance (e.g., Granda, 1976; see

Farrell, 1977). Consequently, because of the difficulty of arriving at

conclusive generalizations based on highly subjective data, other indicators of the importance of environmental elements should also be considered

in the selection of information for inclusion on maps. One alternative

method for selecting important environmental features is to determine

which environmental information is perceived and remembered by people who

move around effectively in a certain area. For example, as Lynch (1960)

2-11
suggests, if residents of an area recall landmarks such as tall buildings

and busy intersections, these should be included on a map to communicate

the resident's view to the stranger. This approach was applied by Hooper

and Cuff (1976); they selected perceptual features chosen by residents of

the environment to be mapped. Although this method does not deal with

the mapping tasks of particular users, it does provide map developers

with some general guidelines for feature inclusion.

Probably, the most powerful and revealing method of establishing, or

at least validating, user information requirements is via empirical studies

of map-based performance. Already a number of studies are emerging in the

military psychology literature which address relevant independent and

dependent variables. For example: Wheaton, et al., (1967) assessed the

effects of various map variables, including production techniques, on user

localization and orientation accuracy as well as the speed and accuracy of

feature identification; Granda (1976) investigated the level of map detail

in task-performance time and level of ancillary information requested on

tactical decision-making effectiveness; Farrell (1977) assessed the

effectiveness of various terrain portrayal formats on user performance

time and accuracy to complete the Relief Format Assessment Task; and

Ciccone, Landee and Weltman (1978) compared the effectiveness of a computergenerated movie map versus a conventional map on map performance skills

such as self-localization, orientation and topographic knowledge. Clearly,

the results of such experiments can provide valuable data to support

decisions concerning map information content and development.

2.3 Determination of Tactical Map Requirements

At this stage, it would be useful to turn from the discussion of maps in

general to the specific topic of military map development. In approaching

development guidelines for improved map products, a look at some current

2-12
map-development trends within the Army might prove helpful. The large

extent to which the Army is both concerned about and involved in map-related

projects has been noted in a survey conducted by ARI researchers in 1978.

In particular, reference will be made to efforts being performed by the U.S.

Army Intelligence School (USAICS) and the Army Engineering Topographical

Laboratories (ETL). USAICS is working on the creation of special-purpose

overlays as instructional tools for students of military intelligence;

these tools are part of a set of graphic aids termed "Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB)." ETL, in parallel, has been researching

the need for experimental products to support military geographic intelligence operations.

With respect to military cartography, concensus in the identification of

geographical and/or tactical information requirements represents a fundamental problem. Conventional data collection efforts have focused on the

identification of geographic features for general-purpose map use. More

recently, battlefield information requirements have been developed on a

case-by-case basis for specific user group functions (e.g., armor operations, ETL, 1973). The transition from multi-purpose to special-purpose

map applications has produced a corresponding change in data base requirements. In addition to standard topographic information, special purpose

products for military operations often portray the results of terrain

intelligence analysis (e.g., avenues of approach). The rationale for this

development is to simplify map interpretation and tactical inference by

relieving the user of what is often a difficult mental transformation.

Although the conversion of geographical information into terrain intelligence is not yet standardized, a number of procedures are widely accepted

(IPB, 1977; FM 30-10).

2-13
2.3.1 Map Information Structure

The procedure developed by IPB outlines terrain factors relevant to

various intelligence concepts. Each terrain factor is then decomposed

into relevant subfactors, some of which are further divided into subelements. Figure 2-2 provides an example showing that the intelligence

concept of "enemy avenues of approach" depends on information across

several terrain factors. For illustrative purposes, one of these

factors, vegetation, is broken down into its constituent terrain subfactors and subelements. Vegetation, of course, represents a terrain

factor that is relevant to intelligence concepts other than "ground

avenues of approach," for example, "cover," "concealment" and "obstacles."

In examining these new developments directed at portraying raw terrain

data in terms of its implications for battlefield oeprations, it becomes

evident that the process of information analysis takes on a hierarchical

structure. In other words, the process proceeds in a top-down fashion

extending from high-level tactical intelligence to concrete information

items. At the top of the structure there are tactical concepts such as

avenues of approach which are decomposed into factors like vegetation

which in turn are broken down into subfactors such as vegetation spacing

and size. Thus, the hierarchical arrangement of the structure proceeds

from the abstract tactical concept to the specific details of the battlefield terrain which impact upon the concept. This structure can be termed

task-based because the flow of information and its classification is

arranged in accordance with the purposes that the information is called

upon to serve. Each concept has associated with it task-related knowledge at various degrees of abstraction, and the basis for this knowledge

is raw data about the terrain. For example, "concealment" can be expressed

separately for men, equipment and installations, or alternatively, only

terrain which affords concealment for all three can be identified. Higher

2-14
see

a.. a

1-4

000

see Co

V2-15

--- Now
levels of abstraction could result in increasingly simpler map information

requirements which provide less specific information. In summary, the

derivation of map-related tactical information requirements involves the

specification of the level of information abstraction needed for the

accomplishment of specific tasks (e.g., object concealment in general vs.

concealment for men, equipment and installations in particular).

Furthermore, various concepts may be differentially relevant to different

unit functions and tasks. For example, knowledge of obstacles to tracked

vehicle movement may be useful to an armor unit but relatively useless

to a planner assessing helicopter landing areas. In order to systematically assess the relevance of information to specific military operations,

an in-depth analysis of requirements for specific tactical tasks is

necessary.

2.3.2 ETL Map-Development Approach: A Case Study

In approaching the development of guidelines for special/general purpose

and simplified map making, it would be helpful to examine a method the

military has employed toward meeting this goal. The analysis of a current

map development project which intended to improve upon cartographic products should offer insight into the potential advantages and disadvantages

of a given research strategy. In addition, the discussion in this section

can serve as a fitting backdrop for the presentation in the subsequent

sections of the application of the task-based approach toward the development of guidelines for improved map design.

For several years, the Army Engineering Topographic Laboratories (ETL)

has been researching the need for special purpose topographic products to

support the use of existing general purpose maps in military operations.

2-16
One effort (ETL, 1973) focused on the development of experimental military

geographic intelligence products necessary to support armor operations.

The major premise of the project was that the subject content, format, and

symbolization associated with the experimental products should be derived

from knowledge of the functions or activities performed by armor operations.

Method

To determine the needed support materials, ETL began by delineating the

organization and missions of an armor operation, which are, in general,

offensive in nature and designed to close with and destroy the enemy.

Since armor is a highly mobile, organizationally flexible force capable

of quickly adapting to changing battlefield situations, an extensive amount

of terrain-related data is needed to portray all armor activities. Displaying all of this information on one graphic (i.e., standard, special

purpose or simplified map or overlay) would be overwhelming. A more

functional approach would be to portray only the major activities of armor

and the terrain-related data needed to support such operations.

The development of the experimental products was divided into two phases.

Phase one involved a background analysis which was primarily intended to

determine the major armor activities and the terrain-related information

requirements necessary to support the operation. Phase two of the project

dealt with the design and evaluation of the armor-related products.

Background Analysis

The technical approach included interviews of armor officers and observation of a field training exercise for student armor officers. Ascertaining

user requirements of the armor operation provided a somewhat difficult

2-17
task: In the field there is rarely a "pure" armor operation since the

activity of cross-attaching with infantry to form combined arms teams is

the normal practice; thus, a complete list of armor operations requiring

terrain data included some elements common to both armor and infantry.

Based on their analysis, however, ETL was able to determine the broad

activities of an armor operation to be FIND, FIX, FIGHT and FINISH the

enemy. A sublist of activities derived from the previous list included

such items as locating sites suitable for defensive positions, locating

potential ambush sites and evaluating fields of fire.

ETL conceptualized map-related information as either factual or interpretative inputs. Factual inputs can be determined from existing topographic maps, photographs, etc. An example of a factual input item is a

"stream" which is known to be perrenial or intermittent. Interpretative

inputs, on the other hand, may be viewed as the result of an evaluation.

For example, vehicular cross country movement (CCM) is an interpretative

input to a map. CCM represents the evaluation of slope, vegetation, soil,

weather and their interactive relationship on the off-road movement capability of a particular vehicle. Additionally, there exists a vast amount

of quantitative information which is useful in evaluating terrain information for specific activities. An example of quantitative data is the fact

that a tank can negotiate a slope as steep as 60%; or further, if the

slope is composed of sand, it will be impassable if greater than 30%.

Product Design

The second phase of the ETL project was concerned with the design of the

armor-related map products. Several experimental products were prepared

involving a standard topographic on the front side (either 1:50,000,

1:100,000, or 1:250,000) and special purpose graphics presentations on

the back side. Thus, the front of each of the experimental instruments

2-18
contained varying amounts of factual input items. For example, all of

the front maps contained detailed bridge information; however, the

inclusion of additional features, such as weather and slope conditions,

varied from map to map. The back of four of the maps served to display

interpretative items. CCM was displayed on the back of all of the maps;

however, the inclusion of additional relevant features, such as obstacles,

cover and concealment, again varied from map to map.

Experimental-Product Evaluation

Following the preparation of the experimental products, an evaluation of

each of the maps was made on the basis of a user survey of faculty and

students of the Armor School at Fort Knox, Ky. The evaluation of the

content and design of each map was addressed by a separate questionnaire

where respondents were asked to rate each information item (e.g., "portrayal of slope;" "information on soils") as "very useful," "useful" or

"not needed." Additionally, respondents rated the improvement, or lack

of improvement, resulting from the design changes compared with conventional maps. The following is a summary of the evaluation results concerning map information requirements:

(a) Information pertaining to movement problems (barriers,

corridors, fords, streams, bridges and roads) was considered

very useful by respondents.

(2) Interpretative interpretations or predictions (e.g., CCM, %

canopy closure, fields of fire, line-of-sight) were considered

useful but not essential.

(3) Highlighting of high ground was considered very useful for

reconnaissance work as was the portrayal of slopes.

(4) The experimental products most favored by the respondents

were:

2-19
(a) A 1:50,000 scale map portraying high ground, hydrography,

bridges, fords, terrain units, and avenues of approach.

(b) Four 1:50,000 graphics portraying (1) road network

drainageways, bridges and fording sites; (2) CCM and

high ground; (3) generalized slope and vegetation; (4)

cover and concealment.

The results of this evaluation provided the guidelines for the formulation

of a second generation experimental product. The second generation graphic

consisted of a standard topographic map on the front and four special

purpose graphics on the back. The four graphics addressed: (1) vegetation

and maneuver; (2) terrain and sensors; ,3-) photomap; (4) line of transportation. The field testing and preference evaluation of these products will

further refine the map requirements and preferences for armor units.

Comments

The ETL project offered a plausible preliminary approach toward establishing

a methodology for developing special purpose products to support military

operations, and a number of interesting results were obtained with practical

implications for military map design. However, user preference for map

information was indicated for generalized, interpretive information rather

than for highly detailed factual information. One armor officer who was

interviewed pointed to the apparent weakness of this approach by stating:

"It i; more realistic to indicate that cross country movement for tracked

vehicles is difficult due to thick woods, rather than indicating an A1113

can go 10 km/hr over certain terrain."

The ETL methodology did not provide a specific echelon context in which

the respondents evaluated map information. Specifically, echelon (e.g.,

Corps, division, etc.) and user designation (e.g., S-3, G-1, Commander, etc.)

2-20

A=. , ~
were not defined. As pointed out by Wheaton, Zavala and Van Cott (1967):

"Maps are utilized differently at various command levels.

At required regimental or battalions staff levels, maps

may be primarily utilized for operations planning and the

"mapping" of strategies. At the company or platoon level,

however, a much more detailed, tactically oriented use of

the map may be required. Similarly, an infantry company

and a company of engineers may be assumed to use a map

for altogether different purposes and in substantially

different ways."

Since, the objectives and nature of map use can be expected to differ

markedly across echelon of command and user group (even within the same

military unit, e.g., armor), the specification of information requirements

must take user distinctions into consideration. Thus, a systematic

analysis of map information requirements should span a range of mapdependent tasks and users.

Furthermore, to determine user preference, ETL utilized a three-item

classification scheme in which respondents were asked to rate items as

either "very useful," useful," or "not needed." This type of categorization provides a rather insensitive measure of preference, and an additional problem is that the term useful has two dimensions. One may view

usefulness of an information item in terms of the criticality of the

information. On the other hand, usefulness may be viewed as the frequency

of usage of the item of information. Thus, by employing the broad classification of usefulness, it was not possible to distinguish to which

dimension respondents were replying.

Perhaps, the most important comment that can be made with respect to the

ETL study is that map-related information requirements were determined in

a relatively context free manner. Although, the domain of military operations was specified (i.e., armor), the elicitation and evaluation of

2-21
information requirements was performed independent of any specified

tactical task. Hence, the expression of data needs may have been too

vague because the scenario for data collection specified task requirements in a very general rather than in a very specific manner.

Despite the shortcomings noted above, the ETL project offered a significant advance toward the development of improved user oriented map products.

By developing products to support specific military operations, the research effort focused attention on fulfilling map user needs. Utilizing

the efforts of the ETL project as a basis, future research may further

refine techniques for determining more specific user-based map information

requirements. As demonstrated in the next chapter, one way of accomplishing this goal is to start with somewhat general tasks and then decompose

each into its specific constituent subtasks; the latter can then be used

as a basis for specifying map information requirements.

2.4 Summary and Conclusions

A basic problem in developing improved military map products is deciding

what information to include in the map content. Historically, map content has been determined by the preferences of map makers and users.

Such an approach, because of its subjectivity, does not offer sufficient

aid to the map maker in developing a product which will assist the user

in the performance of map-related tasks. In order to define such requirements, a task-based methodology for isolating key items of battlefield

information appears especially appropriate. The goal is to establish a

clear linkage between the functional content in which maps are used and

the content offered to the user.

To put the matter more simply, military maps must provide battlefield

decision-makers with ready "answers" to complex tactical "questions."

2-22
The problem, therefore, becomes one of deciding what information is needed

to answer these questions. For example, the map user may need to identify

potential enemy avenues of approach. This task may be stated in question

form as "Where can I expect the enemy to come from?" Having identified

a tactical question that the map is to help "answer," the problem remains

of deciding how much information detail to include. Thus, in response

to a question about enemy advance, maps might represent the answer at

different levels of information specificity, including, for example, all

off-road as well as on-road avenues of approach, or only off-road

approaches. At a still more detailed level, the user may want to distinguish the type of size unit which could be supported on each avenue

(e.g., motorized rifle regiment vs. armor platoon) and may, therefore,

need to know avenue widths, lengths, soil strength, etc. Each of these

different levels of information detail might conceivably be appropriate,

depending upon tactical circumstances.

2-23
3. APPLICATION OF TASK-BASED METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

To demonstrate the potential effectiveness of the task-based approach to

determining military map development guidelines, several examples of its

application are provided in this chapter. These examples are based on

the sampling and analysis of representative map-related tasks which are

commonly performed on the contemporary battlefield by selected users at

different echelons. While the discussions presented in this chapter do

not address all key map users at all relevant echelons, the selections

are intended to be representative of typical user-task combinations. For

each combination, an in-depth analysis is provided of the information

requirements associated with adequate completion of the map-related task.

The implications and conclusions drawn from these analyses are then presented in the subsequent chapter.

3.2 Task Selection Criteria

The modern battlefield is characterized by new sophisticated weaponry with

far greater lethality than available in past decades. While the weaponry

has undergone extreme change, the battlefield functions have remained

pretty much the same. The range of functions handled by the commander and

coordinating staff of the modern battlefield include: Command, Personnel

(G-1/S-1), Intelligence (G-2/S-2), Operations (G-3/S-3), Logistics (G-4/

S-4). Across these battlefield functions and the associated echelons of

command, several important specifically defined tasks are performed which

require the direct utilization of map-related information.

Since our goal was to apply the task-based methodology to illuminate

general adequacies and shortcomings of available standard topographic maps,

3-1
we tried to select tasks across as wide a range of function and echelon

as possible. The sample therefore includes representation of:

(1) battlefield functions from command through logistics;

(2) echelons from corps through company;

(3) G and S coordinating staffs.

In addition, tasks were considered only if they conformed to all of the

following general criteria:

(1) require a relatively substantial amount of map-related

information;

(2) frequently performed by basic units with common tables of

organization and equipment (TOE);

(3) reflect current staff organization and tactical doctrine

as described in FM 100-5 (Operations);

(4) do not require large amounts of specialized information

unique to a user group.

Thus, examples of two tasks included are the determination of enemy

avenues of approach by the G-2 (Division) intelligence officer and

the !:-lection of a one-ship helicopter landing zone by an S-3 (Battalion)

operations officer. Examples of tasks which were not included would be

image interpretation tasks (performed by the Military Intelligence

Battalion) because, although they rely heavily upon maps, they require

uncommon data-intensive, event-intensive information not usually needed

by other analysts.

3-2
3.3 Method of Information Specification

The first step toward the development of map information requirements

involved tactical role playing, in a manner similar to that employed by

Bowen, Halpin, Long, Lukas, Mullarkey and Triggs (1973). A tactical

scenario was developed which defined the Where, Who, When, and What of a

battlefield setting. Specifically, Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was

selected as the battlefield area, since the region provided a variety of

terrain information. The friendly unit selected for use in the scenario

was a mechanized infantry unit whose composition is that which is most

commonly found on the battlefield. A Soviet motorized rifle force was

chosen to represent the enemy contingent with its size varied as a

function of the echelon of the role player. For example, a Division G-2

would be concerned with a battalion and regiment size enemy force; however,

had a Battalion S-2 task been selected for analysis, the enemy force size

of concern would have been companies and platoons. The time frame of the

battlefield was defined as D-Day minus 6 days (meaning that there were

approximately 6 days to anticipated action) because it allows sufficient

time for a thorough analysis to be conducted of the battlefield situation.

Since combined arms team doctrine emphasizes the active defense, this

posture was adopted for the scenario.

To summarize, the following battlefield context was specified:

Where: FRG (area of Hof)

Who: Friendly forces - mechanized infantry unit

Enemy forces - Soviet motorized rifle unit

When: D-Day minus 6 days; fair weather, clear skies,

mild weather condition

What: Defensive posture; approximately 4-1 enemy to

friendly ratio.

3-3
Given the scenario discussed above, the military expert was then assigned

a user role (e.g., G-2), and echelon (e.g., division). The expert was

supplied with two standard topographic maps of FRG (1:50,000 scale,

1:250,000 scale), acetate overlays and grease pencils. At this point the

user was given a task to complete. For example, the G-2 was ordered to

determine the likely enemy avenues of approach into the division area of

responsibility. Figure 3-1 shows the completed overlay for enemy avenues

of approach. Informal notes were taken of the comments and procedures

employed by the G-2 to complete this task. After completion of the exercise, the notes were analyzed so as to provide useful details and insights

concerning the information requirements (procedures and considerations)

involved in the military task.

A role-playing exercise of this nature can present some difficulties when

the expert is performing a familiar task. In particular, the expert may

frequently be unable to relate many of the detailed elements and mental

computations which are instinctively performed with respect to the task.

Consequently, an observer1 participated in the exercise in order to attempt

to draw from the expert the very basic components involved in the completion of the tactical task. As an example, in determining the enemy

avenues of approach, the expert, with the help of the observer, decomposed

the information requirements into three subtasks: (1) to specify obstacles

to enemy movement; (2) to determine areas of sufficient size for enemy

movement; and (3) to identify the cover and concealment potential of the

latter areas. The analysis then proceeded at the subtask level.

Each subtask was decomposed into its most basic information content; for

example, obstacles to enemy movement were decomposed into slope, soil,

vegetation, river and built-up area obstacles. Each information item was

then analyzed to determine the minimum level of detail required (e.g.,

what detail is necessary to determine a slope obstacle to tank movement?).

1First author of this report

3-4
Detshln 1: 50 000 Hof A.p ei.M75 L53

PA OA, = UQA 33UTR

FIGURE 3-1. OVERLAY FOR ENEMY AVENUES OF APPROACH

3-5
Once the analysis of te exercise was completed it was reviewed by the

expert and revisions -- re made. An iterative process of review and revision

was continued until "ie final product reflected a complete and meaningful

task analysis acceptable to both the expert and the observer.

The task analysis was then subjected to military literature verification.

In some instances direct verification was possible. For example, the

slope obstacle to tracked vehicles information provided by the expert was

confirmed in Tactics, Techniques and Concepts of Antiarmor Warfare (FM 23-3,

1972) as the maximum slope ascending capability for specific vehicles.

Thus, specific and direct verification was made. A discrepancy arose in

this case when another source (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield,

1977) specified a different percent slope as an obstacle. Such a discrepancy

was noted in the information detail requirements, and both specifications

and their sources are listed.

While an attempt was made to obtain direct verification of all information

detail reported in this document, it was not always possible. In those

cases where direct verification was not available, inference from current

military doctrine served as the guideline. For example, according to one

contemporary tactician, "if you can be seen [on the battlefield] you can

be hit; if you can be hit, you can be killed" is a major force in military

doctrinal teaching. However, specifications of vegetation heights which

provide concealment are not available in the military literature. Thus,

the height of the object being concealed provided the information detail

requirements specified by this analysis. For example, concealment of the

Soviet T-62 was based on the height of the vehicle including the turret.

This research effort relied primarily upon the expertise of one military

tactician. 2 Although the approach used to specify information requirements

2Major Dennis R. Foley, former Tactics Author/Instructor at the U.S. Army

Command and General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas).

3-6
was based on the judgment of only one user, the level of detailed

analysis required a concentrated focus of intellectual effort for which

no standard operating procedures yet exist. By employing the role-playing

technique in the context of a simulated scenario, the analyst appeared to

be able to develop an adequate mental model of the hypothetical task situation, which increased the validity of his judgments. Nevertheless, it is

recognized that there are variations in the information and methods employed

for map-related task performance among users.

As the expert went along, it became evident that many of the specified

information needs were inspired from experience in commanding actual

combat operations, as opposed to being derived only from a deep understanding of classical military doctrine. Thus, it might be said that the

approach used here combined a little of both information elicitation

perspectives mentioned in the brief discussion of relevant literature

(Section 2.2); namely, user expectation (what should be needed?), and

user experience (what was actually needed?). Nevertheless, it should be

pointed out that the overriding concern of this information analysis

is not no much item-by-item accuracy, but rather the demonstration that

detailed functional requirements can be meaningfully determined for very

specific tactical tasks and their decomposed subtasks.

Some of the information detail requirements specified in the analyses to

follow cannot, by current state-of-the-art cartographic techniques, be

graphically portrayed in a practical way. For instance, the difficulties

inherent in the portrayal of up-to-date weather information, as well as

contour deviations of one meter are recognized. However, to have limited

user information requirements to information which can be currently

gathered and portrayed would most likely have rendered the knowledge obtained

by this effort incomplete in a very short period of time. One value of the

task-based approach is its sensitivity to user needs, independent of the

problems of obtaining and portraying information. Thus, some of the user

3-7

______________________I|
1 _ _ _ _ _ _

CL

I-a c c

cu >

C

I$-

IC L L

-J UL (u a

r- 41 r- MCfaa

co CL0m.SC

Vi ma)) I ~/I-- I

La, E 0E ~ 

V) 0 a. 

.0

=ci'V

)V)

L.JEO L.JEVII.

0C "0

~~3-8
information needs may not be able to be met now; yet as cartographic

techniques improve, the potential for portrayal of such information should

become more realistic (e.g., see Weltman, 1979).

3.4 Task Identification and Presentation

A total of seven tactical tasks were selected for analysis. These tasks

are defined in Table 3-1, which shows how they sdn the range of echelons

and users considered, and provides an index to their reference in the text.

Seven different user groups are represented (commander, G-l, G-2, G-3, G-4,

S-3, and cav squadron), and there are two tasks each at the corps and division levels, and one task each at the brigade, battalion and company levels.

The description of each task analysis is presented separately in the form

of a separate exhibit, 'labeled from A to G. The order of presentation of

exhibits is pretty much according to the extent of map-related information

required by the respective task, with the tasks presented first having the

most comprehensive map information requirements.

3.5 Exhibit Format

The format for the task analyses presented on the following pages is the

same for each of the seven user-task combinations. The title page of each

exhibit identifies the relevant user designation, echelon of command, and

tactical task; in addition, a hypothetical problem statement from the user

is provided. An analysis begins with a brief background section explaining

the general nature of the map-use task under consideration; this section

includes a table specifying the breakdown of the main task into component

subtasks and the relevant map use questions. Next, each subtask is discussed separately in terms of the information categories and levels of

detail required for successful accomplishment of the task. In particular,

information categories are decomposed into specific data requirements (i.e.,

level of datail needed).

3-9
TABLE 3-2. INDEX TO MAP INFORMATION CATEGORIES

INFORMATION CATEGORY: PAGE REFERENCE:

BREAKTHROUGH ATTACKS 3-29

BRIDGES

Load-Bearing Capacity 3-38, 3-67, 3-83

Overhead Clearance 3-39, 3-84

Width 3-39, 3-84

BUILT UP AREAS

Building Size, Height, Type 3-85

Location 3-28, 3-67

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 3-29, 3-63

FENCES 3-48

RIVERS/STREAMS

Current Speed 3-39, 3-84

Depth 3-27, 3-39, 3-84

Slope of Approach 3-39, 3-84

Vertical Banks 3-27

Width 3-27

ROAD NETWORKS

Classification 3-38, 3-66, 3-83

Condition 3-38, 3-66, 3-83

Curves 3-40

Gradients 3-40

Narrowing 3-40

Width 3-38, 3-66, 3-83

3-10

• ter.. - .. . . ....
INFORMATION CATEGORY: PAGE REFERENCE:

SLOPE 3-25, 3-26, 3-49,

3-50, 3-75

SOIL

Load-Bearing Capacity 3-49

Rating Cone Index 3-26, 3-57

Trackable 3-67

Climatic Impact 3-26, 3-57

SURFACE CONTOUR

Cover 3-30, 3-76

Ditches 3-48, 3-75

Gross Configuration 3-57

Predominance of Rocks 3-48

Vertical Obstacles 3-75

TELEPHONE AND POWER LINES AND POLES 3-49

VEGETATION

Canopy Closure 3-58

Clearability 3-50, 3-55

Concealment 3-29, 3-40, 3-67

3-76, 3-85

Cover 3-30, 3-76

Fields of Fire 3-75

Obstacle 3-27, 3-48, 3-50

ZONES OF ACTION -3-28

3-11
A summary table is then provided which includes the following highlights

for each subtask conponent (i.e., information category). First, the minimum level of detaii (i.e., classification) for required information is

specified, and doctrinal references are given. Those minimum level of

detail requirements not portrayed on currently-used standard topographic

maps are italicized to distinguish them from presently available information

items. Selective explanatory comments are added which are designed, for

the most part, to identify and justify instances where conventional maps do

not meet the user requirement details as specified by the sampled task.

In addition to the index to the exhibits (Table 3-1), Table 3-2 provides,

for the user's convenience, an alphabetic index to the information categories uncovered across tasks in the analyses.

3-12
3.6 Exhibit A

USER: TACTICAL OPERATIONS CENTER (TOC) INTELLIGENCE SECTION

ECHELON: DIVISION

TASK: DETERMINE ENEMY AVENUES OF APPROACH FOR A

SOVIET MOTORIZED RIFLE UNIT (REGIMENT OR BATTALION)

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"I can't telZ where the enemy

can drive his tanks."

3.6.1 Background

The assessment of enemy avenues of approach is especially important since

it represents one of the most complex and yet critical duties of the

intelligence staff. The minimum information required to evaluate enemy

avenues of approach will vary with the prominent feature of the battlefield terrain. For example, a G-2 evaluating enemy avenues of approach

into the Hof area of West Germany is not likely to be concerned with an

analysis of cover and concealment. He would be aware of the fact that

Soviet doctrine emphasizes movement along the fastest route toward our

command, control and communication centers. Thus, the G-2 would concentrate his attention on the identification of obstacles along road networks

leading to enemy objectives. If, on the other hand, the battlefield was

located in the Middle East and road networks were not a prominent terrain

feature, an in-depth analysis of other terrain features, such as cover

and concealment, would be required.

In determining routes the enemy is likely to travel, it is first necessary

to determine those routes the enemy is unlikely to travel due to terrain

constraints. As the G-2 eliminates those areas where the enemy cannot

3-13
move, he begins to narrow down the areas in which the enemy is capable of

moving. Having identified specific obstacles of enemy movement, the analyst

then moves on to consider various attributes of each potential route. For

example, he must evaluate the size of the force each route will support.

Finally, an analysis of cover and concealment is necessary.

An in-depth analysis follows of the procedures used by intelligence personnel to identify likely enemy avenues of approach. Three major subtasks are

involved in the analysis:

(1) Identify obstacles to movement.

(2) Identify areas sufficient for enemy movement.

(3) Identify areas of adequate cover and concealment.

Each of these subtasks can, in turn, be further subdivided into still more

basic map use questions. An overview of this extended question-based

task analysis is presented in Table 3-3.

3.6.2 Subtask Al: Identify Obstacles to Movement

The G-2 begins the analysis of likely enemy avenues of approach with the

identification of obstacles to enemy movement. The elimination of areas

which prohibit tank movement aids in the determination of likely paths of

enemy movement.

Slope as An Obstacle to Movement

Inconsistencies exist within the military literature as to how steep a

slope must be before it can be considered an obstacle to enemy movement.

Currently, 45% slope is accepted as the upper limit for tracked vehicle

movement (IPB, 1977; FM 5-36, 1970). However, available data indicates

that the Soviet T62 (their main battle tank) is actually capable of ascending

3-14
TABLE 3-3

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS FOR

EXHIBIT A

USER: Intelligence Section

ECHELON: Division

TASK: Determine enemy avenues of approach

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

Al Identify obstacles to A1.1 Are there any slopes enemy

movement vehicles cannot climb?

A1.2 Are there any areas where the soil

will not support tracked vehicles?

A1.3 Are there any vegetated areas

through which enemy vehicles cannot

pass?

A1.4 Are there any rivers which pose an

obstacle to enerm movement?

A1.5 Are there built-up areas which

will be an obstacle to enemy

movement?

A2 Identify areas sufficient A2.1 Where are enemy battalion and

for enemy movement regiment size zones of action?

A2.2 Are there areas of sufficicnt size

to support enemy battalion or

regiment breakthrough attack?

A3 Identify cover and conceal- A3.1 Where are the areas providing

ment adequacy of avenues of concealment for enemy tracked

approach vehicles?

A3.2 Where are the areas providing

cover for enemy tracked vehicles?

3-15
a slope gradient of 50% and that the Soviet BMP (their armored personnel

carrier) is capable of ascending slopes up to 62%. These estimates, however,

do not differentiate between the possible effects of bare versus vegetated

slopes. Maggart (1978) states that a bare slope of 60% will constitute an

obstacle to tracked vehicle movement and that this will be reduced to 32%

if the slope contains closely spaced trees of .14 meter trunk diameters.

Regardless of the exact slope one defines as an obstacle to movement, the

procedure for determining slope remains the same. The absence of direct

slope information on a standard topographic map requires the calculation

of slope from contour lines and elevation notations provided on the map.

Analysis begins by selecting two points along the avenues (generally, one

on either side of the width of the avenue). For each point contour lines

must be counted and elevation located. The vertical difference and

horizontal distance between the two points must be measured. The values

derived are then put into a mathematical formula and the result of the

calculation is the percent slope between the two points selected. Additional

sets of points are chosen along the avenue and the computations are repeated

until a picture of the slope emerges and the slope obstacles are identified.

The exact number of points sampled will depend primarily upon the time

available for the completion of the overall analysis of likely enemy avenues

of approach.

Soil as An Obstacle to Movement

The evaluation of soil trafficability is a rather complicated and timeconsuming process, yet it can be vital to a complete movement analysis.

There are two basic indices considered in soil trafficability. The first

index is concerned with a specific type of vehicle (vehicle cone index),

the other index is concerned with the nature of the soil (rating cone

index). The first consideration in the analysis is to identify specific

3-16
enemy vehicles for evaluation, since the analysis revolves around soil

trafficability for specific vehicles. For example, if avenues of approach

are being considered for a motorized rifle unit, the specific vehicles of

concern would be the Soviet T62 and BMP. Each vehicle has a vehicle

cone index which reflects the minimum soil strength required for that

vehicle to complete 50 passes over the soil (this approximates the movement of a battalion). The analyst can locate the vehicle cone index for

enemy vehicles in the technical intelligence files.

Once the vehicle cone index for the vehicle has been determined, the next

key informational item in the analysis is the soil rating cone index. This

index reflects the capacity of the soil to sustain traffic. Determination

of the rating cone index requires actual field testing of the soil. Since

this information is not provided on the standard topographic map, the

analyst must look to other sources. Generally, an attempt is made to

locate an expert on the soil conditions of the area. These experts might

be local authorities (e.g., territorial and/or civil engineers) or members

of the Engineer Topographic Battalion.

Before completing a soil evaluation the analyst must consider the impact

of current and predicted climatic conditions on the soil. Snow, ice or

rain may alter the trafficability of the soil as well as any conclusions

concerning likely avenues of approace. Thus, consultation with Air Force

Weather is necessary to obtain specific forecasts for the area in question.

The comprehensiveness and completeness of the soil evaluation will primarily

depend upon two factors. The first factor is locating the required

information. This is of particular concern when attempting to gather

reliable and accurate information about soil strength (i.e., rating cone

index). The second factor which will impact on the analysis is the time

available to complete the task of identifying the likely avenues of approach.

3-17
Hence, the more time and resources available to the analyst the more likely

it is that a comprehensive soil evaluation can be completed.

Vegetation as An Obstacle

Within the battlefield terrain, various types of vegetation constitute an

obstacle to the movement of tracked vehicles. Specifically, trees with

trunk diameters in excess of .22 meters will stop the movement of a medium

tank. In addition, tree spacing of less than 6.1 meters will prevent

tracked vehicle movement. Standard topographic maps provide certain classifications of vegetation. In general, standard topographic maps allow for

the differentiation of vineyards, orchards, scrub and woods-brushwood.

However, a wooded area may or may not be an obstacle to movement depending

upon the tree trunk diameters and the tree spacing. The level of detail

portrayed on the standard map is insufficient for determining vegetation

obstacles.

Since the required information is not available on the standard map, the

analyst must determine this information from other sources. A variety of

sources may be consulted, including aerial and sensor reconnaissance

findings, local authorities, and intelligence spot reports. Conducting a

ground reconnaissance for the area may also be necessary. Thus determining

vegetation obstacle information requires both time and resources if the

analysis is to be completed.

Rivers as Obstacles to Movement

When the battlefield terrain includes rivers, the analyst must determine

if any features of the rivers pose an obstacle to movement. There are

numerous features of rivers, any one of which may make a specific area of

the river an obstacle. One feature to consider is the river depth. A

3-18
&!

river deeper than 1.4 meters, for example, will cause the Soviet T62 to

stop and install its snorkeling outfit. This time-consuming activity

would slow the advance of n attacking force and possibly make them more

vulnerable to detection. Hence, when determining likely enemy avenues of

approach, river crossings which require enemy tanks to snorkel may be

considered an obstacle to movement. Another feature which could present

an obstacle to movement is the river width. River widths in excess of 5.5

meters require bridging, which is another time-consuming effort and hence,

an obstacle to enemy movement. In addition, tanks have a limited vertical

height-climbing capability of 1.2 meters. Therefore, vertical bank heights

of 1.2 meters will pose an obstacle to movement.

The river information contained on a standard topographic map is limited to

the location and direction of flow of the river, although some maps also

contain fording sites. To ascertain sufficient information to locate

river obstacles, the analysis relies upon a variety of sources other than

the standard map. Interpretation of ground and aerial photographs, as well

as sensor information, may provide useful data. Another source of information would be reports available from local authorities concerning rivers

in the area. Review of various weather-related reports and tables may

provide seasonal estimates of river depths for the area. If necessary, a

ground reconnaissance of the area could be conducted to determine the

necessary information. Ground reconnaissance, however, requires both time

and manpower. As in the case with other types of obstacle analysis, the

comprehensiveness and completeness of river obstacle analysis will depend

upon the resources and time available to the analyst.

Built-Up Areas as An Obstacle to Movement

An enemy avenue of approach which requires movement through a built-up area

is generally viewed as an unlikely route of movement. Hence, an analysis

of likely enemy avenues of approach requires the location of built-up area.

3-19

.. ... ,_ .... .....

U
Specifically, any built-up region of at lease one square kilometer in area

is regarded as an obstacle to movement. Additionally, smaller built-up

areas may be viewed as obstacles if two or more are located less than one

kilometer apart.

Small scale standard topographic maps (e.g., 1:250,000) provide outlines of

major built-up areas, as well as specific detail such as isolated farms.

Larger scale maps (e.g., 1:50,000) provide the location of all built-up

areas, regardless of size. Thus, the analyst is required to search the map

and locate those areas which are considered obstacles to movement. The knowledge of all built-up areas, regardless of size, is excessive detail for the

analysis of obstacles to movement. This represents a potential area where

standard topographic maps may be simplified without sacrificing necessary

information.

3.6.3 Subtask A2: Identify Areas Sufficient for Enemy Movement

The preceding analyses of obstacles to movement will yield a picture of the

areas where the enemy may advance and maneuver in a relatively unrestricted

manner. The next step in the analysis is to determine the enemy force size

which may be able to utilize those areas. When determining the force size

which may attack along an avenue of approach, a useful guideline is enemy

doctrine. While enemy doctrine may not be adhered to in an absolute sense,

it does represent the idealized way in which the enemy would like to fight.

For example, if a Soviet regiment is to conduct a breakthrough attack there

is a specific frontage width which is desirable for this action. Thus, the

analyst must be familiar with attack frontage widths for various size units

as specified by enemy doctrine. In general, the intelligence analyst will

be concerned with areas of potential action for the two enemy echelons below

his own. Specifically, a division analyst will focus his attention on areas

which can support Soviet battalions and regiments.

3-20
Zones of Action

A zone of action is the area of responsibility for a specific tactical unit.

Soviet attack zones of action, as noted by Maggart (1978), are 2 to 3 kilometers for a battalion, and 5 to 8 kilometers for a regiment. Thus, the

analysis will compare the doctrinal frontage widths with those of the

available avenues of approach. A standard topographic map does not provide

direct information about frontage widths. Completion of this subtask

requires the results of the previous subtask (i.e., identification of

obstacles to movement). Thus, having already eliminated areas of restrictive

movement, the analyst need only to measure the widths of the remaining areas

and compare these with the doctrinal frontages.

Breakthrough Attacks

Soviet breakthrough attacks concentrate the largest size force in the smallest

areas. Soviet breakthrough attack frontages, as noted in Maggart (1978)

are 1 to 1.5 kilometers for a battalion and 2 to 4 kilometers for a regiment.

The analyst will compare the widths of the available avenues of approach

with doctrinal frontages, the identification of these avenues will be

carried out in the same manner as stated for the determintation of zones of

action. To reiterate, a standard topographic map alone will be insufficient

for readily locating possible breakthrough attack areas.

3.6.4 Subtask A3: Identify Areas of Adequate Cover and Concealment

While ease of movement and maneuverability are prime considerations of

avenues of approach, cover and concealment may also play a key role. In

a battlefield area, protection from fire and observation are important

considerations. In general, a slower approach makes units more vulnerable

to observation and fire. Thus, an analysis of enemy avenues of approach

requires an assessment of the cover and concealment adequacy of the routes.

3-21
The assessment requires knowledge of the object to be covered and concealed,

since an area which may conceal a foot soldier may not conceal a tank. The

initial task description required avenues of approach for a motorized rifle

unit, thus, cover and concealment will be considered for an armored personnel carrier and battle tank.

Specific note should be taken that cover and concealment are not the same

thing. A given area may provide concealment but not cover. For example,

tall grass may conceal a tank, but offers no protection to the tank if it

is fired upon. Hence, the evaluations of cover and concealment are carried

out separately.

Concealment

Concealment is defined as protection from observation. Concealment may be

provided by specific vegetation features as well as climatic conditions.

For example, tall grass and woods may conceal a tank as may dense fog and

snow drifts.

Vegetation which could provide concealment for a tank must be greater than

3.7 meters in height. The standard topographic map does not directly

portray vegetation height information. The vegetation classification (i.e.,

woods, scrub, vineyards, orchards) may provide an indication of the concealment potential of an area. In general, woods are likely to be able to

conceal a tank, though this conclusion may in some instances be erroneous.

An accurate analysis would require the review of aerial photographs, sensor

reports and direct field observation. As in other instances, the comprehensiveness of the analysis will be dependent upon the available time and

resources.

3-22
In addition to vegetation, various climatic conditions may offer concealment

for a tank. For example, a route which contains dense fog during specific

times of the day could provide concealment for an advancing unit. Currently,

standard topographic maps do not provide weather information. The analysis

of weather-related concealment must rely upon historic, current and projected

climatic conditions of the area which may be provided by Air Force Weather.

This information may serve to indicate when and where climatic concealment

conditions, such as dense fog, may be expected.

Cover

Cover is generally defined as protection from the effects of fire. Terrain

which allows a tank to be in a hull-down position provides cover. For

example, cover may be provided by ditches, rocks or folds in the ground.

A standard topographic map (1:50,000 scale) contains 10-meter contour

intervals with supplementary 5-meter intervals. Unfortunately, a ditch

providing cover for a tank would not be visible on a standard map. The

lack of necessary detail on a standard map requires the analyst to order

ground reconnaissance of the area if this information is to be ascertained.

A map which would provide the analyst with the minimum level of detail

necessary to assess cover would require ctour intervals of 1 meter.

However, it is unlikely that this level of detail could be legibly portrayed on a standard 1:50,000 scale map, although this detail might be

legible on a 1:10,000 scale map. The inherent problem with the use of

such a scale map at the division level would be the number of maps

required to portray the echelon's area of interest and responsibility. An

alternative strategy might be for this detailed information to be included

in the database of TOS terrain file. The storage of this information would

allow ready access to the necessary level of detail required to assess

cover.

3-23
There is an additional dimension of battle cover which requires consideration. This dimension involves the line of sight potential of an area

providing cover. From a tactical standpoint it is essential for a tank

in a hull-down position to have sufficient line of sight to fire its

weaponry. The primary interference with line of sight is vegetation.

Unfortunately, the exact vegetation hoight which will interfere with the

firing of a weapon will depend on the contour of the area. For example,

the line of sight of a tank situated just below the crest of a hill could

be hindered from firing by 1-meter-height vegetation on the top of the hill.

This same vegetation would not interfere with the line of sight if located

further down the hill. Thus, specifying a given vegetation height as

interference to line of sight might be misleading, and in some cases,

inaccurate.

Currently, standard topographic maps do not provide direct vegetation

height information. Some indication of heights may be derived from the

vegetation classifications on the standard maps. For example, woods, in

most cases, are taller than scrub vegetation. However, this information

is lacking in specificity and might be misleading or inaccurate. Thus,

an accurate analysis of vegetation heights must rely on other sources,

such as field observation and interpretation of aerial reconnaissance

photographs to ascertain the necessary information.

The comprehensiveness of the analysis of cover adequacy will depend

primarily upon the time and resources available to the analyst. When

time or resources are limited, the analyst may have to make his "best

guess" about the cover adequacy; however, when time and resources are

available, an accurate, comprehensive study is feasible.

3.6.5 Summary

Table 3-4 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit A.

3-24

"-" ".. .. .... .. . -1 ... . .. . .. .WI1 1i.. ..... l ....
TABLE 3-4

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

AI.l Bare slopes Slopes greater than Contour intervals and elevawhich are im- 50% (maximum slope tion notations from which

passable to ascending capability slope may be calculated are

enemy tracked of Soviet T62*, FM provided. vehicles. 23-3).

Slopes greater than

62% (maximum slope

ascending capability

of Soviet BMP, FM

23-3).

Slopes greater than Slope in excess of 45% is

45% (NO GO slope defined as the NO GO catecategory, IPB). gory for a slope overlay in

the IPB draft report. This

obstacle definition is not

consistent with the maximum

slope ascending capability

of either the Soviet battle

tank or the armored personnel carrier. The IPB

report is unclear as to

whether this obstacle definition is to apply to bare

or vegetated slopes.

*The maximum slope ascending capability of the Soviet T70 is unavailable at

this time; when this information becomes available the minimum level of

detail requirements should reflect this vehicle as well as the T62 and BMP.

3-25
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

A1.1 Vegetated Slopes equal to or Sufficient detail to

slopes which greater than 32%, identify vegetation as an

are impassable which contain obstacle is not provided.

to enemy closely spaced trees

tracked of.14 meters

vehicles, trunk diameters (The

vegetation itself is

not an obstacle).

(Maggart, 1978).

A1.2 Soil which Soil Rating Cone RCI information is difficult

will not sup- Index (RCI) (FM to obtain due to time and

port tracked 30-10). resource limitations and, as

vehicle move- a result, is often omitted

ment. from terrain analysis.

Vehicle Cone Index The VCI for specific vehi-

(VCI) require- cles is found in technical

ments: intelligence files. The

portrayal of this informaSoviet T62 49 tion could present some

Soviet BMP 40 difficulties, since there is

(FM 23-3; FM a VCI rating for each

30-10). vehicle.

Climatic conditions The graphic portrayal of upwhich may alter to-date weather information

soil evaluation may not be feasible due to

(e.g., ice, snow, inherent variability in

rain) (FM 30-10). climatic conditions. The

portrayal of general weather

conditions on soil trafficability might be possible

and certainly useful.

3-26

oh
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

A1.3 Vegetation Tree trunk diameters The identification of

areas which greater than.22 wooded areas is possible

stop movement meters (IPB; with conventional maps.

of enemy (Maggart, 1978) However, when considering

tanks. the movement of tanks,

Tree spacing of knowledge of the location

less than 6.1 of woods does not indicate

meters (IPB; whether or not a tank can

Maggart, 1978). move through the area.

Trees with trunk diameters

of less than .22 meters

can be toppled by tanks,

thus are not considered

obstacles to tank movement.

A1.4 Rivers which Rivers greater than Currently, conventional

require the 1.4 meters in depth maps specify only river

installation (FM 23-3). locations and the direction

of special of the water flow. Some

equipment for maps also contain notations

crossing (i.e., of potential fording sites

snorkel out- but do not specify the

fit). vehicle which may cross

there.

A1.4 Rivers which River widths in Determination of river

require bridg- excess of 5.5 obstacles to enemy movement

ing to cross. meters (FM 23-3). requires the consultation

of other sources of inforVertical river mation.

banks greater than

1.2 meters in

height (FM 23-3).

3-27
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

A1.5 Built-up areas. Built-up areas equal Standard 1:50,000 scale

to or greater than maps provide detail of

1 sq. km in area all built-up areas regard-

(MOUT, draft). less of size. This level

of detail may exceed

Two or more built- minimum information requireup areas (less ments. Standard 1:250,000

than 1 sq. km in scale maps provide outlines

area) less than 1 of built-up areas as well

km apart (MOUT, as isolated farms. This

draft). level of detail seems adequate for task completion.

A2.1 Zones of

action: Area

of responsibility of a

specific

tactical

unit.

Battalion 2 to 3 km frontage Standard topographic maps

(Maggart, 1978). do not provide direct information about widths of

Regiment 5 to 8 km frontage potential approach routes.

(Maggart, 1978). However, an obstacle to movement analysis is a necessary

prerequisite to the graphic

portrayal of this information.

In addition, the required

level of detail varies as a

function of enemy force size.

Hence, the portrayal of this

information would necessitate

numerous maps to reflect the

various enemy force sizes.

3-28
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

A2.2 Breakthrough Standard topographic maps

attack: Concen- do not provide direct infortration of the mation about widths of

largest force potential approach routes.

into the small- However, an obstacle to moveest area. ment analysis is a necessary

prerequisite to the graphic

Battalion I to 1.5 km portrayal of this information.

frontage In addition, the required

(Maggart, 1978). level of detail varies as a

function of enemy force size.

Regiment 2 to 4 kan front- Hence, the portrayal of this

age (Maggart, information would necessitate

1978). numerous maps to reflect the

various enemy force sizes.

A3.1 Concealment: Veqetation greater The vegetation classificaTerrain which than 3.7 meters in tions provided on standard

prevents enemy height (FM 23-3) maps offer some indication

from being of concealment potential;

seen. however, they lack the

specificity required for an

accurate assessment

Climatic condi- Because of the inherent

tions conducive variability of weather,

to concealment portrayal of this informa-

(e.g., dense fog, tion may not be feasible.

snow drifts)

(IPB).

3-29
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-2/DIV/AVENUES OF APPROACH

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

A3.2 Cover: Terrain Contour deviations 1:50,000 scale maps contain

which allows a of 1 meter (FM 23-3). 10 meter contour intervals.

tank to be in 1:250,000 scale maps contain

a hull-down 50 meter contour intervals.

position with Neither of these scales

adequate line satisfies minimum level of

of sight. detail requirements. Portrayal of 1 meter contour

intervals would necessitate

a change in map scale if

the portrayal were to be

legible. This would require,

however, numerous additional

maps to display a division

area of interest. Detailed

information of this nature

might be a candidate for

inclusion in a TOS terrain

data file.

Vegetation heights An indication of height may

which interfere with be derived from the vegetaline of sight tion classification pro-

(specific heights vided on a standard map.

are dependent upon This information, however,

the contour of the lacks the specificity

area) (IPB). required for an accurate

evaluation.

3-30
3.7 Exhibit B

USER: TACTICAL OPERATIONS CENTER (TOC) G-4

ECHELON: CORPS

TASK: DETERMINE MAIN SUPPLY ROUTE (MSR)

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"I'm not sure if this road will

hold up under the traffic I

intend to put on it."

3.7.1 Background.

The effectiveness of a combat force is largely dependent upon its combat

service support. Since weapons systems and their crews must be maintained

and supported, even the most sophisticated weapon can be of no value

without ammunition. The role of combat service support is to arm, fuel

and fix the weapon systems, and to sustain the crew. Thus, the role of

combat service support is critical to success on the battlefield.

A detailed analysis follows of the map-related tasks involved in the

selection of a corps' main supply route (MSR). The two major subtasks

involved in the completion of this task are:

(1) Identify possible supply routes.

(2) Locate potential ambush sites along the possible routes.

As shown in Table 3-5, each of these subtasks may be further divided into

more basic questions.

3-31
TABLE 3-5

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS FOR

EXHIBIT B

USER: TOC G-4

ECHELON: Corps

TASK: Determine main supply route (MSR)

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

Bl Identify possible supply routes Bl.l Which roads can be used

by a supply convoy?

B1.2 Which bridges can be used

by the supply convoy?

B1.3 Are there any river crossings

which pose an obstacle

to the convoy?

B2 Locate potential ambush sites B2.1 where are the areas along

along possible routes. the routes where the convoy

will be forced to slow down:

B2.2 Where are the areas along

the routes which are likely

enemy ambush sites?

3-32
3.7.2 Subtask Bl: Identify Possible Supply Routes

Before selecting a supply route, the G-4 will first determine the location

of units requiring supplies and the type of supplies needed. Generally,

corps will supply the division support command (DISCOM). Frequently,

however, corps will be required to deliver special throughput (bypassing

DISCOM and directly servicing particular units). For example, corps may

be required to supply attack helicopters directly. Once the G-4 has

ascertained the needs and location of the units, the routes to these units

must be determined.

Road Networks

An existing road network 4s generally a preferred supply route, since it

is faster than cross-country routes. A basic requirement of any route

selected is that it be able to support the heaviest vehicles which are

likely to use it. Hence, the road must be able to support class 60

vehicles, due to the necessity for recovery of armored vehicles. This

information is not provided on the standard topographic map. To ascertain

this information, other sources such as local authorities or ground

reconnaissance will have to be consulted.

The main supply route (MSR) will be a heavily travelled road with traffic

frequently flowing in both directions. In addition, wide loads will often

be carried on the MSR. Thus, the width of the road is an important

consideration in route selection. Some conventional maps note road width

by the number of lanes. Other maps indicate width categories (e.g., 4-6

meters, more than 6 meters). These classifications, however, lack the

required specificity. For example, two-way traffic of tracked vehicles

requires a road width of over 8 meters; neither method of portrayal

3-33
provides this information. Thus, alternative sources such as reconnaissance must be consulted to ascertain road widths.

An additional consideration about the potential routes is their condition,

because road condition relates to the impact of weather on trafficability.

Currently, standard topographic maps provide road classifications such as

all, fair and dry weather roads. This type of classification is frequently

adequate for the task.

Bridges

When potential routes cross bridges, it is necessary to know certain types

of information about them. Specifically, the load-bearing capacity of

bridges must be such that it can support class 60 vehicles. Conventional

maps do not indicate load-bearing capacity information. However, some

maps do classify bridges based on their basic type of construction (e.g.,

wood, concrete, stone). This type of classification scheme may provide an

indirect indication of the load-bearing capacity. However, an analysis

based on this classification information might be misleading or inaccurate.

To determine the load-bearing capacity, a reconnaissance of the bridge

would be necessary.

In addition to load-bearing capacity, the completed analysis requires the

width and overhead clearance of each bridge specified. Before a route

is chosen, it is necessary to know that the convoy can "fit through a

bridge." This information is not available from the standard topographic

map. Hence, other sources, such as a bridge reconnaissance, must be

conducted to ascertain this information.

3-34
Rivers/Streams

When a route being considered as the MSR crosses an unbridged river or

stream, hydrographic information is required. Specifically, river depth,

current speed and the slope of approach must be ascertained. Since trucks

will be one of the prime users of the MSR, the hydrographic information

should reflect their fording capabilities. The fordable river depth for

trucks is .75 meters, and the maximum percent-of-slope for their approach

is 33%. Additionally, the speed of the current may affect trafficability,

and a complete analysis requires this information. The standard topographic map provides limited river and stream information; specifically,

river and stream locations and direction of current flow are portrayed.

To ascertain the required information, a reconnaissance will be conducted

if time and resources are available.

3.7.3 Subtask B2: Locate Potential Ambush Sites Along Possible Routes

As previously noted, combat service support is a vital part of the battlefield, and the safety of its supply route is critical. Thus, when choosing

a main supply route, careful consideration must be given to those areas

along the route where an enemy ambush could occur. While ease of movement is a prime concern of the route, equally important is the fact that

potential ambush sites should be minimized. In general, an ambush site

will be selected at a point along the route where traffic is slowed and

concealment of the enemy is possible. Thus, the analysis will consider

both of these factors when locating potential ambush sites along the

routes.

3-35
Gradient

The gradient of potential routes is an important consideration. A supply

convoy traveling up a road gradient of more than 7% is forced to reduce

speed, and as a convoy slows it becomes an easier target for an ambush.

Thus, a complete analysis of possible supply routes must take into

account the road gradients of the available routes. This information,

however, is not available on the standard topographic map. Other sources,

such as a route reconnaissance, will generally provide the necessary

information.

Road Curves

The radii of curves along potential routes is another consideration of

the supply route. A radii of curvature of less than 30 meters will cause

a speed reduction by the convoy. Hence, a curve of this type presents the

danger of a potential ambush site. Thus, when selecting a supply route

the analysis requires the location of such curves along the possible routes.

Again, this detailed information is not provided on the standard topographic map. Conducting a route reconnaissance, if possible, will provide

the necessary level of information detail.

Narrowing of Road

The narrowing of a road can pose a problem to the supply convoy. Since

the MSR will generally carry double flow traffic, a road narrowing to

less than 8 meters is likely to cause a choke point. At such a point

traffic will slow, thus making the convoy vulnerable to enemy ambush. The

general classifications of roads on standard topographic maps (i.e.,

number of lanes; categories of widths) generally apply to the entire road,

and the location of areas of road-narrowing is not provided. Thus, to

3-36
ascertain the specific location of where a road narrows along a route

requires that a route reconnaissance be conducted. Reconnaissance of

this type can be carried out only if time and manpower are available.

Concealment

Concealment, in the context of this discussion, refers to an area near

a route where the enemy could be hidden from the view of the convoy. The

evaluation of concealment will usually be done simultaneously with the

locating of traffic slowing-points. For example, if there is a heavily

wooded area adjacent to an uphill grade of the route, this area would

be identified as a potential ambush site. In general, vegetation

greater than 3.7 meters in height along a road is likely to be a site of

a potential enemy ambush. Standard topographic maps, while not providing

specific vegetation height information, do provide useful classifications.

Thus, a conventional map will show a wooded area and provide an indication

of the concealment potential. The level of information detail, however,

lacks the specificity required for a comprehensive and complete analysis.

More specific information may be provided by aerial reconnaissance photographs and ground reconnaissance reports. As previously stated, reconnaissance requires both time and manpower which may or may not be available

for the analysis.

3.7.4 Summary

Table 3-6 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit B.

3-37
TABLE 3-6

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-4/CORPS/MAIN SUPPLY ROUTE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

B1.1 Road networks:

Classifica- All roads capable of Road classification is

tion supporting class 60 required to identify roads

vehicles (FM 5-36). capable of supporting supply

convoy vehicles.

Width Specified in meters The MSR will generally have

(FM 5-36). two-way traffic and carry wide loads. Road widths are

currently indicated on conventional maps by numbers of

lanes or categories of

widths (4-6 meters, more

than 6 meters). However,

neither method fulfills the

necessary specificity

required by this task.

Condition Weather impact on Currently, this information

road trafficability is adequately portrayed.

(IPB).

B1.2 Bridges:

Load-bearing All bridges capable Currently, standard topocapacity of supporting class graphic maps provide bridge

60 vehicles classification information:

(FM 5-36). stone, concrete, wood.

This type of categorization,

while providing an indication

of bridge strength, is not

specific. Bridges along the

MSR must be capable of supporting the loads being

carried.

3-38
TABLE 3- 6 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-4/CORPS/MAIN SUPPLY ROUTE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

B1.2 Bridges:

Width Specified in meters Bridge widths and overhead

(FM 5-36). clearances are required to

determine if the MSR conOverhead Height specified in voy can "fit" through the

clearance meters (FM 5-36). bridge. This determination is not possible from

conventional map since the

information portrayed is

limited to the location

and construction type of

the bridge.

B1.3 Rivers/streams:

Depth Depths greater than Conventional maps current-

.75 meters (FM 5-36). ly provide limited information about rivers. River

Current Specified in meters- and stream locations and

speed per-second (FM 5-36). the direction of current

flow are portrayed. Some

Slope of Slopes greater than maps provide the location

approach 33% (FM 5-36). of potential fording sites,

but it is not specified

for what type of vehicles

this information is intended. There are different

fording capabilities among

vehicles; for example, a

tank can cross a river

which is 1.4 meters deep,

but a truck cannot. Thus,

fording sites should reflect specific vehicle

limitations (if possible).

3-39
TABLE 3-6 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-4/CORPS/MAIN SUPPLY ROUTE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

B2.1 Road Gradients greater Generally, this type of

Gradients than 7% (FM 5-36). information would be available from a route reconB2.1 Road curves Radii of curvature naissance report. This inof less than 30 formation is necessary to

meters (FM 5-36). determine slowing points of

route which make the convoy

vulnerable to ambush.

B2.1 Narrowing of Areas of road that Two general classifications

road narrow to less than of road widths, number of

8 meters (FM 5-36). lanes and categories of

widths, usually apply to the

entire road and areas of

narrowing, and these classifications are not denoted on

conventional maps. This

information would be obtained

from a reconnaissance report.

This information must be

determined, since road

narrowing will cause the convoy to reduce speed.

B2.2 Concealment Vegetation equal to General classifications of

or greater than vegetation (e.g., woods,

3.7 meters in scrub) provide an indication

height (FM 5-36). of height. This portrayal

method lacks the specificity

required for a complete and

accurate assessment of the

concealment potential area

along the MSR.

3-40
3.8 Exhibit C

USER: AVIATION OFFICER OR S-3 AIR

ECH;ELON: BRIGADE

TASK: SELECT A ONE-SHIP HELICOPTER LANDING ZONE

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"I can't tell if I can safely

land a helicopter here."

3.8.1 Background

A basic fact of today's battlefield is that the helicopter has become an

indispensible part of our ability to travel rapidly and efficiently. It

is the messenger of the modern battlefield as well as the light logistics

vehicle for inter-headquarter use. Therefore, selection of landing zones

for a command post (CP) or a headquarters is an important task. For the

brigade, the selection of landing zones within the rear area for use of

command and liaison rotary wing aircraft is ustilly done by the unit's

Aviation Officer, who is often double-hatted as the unit's Aviation Unit

Commander. In those cases where there is no organic or attached aviation

unit, then this function is carried out by the unit's S-3 Air Officer.

Regardless of the individual conducting the analysis (and his type or

echelon, for that matter), the considerations and information requirements

are the same because the requirements of rotary wing aircraft are rather

specific in their surface and size needs for takeoff and landing. The

general description of this task is to select a landing zone to be used

by the unit's command and control aircraft and to be used by those aircraft servicing brigade headquarters. Additionally, other personnel, not

3-41
assigned to the unit, may have occasion to land and take off from the

helicopter pad.

An analysis and discussion follows of the procedures and considerations

of the selection of some or all of the one-ship landing zones used in

a non-aviation unit of brigade size. The major subtasks in the selection

of such landing zones are:

(1) Identify surface conditions adequate for landing zones.

(2) Identify landing zones which are of adequate size.

As displayed in Table 3-7, each of these subtasks can be further subdivided into still more fundamental map use questions.

3.8.2 Subtask Cl: Identify Surface Conditions Adequate for Landing Zone

The area under consideration as a possible landing zone must be free of

existing obstacles which would prevent takeoffs and landings. It must

also be free of debris which would be picked up by the wash of the rotors

and become a dangerous missile. Additionally, slope must be considered

as an obstacle to landing, since excessive slopes can cause the craft to

tile and even up-end. One additional consideration must be that the

surface be strong enough to support the craft.

Obstacles Unsuitable for Helicopter Landings

A helicopter landing zone must be free of debris which can become dangerous

to personnel as well as the aircraft itself. When debris strikes the

aircraft or is taken into the engine compartment it results in what is

called "FOD" or foreign object damage. The surface should be free of

3-42
TABLE 3-7

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS OF EXHIBIT C

USER: Aviation Officer or S-3 Air

ECHELON: Brigade

TASK: Select a one-ship helicopter landing zone:

SUBTASKS: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

Cl Identify surface conditions Cl.l Are there areas containing

adequate for landing zones. debris which pose an obstacle

to helicopter landings?

Cl.2 Are there any slopes which

would be an obstacle to

helicopter landings?

C1.3 Are there areas where the

soil will not support the

weight of the helicopter?

C2 Identify landing zones which C2.1 Are there obstacles to

are of adequate size. turning rotor blades?

C2.2 Is there enough area for

separate takeoff and

landing paths?

3-43
obstructions such as large rocks, logs, tall grass, ditches, fences,

telephone or power poles and telephone or power lines. Thus, to accurately

identify obstructions requires the location of ditches greater than 3 meters

in width and 2 meters in depth as well as areas containing a predominace

of rocks or grass heights in excess of 1.5 meters.

The level of information detail notes above is not normally found on

standard topographic maps. However, there is a likelihood of finding

some map entry which would indicate the presence of telephone/power poles

and lines. Although this information may indicate the presence of such

poles and lines, it does not give the exact locations of each of the poles.

Standard topographic maps also note the presence of masonry walls or

fences yet not portray their speci.fic location. Hence, the analysis of

the terrain must look to sources other than the standard topographic map

for the detailed information required. This information could be obtained

by a visual reconnaissance of the area under consideration. Other sources

of the information include aerial photographs and sketches made by a

reconnaissance patrol.

Slope as as Obstacle to Helicopters

The area under consideration for use as a possible landing zone must not

have a slope which exceeds 15%. The slope restrictions extend along the

entire length of the glide path for the landing approach and along the

route used for takeoff (if they are different). Usually, these two

flight corridors are different, since the preferred method of both takeoff and landing is into the wind.

The individual selecting such landing zones must have a map which allows

him to calculate the slope from the horizontal distance given to scale

compared to the vertical deviation indicated by actual elevations given

3-44
in contour intervals. A topographic map which gives the reader

contour lines and elevation notation allows the calculation of slope

along the landing and takeoff corridors.

Surface Conditions Which Will Not Support Helicopters

Changeable surface conditions are a primary consideration in the selection

of a landing site. If flooding conditions adversely affect the otherwise

acceptable surface, then that area must be dismissed as a candidate site.

A helicopter needs surface conditions which are sufficient to support

the weight of the helicopters which will use the landing zone. Standard

topographic maps provide only surface data on gross categories. Examples

are intermittent streams which fill or flood their banks during a wet

season or swampy areas which remain that way year-round.

As with other characteristics, the standard topographic map is insufficient

in the detail afforded the user who is trying to determine specific loadbearing data for aircraft. Other sources would have to be consulted,

or visual reconnaissance would have to be conducted to determine the

bearing capacity of the soil under consideration.

3.8.3 Subtask C2: Identify Landing Zones Which Are of Adequate Size

Assuming that the analyst has adequate knowledge of the characteristics

of the aircraft he anticipates using, he must then determine if there is

sufficient rotor blade clearance at the landing zone. Normally-used

command and control helicopters require about the same clearance for rotors

and share approximately the same requirements in other dimensions of

landing zone characteristics. The general characteristic of uninterrupted

rotor blade clearance throughout landing, touchdown and takeoFf is the

first consideration of the analyst. If this characteristic is not present

3-45
or cannot be cleared by troop effort or demolition, then the landing zone

will not be adequate.

Obstacles to Turning Rotor Blades

An area of 52 meters in diameter, cleared to the ground, is the standard

clearance for the safe landing, touchdown, loading/unloading and takeoff

of utility and reconnaissance helicopters. To determine this information

the analyst requires detailed data concerning both the height and type

of vegetation in the area. The rationale for the latter information is

simply to determine if the area can be cleared by hand. Thus, the

current classifications provided, such as woods, is totally insufficient

for this determination. For example, teak tree trunks may only be a

meter in height but cannot be cleared by hand. Conventional maps do not

contain vegetation height information, except indirect evidence provided

by the vegetation classification previously mentioned. To determine the

obstacles to turning rotor blades, therefore, the analysis requires both

vegetation heights specified in 1-meter increments, as well as a vegetation

classification which will provide an indication of the hand-clearing

capability of the area.

An area of 20 meters and cleared to within .9 meters of the ground is

required beyond the 52 meters as an additional apron for the unobscured

approach to the touchdown and takeoff points. The same problem described

above is encountered when an analyst tries to determine this information

from a standard topographic map. To acquire this information the analyst

must seek sources other than the standard topographic map, such as aerial

photographs and visual reconnaissance of the area.

3-46
Separate Takeoff and Landing Paths

Takeoff and landing paths are those flight routes used by a helicopter.

For safety reasons, it is preferrable to have separate takeoff and landing

paths for the crafts. The paths selected should be of a width of 76

meters to allow for the safe approach and departure of rotary wing aircraft.

Paths of less than 76 meters in width present a clear danger to the

aircraft and its crew and cargo. Additionally, these paths must have a

ground vegetation structure permitting at least a 1 to 5 climb ratio,

(meaning at least 5m horizontal clearance for each 1m of vertical lift).

Determining the path widths available from a standard topographic map

presents problems similar to those mentioned previously; thorough analysis

requires both vegetation heights and the type of vegetation. Currently,

standard topographic maps do not provide the information detail required

to make this determination. While the slope of an area can be determined

from the contour intervals and elevation notations on the standard

topographic map, vegetation height will alter this assessment of climb

ratio. Since vegetation height information is not provided by conventional maps, a complete analysis requires that other sources be consulted.

Thus, once more, aerial photographs and visual reconnaissance are needed

to complete an accurate assessment.

3.8.4 Summary

Table 3-8 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit C.

3-47
TABLE 3-8

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR S-3 AIR/BDE/HELICOPTER LANDING ZONE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

C1.1 Obstacles Ditches greater than Ditches of unspecified size

unsuitable 3 meters in width are provided on some maps.

for heli- and 2 meters in Determination of a ditch as

copter depth (FM 31-20, an obstacle to helicopter

landings. FM 100-20). landings requires the location of ditches exceeding

a specific size. Thus,

sources other than a map

must be consulted.

Grass heights in The general vegetation

excess of 1.5 classification portrayed on

meters (FM 31-20, standard maps may provide

FM 100-20). an indication of height,

but it lacks the specificity

required for obstacle determination.

Areas containing a While the location of stone

predominance of quarries are noted on

rocks (FM 31-20, standard maps, this task

FM 100-20). requires information on any

area which contains a predominance of rocks. Hence,

the required nformation to

determine obstacles for

helicopter landings is not

provided.

Fences on any type Some maps provide notation

of construction of presence of masonry walls

(FM 31-20, FM or fences. However, for an

100-20). accurate determination of

landing zone obstacles requires knowledge of exact

locations of all fences

(construction type is not

important for this task).

3-48
TABLE 3- 8 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR S-3 AIR/BDE/HELICOPTER LANDING ZONE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

C1.1 Obstacles Telephone poles and Presence of telephone and

unsuitable for lines; power poles power lines and poles are

helicopter and lines (FM 31-20, generally provided on maps.

landings. FM 100-20). However, this information is

insufficient for determining

obstacles to landings. An

accurate assessment of this

task requires the specification of each pole and line

location.

C1.2 Slope as an Slopes in excess of The information required to

obstacle to 15% (FM 31-20). calculate slope, namely,

helicopter contour intervals and elevalandings. tion notation, are provided.

C1.3 Soil which Load-bearing The load-bearing capacity of

will not capacity of soil soil is generally derived

support (e.g., capable of from direct field testing.

helicopters, supporting skids of Once this information is

UH-1) (FM 101-5). ascertained, it would have

to be compared to the soilbearing capacity required

for the specific helicopter(s) which would be

using the landing site.

3-49
" ~~ ~~ ~ -. ~ ~~~~ " ~ ." ~ .? ~ ~ ~~~~~ ' ... ' 'D'~ r ' ' ' L .''....'- ' . ... ,.

TABLE 3-8 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR S-3 AIR/BDE/HELICOPTER LANDING ZONE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

C2.1 Obstacles to Vegetation heights This information is vital to

turning rotor in 1 meter incre- the determination of heliblades. ments (FM 31-20). copter landings. For safety

reasons, it is necessary to

Specific type of have an area 52 m in diameter

vegetation (or cleared to the ground, cirvegetation cate- cumscribed by a 20 m area

gorized on the cleared to .9 m above the

basis of clear- ground.

ability) (FM 31-20).

C2.2 Area for Vegetation heights This information is required

separate take- in 1 meter incre- to ascertain the safety for

off and ments (FM 31-20). the approach and departure landing of helicopters. Specifically,

paths. Specific type of a path 76 m in width must be

vegetation (or clearable.

vegetation categorized on the

basis of clearability) (FM 31-20).

Slope of entire Helicopter takeoff requires

path (FM 31-20). a 1-to-5 climb ratio. Thus,

the interaction between

slope and vegetation height

must be assessed. Contour

intervals and elevation

notation allow slope determination. In the absence

of specific vegetation

height information, an

assessment cannot be made

concerning the path's

acceptability for takeoffs

and landings.

3-50
3.9 Exhibit D

USER: OPERATIONS SECTION

ECHELON: DIVISION

TASK: DETERMINE PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR

DIVISION TACTICAL OPERATIONS CENTER (DTOC)

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"IT don't know if I can conceal

the division TOC in this area."

3.9.1 Background

Division Tactical Operations Center (DTOC) is the centralized area which

controls and coordinates the tactical operations of the division. The

primary responsibility of DTOC is to direct, control and coordinate combat

and combat support operations. These centers are vital to the command and

control of the battlefield.

Before the G-3 looks at a map to begin evaluating likely DTOC locations

there are certain restrictions which will dictate some of the parameters

required for the site. First, DTOC must be relatively close to the

division's lines of communications. Also, the physical size of the site

required will be dependent upon the number of troops requiring communication with the center. A vital consideration is the scheme of maneuver

and fire support. While DTOC must be forward enough to communicate with

the troops, it should not be in the middle of the battlefield. Thus, when

the G-3 looks at a topographic map to determine possible DTOC sites he

will eliminate some areas due to the constraints stated above.

3-51
As will become apparent to the reader, this task has relatively few information requirements compared to other tasks presented; in fact, it consists

of only one subtask which is identical to the main task. The decision to

include the task is based primarily on the fact that this is a vital,

representative and frequently performed battlefield task. Additionally,

while this task focuses upon the division echelon, the information requirements do not differ for corps TOC or battalion TAC CP site selections. The

primary difference among echelons is the actual physical size of the area

required. Thus, it should be apparent that the site-selection for the DTOC

represents a task which is repeatedly performed by operations sections from

corps to battalion. A detailed analysis follows of the map-related

procedures involved in the selection of possible locations of a DTOC. The

one subtask involved, as depicted in Table 3-9, can be further subdivided

into its basic map use questions.

3.9.2 Subtask D1: Determine Potential Locations for DTOC

Because of vital control and coordination functions performed by DTOC, it

is imperative that the center be able to perform its duties. The G-3 must

consider the security potential of the sites, in terms of natural cover and

concealment from air observation. Also, the G-3 must avoid areas which

contain obstacles to electronic emissions and areas where the soil will not

support DTOC activities.

Gross Surface Configurations

The analysis of gross surface configuration of an area is a primary concern

for two reasons; availability of natural cover, and the absence of natural

obstacles to electronic emissions. Unfortunately, these land features are

frequently at odds with each other. For example, high ground may provide

3-52
TABLE 3- 9

OVERVIEW OF QUESi ION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS FOR

EXHIBIT D

USER: Operations Section

ECHELON: Division

TASK: Determine primary and secondary locations for the

Division Tactical Operating Center (DTOC)

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

D1 Determine primary and alternate D1.1 In general, what does the surface

locations for DTOC of the area look like ?

D1.2 Are there areas of soil which

will not support DTOC activity?

D1.3 Are there areas that provide

concealment from enemu air

observation?

3-53
cover for DTOC, however, it may hinder transmission and reception of

communications. Specific heights which hinder electronic communication

will not be delineated here, since documents specifying electronic warfare

capabilities are classified. However, the primary consideration of the

analyst for this task is areas of high ground. For this information, the

standard topographic map seems adequate. Contour lines and elevation

notations provide a sufficient picture of the gross surface configuration

of the areas evaluated for this task.

Soil Supportability

The evaluation of possible DTOC sites requires considerations about the type

of soil in the area. It is necessary that the site be able to support the

traffic associated with the DTOC. Thus, the evaluation will require the

determination of the vehicle cone index for the largest vehicles which will

be in the DTOC area. This information may be found in TOE files.

Once the required vehicle cone index has been determined, the analysis

requires the soil rating cone index of each potential site. A comparison

of the vehicle cone index and the soil rating cone index will determine

which of the possible sites will support the heaviest vehicles of the DTOC.

To ascertain the rating cone index of soil, the results of actual field

tests are required. Since this information is not provided on the standard

topographic map, completion of the analysis requires that other sources be

consulted. For example, the necessary information might be provided by

local authorities or members of the Engineer Topographic Battalion. If the

information is unavailable from these sources, however, a ground reconnaissance of the area would be necessary.

An additional consideration involves the impact of climatic conditions upon

the supportability of the soil. For example, heavy rains could alter

3-54
supportable soil to unsupportable condition. Standard topographic maps

do not provide weather-related information. While up-to-date weather

information does not easily lend itself to hard copy map portrayal, soil

trafficability under general weather conditions might be feasible. Portrayal of this information would be useful to the analysis of potential DTOC

site locations.

Concealment from Air Observation

Concealment from air observation is a very important consideration of

potential DTOC locations. Since DTOC is a priority target of the enemy,

it is vital that the location be as concealed as possible. Extensive

use is made of camouflage at DTOC; however, in addition, natural concealment is desirable. Canopy closure is the primary characteristic of terrain

which concerns the probability of detection from the air. An area providing

at least 50% canopy closure would be a desirable location for DTOC. Canopy

closure can provide concealment for electronic devices such as antennas,

as well as concealment for vehicles and personnel. Wooded areas are prime

locations of canopy closure.

The analysis of areas providing concealmentfrom air observation requires

the determination of specific types of information. Once the location of

a wooded area is ascertained, a determination of the spacing of the trees,

their height and seasonality must be considered. Specifically, it must be

determined if the spacing of the trees is greater than 6.1 meters, since

this will provide less than 50% canopy closure. In addition, an estimate

of the tree heights in meters and the seasonality must be determined.

The seasonality--whether the growth is evergreen or deciduous--is important,

since the canopy closure of a deciduous forest, for example, will be affected by the time of year. Once spacing, height and seasonality are ascertained, an estimate of the percent of canopy closure afforded by an area

may be estimated.

3-55
The standard topographic map does not provide direct concealment or canopy

closure information. The vegetation classifications available on conventional maps allow identification of wooded locations; however, specificity

concerning tree spacing and heights is not provided. Other sources of

information, such as reconnaissance reports, must be consulted to determine

this information. Some standard topographic maps do, however, provide

notations of the seasonality aspects of vegetation, and these appear

sufficient for this aspect of the task.

3.9.3 Summary

Table 3-10 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit D.

3-56
TABLE 3-10

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-3/DIV/DTOC LOCATION

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

D1.1 Gross surface Contour intervals Currently available on

configuration of 10 meters with 1:50,000 scale standard

supplementary in- topographic map.

tervals of 5

meters (FM 24-1).

D1.2 Soil Soil Rating Cone Consultation with other

supportability Index (RCI) sources is required to deter-

(FM 30-10). mine whether soil will support the DTOC operation.

This information is generally

difficult to obtain, and frequently requires direct reconnaissance observation when

time and resources are available.

Vehicle Cone Index The VC1 for specific vehicles,

(VCI) Requirements: personnel and equipment may

be found in Tables of OrganiFoot soldiers 20 zation and Equipment (TOE).

(FM 30-10) Portrayal of this information

on a standard topographic map

may present difficulties,

since there is a VCI for each

vehicle.

Climatic impact on While the portrayal of up-tosoil supportability date weather information does

(IPB). not appear feasible, the portrayal of general weather

conditions on soil trafficability might be possible and

certainly useful.

3-57
TABLE 3-10 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-3/DIV/DTOC LOCATION

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

D1.3 Concealment 

from 

Tree spacing of less Vegetation classifications

observation: 

air than 6.1 meters allow the identification of (FM5-36, IPB). wooded areas.

Canopy closure

Tree height Consultation with other estimates 

(FM5-36, 

in meters sources, such as ground re- IPB). connaissance, is required

to determine the vegetation

height information.

vided on 1:50,000 scalE maps.

3-58
3.10 Exhibit E

USER: CAV SQUADRON

ECHELON: BATTALION

TASK: PLAN ROUTE FOR A RECONNAISSANCE MISSION OF

POSSIBLE DIVISION TACTICAL OPERATION CENTER

(DTOC) LOCATIONS

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"I can't tell where I should move my

Sheridan so it would not be seen by

the enemy."

3.10.1 Background

Reconnaissance is a constant activity of both friendly and enemy forces of

the battlefield. As such, reconnaissance is one of the most critical tasks

performed on the battlefield. The objectives of the reconnaissance missions

are to obtain information about enemy activities and terrain, as well as to

verify and update information portrayed on a standard topographic map.

Additionally, a "recon" provides various user groups with the detailed

information they require and cannot obtain from the standard topographic

maps. For example, when the intelligence section requires vegetation

obstacle information (as in the assessing avenues of approach) a reconnaissance of the area will be ordered. Thus, the individuals in the field will

report those areas where the vegetation constitutes an obstacle to movement.

Ground reconnaissance missions are of three types: route, zone and area.

Route reconnaissance attempts to gain information concerning the enemy,

obstacles, route conditions and critical terrain features along the route.

This type of reconnaissance, due to its techniques and requirements, can be

performed more quickly for the same size area than for other types of

3-59
reconnaissance. The objectives of zone reconnaissance are to obtain

detailed route information, as well as information concerning the enemy,

obstacles and key terrain within a specified zone. Zone reconnaissance is

more thorough and time-consuming than route reconnaissance. The third type

of mission, area reconnaissance, is the most thorough and time-consuming of

all. In addition to gathering route, obstacle andt enemy information, area

reconnaissance determines detailed terrain-related information, such as areas

of cover and concealment. Area reconnaissance extends the information available from the standard topographic map and provides the users with the level

of information detail they require to complete their tasks.

The selection of the type of reconnaissance mission which a task requires

will directly affect the amount of information which will be gathered.

While it would be ideal for a reconnaissance mission to gather all relevant

information, this is not possible in every instance. Given sufficient time

to conduct the mission and all the necessary manpower, an area reconnaissance

of the entire area of interest would be the optimum solution. However, manpower is generally limited, as is the time in which to conduct the reconnaissance. These constraints will usually be noted in the reconnaissance

order. Hence, the type of reconnaissance-which will be used, while not

stated directly in the mission statement, will be implied by the time

available and the information requested.

A detailed analysis follows of the map-related tasks involved in conducting

a reconnaissance mission. Completion of this task involves three major

subtasks:

(1) Identify fastest routes to and from the objective (to be

reconnoitered).

(2) Determine areas of likely enemy detection.

(3) Identify areas of adequate concealment.

As illustrated in Table 3-11, each of these subtasks can be further subdivided into its basic map use questions.

3-60
TABLE 3-11

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS FOR

EXHIBIT E

USER: Cav Squadron

ECHELON: Battalion

TASK: Plan route for a reconnaissance mission of possible DTOC locations

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

El Identify fastest roLftes to E1.1 Which roads/trails can be used by

reconnaissance sites reconnaissance vehicles?

E1.2 Which bridges can be used by reconnaissance vehicles?

E2 Determine areas of likely E2.1 Where are areas of soil that will

enemy detection leave identifiable tracks if

crossed by reconnaissance vehicles?

E2.2 Where are the built-up areas?

E3 Identify concealment E3.1 Are there areas of concealment

potential of routes from enemy observation?

3-61 16u
3.10.2 Subtask DI: Identify Fastest Route to Reconnaissance Sites

Since repeated traveling over the same route increases the likelihood of

detection, a general consideration of reconnaissance route planning is to

avoid taking the same route in and out of the reconnaissance sites. Thus,

the planner will be looking for alternate fast routes to and from the

objectives. Prior to identifying routes to the objective sites, however,

the analyst must ascertain the location and recent activities of the enemy.

A review of intelligence reports and the current situation map is necessary

to determine the likelihood of contact with the enemy during the mission.

Once this information has been determined, the analyst will proceed to

evaluate the possible routes.

Roads/Trails

Generally, existing roads and trails will be the fastest route available to

the reconnaissance patrol. However, when used they increase the vulnerability of the recon party. Roads and trails classifications, widths and conditions are the primary concerns of the analysis. Portrayal of the widths of

roads and trails, as well as their capability to support class 20 vehicles,

will tell the analyst if his vehicles can travel on that road or trail. The

standard topographic map does not provide direct information about road

classification. Some information is, however, available on conventional

maps about road widths. Certain maps provide road width information in

terms of the number of lanes, while others provide general category widths

(e.g., 4-6 meters, 6 meters or more). These maps, while helpful, do not

provide the user with adequate specificity. Thus, the user is required to

ascertain this information while conducting the patrol. Road condition,

as affected by local weather on the other hand, is generally provided on

the standard topographic map. Categories such as all-weather road and fairweather road are usually provided. While this information is available

3-62
about roads, it is not provided for trails. Thus, actual field observation

is required to ascertain this information.

Bridges

When roads and trails within the area cross bridges, the analyst must be

concerned with bridge load-bearing capacity. This type of information,

however, is not available on the standard topographic map. Some standard

topographic maps provide a bridge classification which is based upon the

construction material of the bridge. While this type of information may

provide an indication of the weight the bridge will support, it is not

specific. Hence, an assessment based upon this type of classification could

be misleading or in error; thus, the user might be required to ascertain

this information while actually on the patrol.

3.10.3 Subtask D2: Determine Areas of Likel' Enemy Detection

As previously discussed, the DTOC is the command, control and communication

center of the division. This center is the primary target of the enemy, and

as such its location must be unknown to him. Thus, while conducting reconnaissance of potential sites, it is important that the recon unit not be

detected by the enemy. The reconnaissance route must be carefully planned

to minimize detection by the enemy. In general, a reconnaissance route

must avoid soil which will leave tracks, as well as avoid built-up areas.

Trackable Soil

One of the simplest ways a unit might be detected by the enemy is to travel

over soil which leaves highly visible tracks. A vehicle traveling over

plowed fields or soft soil would leave readily recognized tracks. The

reconnaissance route must avoid these areas, but standard topographic maps

provide little information about them. Conventional 1:50,000 scale maps do

3-63
portray gardens and meadows, but more information is necessary for this task.

Since the information required is not available prior to the reconnaissance,

the user is forced to obtain the information during the actual execution of

the recon mission.

Built-up Areas

When possible, a reconnaissance patrol should avoid traveling through a

built-up area. Buildings can easily hide anti-tank weapons which could

ambush and destroy the patrol. Thus, route planners must minimize the

possibility of enemy ambush by avoiding built-up areas. Standard topographic maps provide the location of all built-up areas, and this level

of detailed information portrayal seems quite adequate for the task.

3.10.4 Subtask D3: Identify Areas of Adequate Concealment

Adequate concealment will be of concern to the analyst if the route under

consideration involves off-road movement. Generally, off-road travel is

slower than on-road travel, and the chance of detection rises as movement

slows. The final choice of routes will weigh the relative advantages of

fast movement on available roads against the slower off-road concealed

routes.

Concealment

Adequate concealment of a route offers the patrol protection from enemy

observation. Vegetation greater than 3.7m in height will offer concealment

for reconnaissance vehicles. However, the standard topographic map does

not portray this information directly. The vegetation classifications

provided on conventional maps (i.e., woods, scrub, vineyards, orchards)

do offer a general indication of vegetation heights. These classifications

3-64
r

could be misleading or erroneous, and thus appropriate concealment information must be determined by the patrol.

Various climatic conditions may also offer concealment for the patrol.

Dense fog, for example, may provide adequate concealment for a moving unit.

Conventional maps do not provide weather information, and the determination

of historic, current and projected climatic conditions are generally

provided by Air Force Weather.

3.10.5 Summary

Table 3-12 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit E.

3-65

- *I
TABLE 3-12

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAV SQUAD/BTN/RECONNAISSANCE ROUTE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

E.1.1 Road/trails:

Classifica- All roads capable of Classification is required

tion supporting class 20 to determine which roads/

vehicles (Fm 5-36). trails are capable of supporting the recon vehicle

movement.

Width Specified in Generally, the method of

meters (FM 5-36). portraying road width is to

indicate the number of

lanes. Some conventional

maps do provide general

width categories, such as

4-6 meters, and 6 meters

wide or more. These methods

of portrayal are too general

and lacking in the specificity required to determine

if the vehicle can "fit" on

the road/trail.

Condition Weather impact on Classifications are provided

trafficability for roads but not for trails

(IPB). on conventional maps. It

would be useful to provide

seasonal trafficability

informatiun about trails.

3-66
TABLE3-12 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAV SQUAD/BTN/RECONNAISSANCE ROUTE

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

E1.2 Bridges:

Load-bearing All bridges capable Conventional maps contain

capacity of supporting class classifications of bridges

20 vehicles (FM by their construction ma5-36). terial. This information

provides an indication

about the weight which the

bridge can support, but is

not specific. Assessment

requires the determination

of bridges which are capable

of supporting recon vehicle

crossing.

E2.1 Trackable Locations of agri- Gardens and meadows are

soil cultural areas specified on 1:50,000 scale

(plowed fields) and maps. However, these classisoft soil ,,reater fications are too limited

than .25 km in area to determine all areas of

(FM 5-36). tracked soil which might lead

to recon detection by enemy.

E2.2 Built-up Location of all Sufficient detail is

areas built-up areas currently provided.

(FM 5-36).

E3.1 Concealment Vegetation greater General classifications of

than 3.7 meters in vegetation may provide an

height (FM 23-3). indication of heights. However, precise assessment of

heights cannot be made based

on these classifications.

3-67
3.11 Exhibit F

USER: COMMANDER

ECHELON: COMPANY

TASK: PREPARE A COMPANY LEVEL DEFENSIVE FIRE PLAN

AGAINST ENEMY ARMORED ATTACK

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"T can't tell where to place my weapons so

that they can be fired most effectively."

3.11.1 Background

The modern battlefield is characterized by fast-moving, highly lethal

armored/mechanized/motorized weapons systems and vehicles. Thus, the task

of preparing a company-level defensive fire plan against enemy armored

attack represents one of the most critical of all planning tasks. It is

this deliberate planning which is necessary to rapidly place the maximum

fire on the enemy's main thrust and on its most lethal weapons systems.

Identification of the enemy's main thrust on the modern battlefield is the

key to the successful defense. Effective, coordinate, understandable

company-level fire plans depend upon the company commanders' and platoon

leaders' ability to evaluate the terrain, understand the enemy's capability,

determine the unit's capability and understand the mission.

The commander's assessment of the enemy's capability, his own unit's capability, and his understanding of the mission is a relatively simple matter

by comparison to the evaluation of the terrain. It might be said that there

is a direct relationship between tt h commander's ability to effectively

evaluate the terrain and the amount of accurate data at his or her disposal.

3-68
Complete, usable, accurate terrain data is essential to this difficult,

subjective analysis of the terrain. The level of detail needed and the

degree of accuracy is greater at company level than at higher echelons.

At this critical level of tactical planning and execution the topographic

map has habitually proven to be so inadequate that the small-unit leader

has for decades resorted to field-expedient techniques to overcome these

inadequacies. In preparing a fire plan, small-unit leaders have chosen

to use sand tables, miniatures (mock ups), sketch maps, range cards and

aerial photos (blown up). Just these few examples demonstrate the extremes

to which a small-unit leader will go to obtain a more detailed picture for

his or her planning. Unfortunately, most of these alternative representations

lack grid coordinates, magnetic accuracy and standardization.

An in-depth analysis follows of the map-related procedures employed by a

company commander when preparing a fire plan. The procedures involve two

major subtasks:

(1) Conduct a map reconnaissance.

(2) Evaluate terrain information gathered from map reconnaissance.

As shown in Table 3-13, each subtask may be further subdivided into more

basic map use questions.

3.11.2 Subtask Fl: Conduct A Map Reconnaissance

A map reconnaissance is the procedure of studying a map to ascertain certain

tactically-related features of the terrain. Of utmost concern in all aspects

of conducting a map reconnaissance is the identification of likely armor

approaches into the defensive unit's position, not only from the front, but

from the flanks and the rear. A discussion concerning the task of identifying

enemy avenues of approach has been presented earlier (Exhibit A). However,

3-69
TABLE 3-13

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS OF

EXHIBIT F

USER: Commander

ECHELON: Company

TASK: Prepare a company level defensive fire plan against enemy armored

attack

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

F1 Conduct a map reconnaissance F1.1 Where are the slopes which will

pose an obstacle to enemy tracked

vehicle movement?

F1.2 Where are the ditches which enemy

vehicles cannot cross?

F1.3 Where are the vertical obstacles

which enemy vehicles cannot climb?

F1.4 Where are the fields of fire for

friendly and enemy weapons?

F1.5 Where are the areas of cover and

concealment?

*F2 Evaluate terrain information

gathered from map reconnaissance

*This subtask is not currently performed with a map, but is included for the

sake of clarity and because it could be map-aided if an appropriate map

product were made available.

3-70
identifying avenues of approach at the division level (see Exhibit A) has

some key differences from the task at a company level. While the division

G-2 may be concerned with the approach of a battalion or regiment, the

company commander is primarily interested in single tank movement. Thus,

the nature of the obstacles to movement, fields of fire and cover and

concealment differ.

Obstacles to Enemy Armored Movement

One of the first obstacles to identify are slopes which enemy armor cannot

ascend. Slopes in excess of 50% will be an obstacle to the Soviet T-62

tank. Slope information is not portrayed on the standard topographic

map. The information required to calculate slope, namely contour intervals

and elevation notations, is provided. Since the procedures necessary to

calculate slope have been previously discussed (Exhibit A) further

discussion of this procedure is omitted.

Additional obstacles to armored movement include wide ditches and vertical

obstacles. Specifically, a ditch wider than 2.8 meters will be an obstacle

to the Soviet T-62 and PT-76 tanks. Also; vertical obstacles in excess

of 1.2 meters in height will stop the movement of Soviet T-62 and PT-76

tanks as well as BMP and BRDM personnel carriers. Identification of these

obstacles is not possible on a standard topographic map. Though some

1:50,000 scale topographic maps note the location of ditches, there is no

indication concerning the ditch width. Vertical obstacles are not

indicated on conventional maps. Thus, the commander attempting to determine

obstacles to enemy movement from a standard topographic map is restricted

to determining slope obstacle information. Because of the inadequacy of the

standard topographic map for the identification of other obstacles to

movement, the commander must rely on other sources of information. For

example, ground and aerial reconnaissance may provide the commander with

3-71
the level of information detail required. The problem arises that these

forms of reconnaissance require time and resources which may not always be

available. Hence, if the commander must rely solely upon the standard

topographic map to determine the obstacles to enemy movement, he will be

able to identify slope obstacles only.

Friendly and Enemy Fields of Fire

Fields of fire are the areas a weapon (or group of weapons) can effectively

cover from a given position. To determine fields of fire the minimum

level of detail required is vegetation heights in .3 meter increments

over distances up to 3000 meters. This type of detail, not available

on the standard topographic map, would allow the assessment of potential

crew served, ground mounted weapons firing positions. Some conventional

maps do, however, offer general classification of vegetation: woodsbrushwood, scrub, orchards and vineyards. While this classification

scheme offers an indication of vegetation heights it is not of sufficient

detail to specify fields of fire. Thus, an accurate determination of

fields of fire from a standard topographic map is not possible. Again,

the commander must utilize aerial or ground reconnaissance, if available,

to locate the information required for the task.

Areas of Cover and Concealment

Areas of cover and concealment offer protection from the effects of fire

as well as protection from observation. A depression deeper than 2.4

meters will conceal a Soviet T-62, while a depth of 1.8 meters will conceal

the BRDM personnel carrier. Vegetation can also provide concealment. For

example, vegetation a foot in height may conceal an infantryman in a prone

firing position. The minimum level of detail required to portray cover and

concealment would necessitate contour intervals of one meter and vegetation

3-72
heights in one-foot increments. This level of information detail is not

available on conventional maps. The problems inherent to the portrayal of

1 meter contour intervals has been previously discussed (Exhibit A). To

briefly summarize the difficulties, legibility of 1 meter contour intervals

would require a map scale of 1:10,000, and this would in turn require a

vast quantity of maps to portray the modern battlefield. Thus, the problems

which are likely to be involved in providing the necessary vegetation

level of detail will have to be investigated by map makers.

3.11.3 Subtask F2: Conduct A Terrain Evaluation

The conduct of a terrain evaluation is essential to the sequential process

of preparing a fire plan. While it is now rarely, if ever, a map-related

task it could be if the maps provide the detail necessary for terrain evaluation. Sufficient detail would be defined as that information and level

of detail discussed in the map reconnaissance subtask.

The conduct of a terrain evaluation is the subjective assessment of the

advantages and disadvantages the terrain offers to the attacker as well

as the defender. The commander's ability to conduct a complete and sound

terrain evaluation is greatly dependent upon his assembled knowledge of the

terrain. If his level of detail and/or accuracy is incomplete or erroneous

then the utility of his terrain evaluation will suffer.

Assuming he has adequate information from his reconnaissance he will then

subjectively evaluate the terrain from both the friendly and enemy point

of view. The results of his terrain evaluation will enable the commander

to determine the best positions for his organic weapons systems as well

as the division of responsibilities for his subordinate maneuver units.

He must make maximum use of the terrain in concert with his organic and

supporting fires to prepare a tactically sound fire plan which complements

his scheme of maneuver.

3-73
3.11.4 Summary

Table 3-14 provides a summary of the information requirements for the

task covered in Exhibit F.

3-74
TABLE 3-14

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMANDER/CO/DEFENSIVE FIRE PLAN

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

F1.1 Slopes which Slopes in excess of The elements necessary for

enemy vehicles 50% (FM 23-3). calculating slope, namely

cannot climb, contour intervals and

elevation notations, are

provided.

F1.2 Ditches Ditches wider than While ditch locations are

enemy vehicles 2.8 meters (FM generally provided, the

cannot cross. 23-3). widths of the ditches are

not. Hence, the determination of a ditch as an

obstacle to movement is not

possible from standard maps.

F1.3 Vertical Vertical obstacles The determination of

obstacles higher than .9 vertical obstacles to movetoo high for meters (FM 23-3). ment requires sources other

enemy vehi- than the map to be consulted.

cles to climb.

F1.4 Fields of Vegetation heights Conventional maps contain

fire. in .3 meter incre- general classification of

ments (FM 100-5, vegetation (e.g., woods,

FM 23-3). scrub, etc.). While this

categorization provides an

indication of vegetation

heights, it lacks the

specificity required for the

assessment of fields of fire.

3-75
TABLE 3-14 (CONTINUED)

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

F1.5 Cover and Contour intervaZs 1:50,000 scale maps contain

concealment of 1 meter (FM 100-5, 10 meter contour intervals

FM 23-3). with supplementary intervals

of 5 meters. 1:250,000

scale maps provide 50 meter

intervals with 25 meter

supplementary intervals.

Neither of these scales

satisfies the minimum level

of detail, which in fact

could not be legibly portrayed on a 1:50,000 scale

map. While a 1:10,000

scale map might allow legibility, it would require

numerous additional maps at

the upper echelons. An

alternative strategy might

be to store this detailed

information in a TOS terrain

file so that it may be

assessed when needed.

Vegetation heights General classifications of

in .3 meter incre- vegetation are provided on

ments (Fm 100-5, conventional maps. While

FM 23-3). this method may provide an

indication of height, it

lacks the detail necessary

to assess concealment

potential for fire plan.

3-76

............ .. ...... J
3.12 Exhibit G

USER: G-1

ECHELON: CORPS

TASK: SELECT PRISONER OF WAR COLLECTION SITES

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

"I don't know enough about buildings to

know if I can safeguard prisoners in there."

3.12.1 Background

The task of selecting prisoner of war (POW) collection sites is significantly different from all the others discussed here in the fact that it is

primarily concerned with the avoidance of combat, contact with enemy fire,

and the pursuit of direct and decisive victory on the battlefield. Instead,

it is concerned with the basic premises of care and disposition of enemy

POWs and suspected prisoners of war. At all times the security and safety

of POWs is the responsibility of the G-1, as the POWs can no longer defend

themselves. It should be kept in mind that before the G-1 can accomplish

this task he must: (1) understand the mission of the unit (in this case,

corps); (2) obtain POW numerical estimate data; and (3) know the location

of higher headquarters' collection point(s).

An analysis and discussion follows of the procedures and considerations

involved in the selection of the POW collection sites within a corps

defensive sector. The major subtasks in the selection of such collection

points are:

(1) Identify lines of communication within the area of interest.

(2) Evaluate the possible collection points within the corps

sector.

3-77

PL j
As illustrated in Table 3-15, each of these subtasks can be further subdivided into still more funuamental map use questions.

3.12.2 Subtask GI: Identify Lines of Communication Within the Area of

Interest

This subtask involves the consideration of the existing roads over which

prisoners can be transported in organic or locally available transportation.

In the demand for, and level of, detail necessary to select the proper

evacuation routes, this subtask is very similar to that of selecting a corps

main supply route. The difference is that the POW evacuation route should

not compete with the logistician for the same roads or trails, lest both

functions suffer. Thus, the G-1 will eliminate roads dedicated to supply

movement from the routes he will evaluate.

Road Networks

The primary requirement of the route selected is that it be able to support

the heaviest vehicle which will use the road. Hence, the road classification

required for this task should be capable of supporting class 50 vehicles,

which would probably be the heaviest vehicle expected to use the route.

Since this type of information is not available on the standard topographic

map, the G-1 must take his "best guess" at the road classification if time

and resources are not available for reconnaissance.

Since the movement along the selected route will be two-directional, road

widths must be considered. Standard topographic maps provide road width

indirectly by noting the number of lanes; other conventional maps, however,

indicate road width categories (e.g., 4-6 meters, more than 6 meters). While

these categorization schemes may be useful, they lack the specific information required for the task. A specification of road widths in precise

number of meters is the preferred level of information required by this

task.

3-78
TABLE 3-15

OVERVIEW OF QUESTION-BASED

TASK ANALYSIS FOR

EXHIBIT G

USER: G-1

ECHELON: Corps

TASK: Select POW collection sites

SUBTASK: MAP USE QUESTIONS:

GI Identify lines of G1.1 Which roads can be used to transcommunication port POWs?

GI.2 Which bridges can be crossed during

POW transport?

G1.3 Where are the unbridged rivers!

streams which are obstacles to

crossing?

G2 Evaluate possible G2.1 Which buildings can safely house

collection sites POWs?

G2.2 Where are the areas providing

concealment?

3-79
The final consideration necessary for route selection involves road trafficability. Road conditions (i.e., weather-related trafficability) is portrayed

on standard topographic maps and the available classifications, such as fairweather and all-weather roads, are generally sufficient for performing the

task.

Bridges

Frequently the road networks under consideration contain bridges, thus

necessitating an evaluation of these bridges. Three categories of bridge

information must be considered: (1) load-bearing capacity; (2) width; and

(3) overhead clearance. The load-bearing capacity relates to the ability

of the bridge support capability, and for this task a bridge must be capable

of supporting class 50 vehicles. Although bridge load-bearing capacity is

not portrayed directly on conventional maps, an indication of the weight

a bridge can support might be obtained from the basic construction type

classification (e.g., wood, concrete) portrayed on the map. This information could, however, be inaccurate, but in the absence of a reconnaissance

of the bridge, it is the only information available to the G-1.

Information concerning bridge widths and overhead clearances are unavailable

on the standard topographic map. Whether the vehicles carrying the POWs can

"fit" through the bridge cannot, therefore, be determined from a conventional

map. Once more, in the absence of reconnaissance data for the area, this

information will be unavailable to the G-1.

Rivers/Streams

If a route being considered involves a river or stream crossing, specific

information about the area must be determined. Specifically, river depth,

the speed of the current, and the slope of approach must be known. Generally,

3-80
trucks will be used to transport POWs, thus, the fording capabilities of the

truck must also be considered. A truck can ford a river depth of up to .75

meters, and a maximum slope uf approach of 33%. Since the speed of the

current will also affect trafficability, it should be included in the analysis. Standard topographic maps limit river/stream information to location

and direction of current flow, but this level of information detail is insufficient to make an assessment of potential truck fording sites. Thus,

without supplementary sources of information, the G-1 will not be able to

adequately complete the assessment.

3.12.3 Subtask G2: Evaluate The Possible Collection Sites

As previously stated, the responsibility for the safety and protection of

POWs rests with the captor. Some of the characteristics required for POW

sites are the same as those for command posts, medical aid stations and

maintenance areas. Considerations of cover and concealment are similar

for all the sites. POW collection sites require, in addition, facilities

which allow for the segregation, search and security of prisoners, as

well as factors such as adequate sanitary facilities. Thus, existing

buildings are most likely to meet the requirements of POW collection sites.

Existing Buildings

When evaluating buildings which could be used as POW collection sites, the

G-I needs to know certain types of information. Specifically, building size

and type (i.e., can a building safely house prisoners?) is the minimum level

of information required, but determining this information from a standard

topographic map is not possible. On the conventional 1:50,000 scale map,

most buildings are portrayed as black rectangles. Hence, in the absence

of other sources of information about the buildings, the G-1 has no information upon which to base his evaluation.

3-81
Cover and Concealment

Since it's the G-1's responsibility to provide protection for unarmed

prisoners, the cover and concealment of the area is an important consideration. In terms of cover and concealment, the buildings selected should be

of masonry, and one story, since this type of building is likely to provide

protection for the prisoners. Although the determination of building

height and construction type is not possible from standard maps, certain

types of buildings may be noted like churches, subway stations and public

buildings. The heights and construction types of such buildings are not

given, but some conjectures can be made. Whatever the case, for precise

information the G-1 must consult other sources, if available.

Additional information required to evaluate potential POW collection sites

involves the vegetation in the area. Vegetation heights in excess of 3.7

meters around the buildings would provide concealment of site activity.

This level of detailed information is not directly available on conventional

maps. However, the general classifications portrayed on the standard topographic map (e.g., woods, scrub, etc.) will provide an indication of

possible heights.

3.12.4 Summary

Table 3-16 provides a summary of the information requirements for the task

covered in Exhibit G.

3-82
TABLE 3-16

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-1/CORPS/POW COLLECTION SITES

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

G1.1 Road networks:

Classifica- All roads capable Road classification, while

tion of supporting class not portrayed on conven50 vehicles tional maps, is required to

(FM 5-36). determine roads which will

support the movements of

vehicles carrying POW's.

Width Specified in Currently, conventional

meters (FM 5-36). maps portray road widths by

either of two methods; one

provides the number of

lanes, while the other provides categories of widths

(e.g., 4-6 meters, more

than 6 meters). Neither

method provides the specific

width information necessary

to determine if vehicles

will "fit" on the road.

Condition Weather impact on

road trafficability (IPB).

G1.2 Bridges:

Load/bearing All bridges capable An indication of bridge

capacity of supporting class strength is provided by the

50 vehicles construction type of the

(FM 5-36). bridge (e.g., wood, concrete).

This classification does not

allow an accurate determination of bridges which can

support the crossing of class

50 vehicles.

3-83
TABLE 3-16 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-I/CORPS/POW COLLECTION SITES

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

G1.2 Bridges:

Width Specified in The determination of bridge

meters (FM 5-36). widths and clearances which

will allow vehicle crossOverhead Specified in ing cannot be made from

clearance meters (FM5-36). conventional maps.

G1.3 Rivers/streams:

Depth Depths ir' excess of Conventional maps provide

.75 meters (FM 5-36). river and stream locations

as well as the direction

Current Specified in meters- of the current flow. Some

speed per-second (FM 5-36). maps even provide the location of potential fording

Slope of Slopes greater than sites, but these are not

approach 33% (FM 5-36). specified as to the type

of vehicle the information

is reflecting. However,

this task requires a determination of areas where

transport vehicles will not

be able to cross. Since

the fording capabilities of

various vehicles differ,

this information must be

specified.

3-84
TABLE 3-16 (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR G-I/CORPS/POW COLLECTION SITES

QUESTION

REFERENCE MINIMUM LEVEL

NUMBER CATEGORY OF DETAIL COMMENTS

G2.1 Existing

buildings:

Size Specified in 1:50.000 scale maps portray

maximum occupancy most buildings as black

(FM 7-11, FM rectangles. Certain build7-20). ings, such as churches, public buildings and subway

Height Specified in number stations are specified.

of stories However, since size, height (FM 7-11, FM 7-20). and type of construction are

not given, an evaluation of

Construction Specified as wood, buildings which are capable

type masonry, etc. of housing the prisoners and

(FM 7-11, FM 7-20). providing cover for them is

not possible from standard

maps.

G2.2 Concealment Vegetation heights General vegetation classiin excess of 3.7 fications (e.g., woods,

meters (FM 7-11, scrub, etc) provide an indiFM 7-20). cation of heights. However,

to evaluation the concealment

provided by an area for POW

protection requires specific

vegetation height information.

3-85
4. IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY MAP DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Introduction

Information in the physical environment may be viewed as a continuum of

information categories and details. Not all information about the environment can be portrayed on a map nor is all the information required by the

map user. Thus, the question becomes one of how much information detail

from the real world should be portrayed on a map. The user of a map

generally wants a lot of information about the environment, but the information will be of little practical value if it is not portrayed at the

level of detail he requires. Thus, a trade-off between information categories and levels of information detail must be made.

For example, if the environment to be represented on a map contains a

forest, there are a number of ways to portray it. One method would be

to present each tree as an individual element, showing each tree height,

trunk diameter, foliage spread, seasonality, as well as the spacing

between trees. On the other extreme, the forest area could merely be

represented (e.g., shaded green) to indicate the presence of vegetation.

If the map maker wishes to include numerous other categories of information

on the map, he is unlikely to use the first method, since it could create

too much clutter; instead, he might use the shading technique and simply

note the area as a forest. However, if the user of the map were trying

to determine if he could drive a tank through the forest, the information

provided by the shading technique would be insufficient. An alternative

strategy might be to portray the forest in greater detail at the expense

of other information categories that would necessarily be eliminated (i.e.,

to create a simplified map). One would then, however, have to determine

if the deleted categories create information gaps For users other than

tank-movement planners. Perhaps the answer to the problem would be to

produce a special purpose map for the tank driver, but then the issue of

cost-effectiveness is raised. And so on.

4-1
It is evident, therefore, that the creation of a map which will meet

user needs requires an explicit previous accounting of user information

requirements. This accounting is necessary, whether one general map for

everyone or a separate map for each user is being developed. Such an

analysis of user information requirements can be provided by the task-based

methodology demonstrated in the previous chapter. A summary of the results

from a task-based analysis highlights the following:

(1) Identification of categories of information required by

single users and groups of users. For example, for the

tasks sampled in this effort, the graphic portrayal of the

location of built-up areas was required by G-1, G-2, and cav

squadron users, but this information was not needed by the

G-4.

(2) Within an information category, specification may be made

of the classification of the minimum level of detail required

for portrayal by each user. For example, for the tasks

analyzed, the location of built-up areas is sufficient

detail for G-2 and cav squadron users, however, the G-1 may

need to know the heights and construction types of buildings.

In the context of the present discussion, examples of information categories would be road width, road condition, vegetation obstacles; within

a category, say, vegetation obstacles, examples of information detai7

classifications would be tree trunk diameters in meters, tree spacing less

than six meters, etc. By contrasting information requirements across tasks

and related tactical questions, guidelines can be derived for the development and evaluation of improved military maps. Such guidelines, which include consideration of alternative methods of information portrayal, can be

further extended by the sampling and analysis of a greater range of map

user tasks.

4-2
4.2 Cross-Task Analyses of Information Requirements

The following sections will discuss three major categories of information

which are traditionally portrayed on standard topographic maps and which

are typically required by various users. The discussions will focus on

the portrayal of vegetation (4.2.1), road networks (4.2.2), and built-up

areas (4.2.3). Included in each section is a cross-task comparison table.

These tables are offered as an example of how the results of the taskbased analysis can be used to develop map content guidelines. Each table

is organized in a "task by information category" manner. Within the

body of the table the minimum level of information detail, as specified

by the task, is presented. The findings presented in these sections

should be viewed as an illustration of the types of implication which

can be drawn by utilizing a task-based methodology. The discussions and

tables in the following sections are not intended to be specific recommendations for information portrayal on military maps; rather, an attempt was

made to demonstrate the potential of the task-based methodology developed

by this research effort.

4.2.1 Vegetation

In all tasks sampled by this research effort, vegetation was observed to

be a critical information item. The required information about vegetation

depends, however, upon the attribute of vegetation being assessed. For

example, vegetation may be assessed to determine any of the following:

(1) Vegetation as an obstacle.

(2) Vegetation providing concealment.

(3) Vegetation affecting fields of fire.

(4) Vegetation providing canopy closure.

4-3
IRWIN

Furthermore, the level of detailed information required for each of these

categories depends somewhat upon the task being considered. For example,

the level of detail required to assess vegetation obstacles to tank

movement differs from that required to identify obstacles to helicopter

landing zones.

Currently, the classification of vegetation information differs among

various scales of topographic maps. Specifically, the conventional

1:250,000 scale maps portray one classification of vegetation, namely,

woods, brushwood and plantation (with no distinction made between them).

On the other hand, some 1:50,000 scale topographic maps provide portrayal

enabling the distinction of the following forms of vegetation:

(1) Deciduous forest.

(2) Coniferous forest.

(3) Mixed forest.

(4) Trees and shrubbery.

(5) Park.

(6) Vineyard.

(7) Hop-garden.

(8) Meadow, pasture.

(9) Heath.

(10) Swamp, bog.

(11) Peat cutting.

(12) Garden.

(13) Orchard.

(14) Nursery (trees).

However, referring to the cross-task comparison of information requirements

(Table 4-1), the reader will note that the conventional method of categorizing vegetation does not fulfill the required level of detail.

4-4
-4 0.. 4-4 "I S

1 4-) Wi

LJ -j

SLLJ C)4-

V) CL

SLi Li Lu a) d

0)0- LU - * E U C..) LL d Cl) c

ClCI-L

L- C) =c

CD V~)LLJ di

-: - =1 di

or~ <- C)L

U.. C

.: C-) E (A)- LUJ

C

- C)

=n=4- 0.. - C) M:~C -0cr mC:L *- 

tn LUJC c~c Q) m09- Q n F-- - L.) a) C 4- WI)4- A to

LUV) C S- - s- LC~ 5- a

<A C ) ro. 0- A - 4-) >

-.. 0.d CL a)d a) a) -4-)

IA Ln C E C

4C. Cr *L --.- OS.

CLU3C (n~d 04 - c-. a)

C. (a O -- 4-) 4- >00 NrO (

<C Q--. r-44--) U 

D j u --a)0a) u4- 4) -co LU- 0) , J-4- o >Uoc 0 a Q

_-- __r_ I a)__C____4_____ _ _ ___ ___

LUJ

I L c0 4-) a)

F- C> dN

LUn LdiL

C~ C

a) C_ v LLJ :3 41 (D ac4)(

:: CWL- m F-di di04 

Ui -C %- caC -

-- C 4 +- O 0\~l a)

-"-. m- o sm Cdi -dD u 

U- diC 0- 0u (A toL Iz 00oUt

4-5
An alternative approach might be to provide functionally-oriented

vegetation classifications. A functional classification scheme would

permit the user to answer critical battlefield questions directly from

a map. The following categories and questions provide an example of the

structure for such a scheme.

(1) Specific vegetation type and height: Can I clear the

vegetation for a landing site?

(2) Tree spacing of less than 6.1m, tree trunk diameters greater

than .2m: Will the vegetation stop friendly/enemy tanks?

(3) Vegetation heights in .3m increments: Does the vegetation

offer concealment, fields of fire, canopy closure or present

an obstacle to helicopter landings?

The last classification (i.e., vegetation heights in .3m increments) might

require numerous subclassifications; yet at the same time, this classification reflects a large range of critical information. The exact number

of subclassifications might be reduced by employing ranges of heights as

opposed to separate .3m increments. The utility of such a procedure

for representing vegetation heights requires further task sampling and

analysis. In addition, further investigation is required to determine

the extent of need for other vegetation classifications such as tree

spacing and clearability to be portrayed on the same map.

From the tasks sampled in this effort, vegetation clearability was required

only for the selection of helicopter landing zones; however, it is

possible that this same consideration might be found necessary for other

tasks. Thus, additional sampling and validation would assist map makers

in the determination of the number of vegetation types for portrayal

within each information category. Though it may not be feasible to

greatly reduce the number of vegetation categories currently portrayed

on the standard topographic map, it is possible that their respective

classifications could be made more functional for the map users.

4-6
4.2.2 Road Networks

Road networks are obviously a key category of information which requires

representation on a map. The question which arises is how should road

networks be portrayed so that the user is provided with the most

effective information? One approach might be to employ a functional

description of road networks designed to answer user questions. The

following represent several features of roads and associated user questions

which they could address.

(1) Military load classification: Is the road capable of

supporting my vehicle(s)?

(2) Road widths: Is the road wide enough to allow my vehicle(s)

to travel in ono or two directions?

(3) Condition (weather related trafficability): During which

general weather conditions can I travel the road?

(4) Gradients: Are there sections of the road where I will

have to slow down?

(5) Amount of curves: Are there sections of the road where I

will have to slow down?

(6) Amount of road narrowing: Are there sections of the road

where I will have to slow down?

(7) Amount and type of vegetation along road networks: Will I

be concealed while traveling the road? Are there likely

enemy ambush sites along the road?

(8) Road lengths: How far can I travel on the road?

The information attributes or categories themselves may be further

decomposed. For example, road widths may be expressed in number of lanes,

in meters, or in categories of meters. On the other hand, some of the

classifications can reflect a composite of detailed information. For

example, the military load classification system represents a load capability rating system which takes into account vehicle weight, type and its

effect on roads.

4-7
Since the map maker must consider the fact that a map will contain other

information besides road networks, all possible road network information

cannot be portrayed. At this stage, it is useful to turn to the standard

topographic map. Generally, the following road information may be found

on a conventional 1:50,000 scale map:

(1) Dual highways.

(2) Dual motor-road.

(3) Federal main road, all weather, two lanes wide or more.

(4) Main road, all weather, two lanes wide.

(5) Secondary road, all weather, two lanes wide or less.

(6) Road, light surface.

(7) Road, fair surface.

(8) Farm and forest road, fair weather.

(9) Foot paths.

Each of these nine categories is portrayed separately on conventional

maps. While the categories represent an abundance of information, only

one battlefield related question among those analyzed could be directly

answered (Durinj whiTh q.nera. weather conditions can I travel the road?).

The tasks sampled by this research effort identified three attributes

common to users of road information, as noted in Table 4-2. The condition,

width and military load classification were the common attributes identified.

Road condition is currently provided adequately on the standard topographic

map. On the other hand, road width as presently portrayed (i.e., number

of lanes; categories of 4-6 meters in width and of 6 meters or more) do

not allow all users to determine whether or not their vehicle(s) will

fit on the road. It would mcst likely be unnecessary for each road width

to be noted; appropriate categories of width would probably suffice.

However, such width categories should reflect the discriminations which

must be made by the user; for example, the G-4, when selecting the MSR,

4-8
C) C) C) (n L CD a-'( V) uw U) v E u

: -4 I- LU 4-

I -C).- )u a)4-

C) i-j - a) c -C S

<C)L (C~) C)C

:9 0

C)

LLLU

C- C) -, C)V CVif 

C) V) S-J (0-0

c~(LU < V 4-) E U

V(A ~ : c - - Ln u (D :r c1 C)'CC =) in-. E '4-

C= C:i a)C

:: C) L)cs L

V) ct L.) 4-) 4-)

C.) QLU

:3 0

V)

C)C

4-)~I- (

c\J LUJ CA U.- C4-)

LUJ (0- C 4-)

= C)u (AC- a coL

C). kDo a) Eu L C in LA

LUJ M: Z w *-* 4-' 0) i- = (n u -01. L - CA

CDLLU' > (A. S- 4- 1. .- v S. ca(-M:C to a)(z a) 4-' an )

LUJ a- -W = SC 4-) *.0 C4-3 m-C . .~ 4-) 4-) roE 4-) (V

0)i S. ro C)

Of 0

C) CD 4-

4-)

I-I-(-

LUJ -:I C: in = :C0 4-)C

I4- *.-L C

m C)*.4- )i

<) LL in OinU (

CD >- L. -

C) S- ( - 0 (a e0

C.)U. C3l C.

4-9
needs to identify road widths in excess of 8 meters. Thus, the categories of widths must allow for such a discrimination. The third road

network attribute identified was military load classification. From

the tasks sampled, roads capable of supporting class 20, 50 and 60

vehicles were required. These should not be viewed as the definitive

categories required for map portrayal, since sampling of other

tasks might uncover additional categories. For example, a task requiring

the identification of roads capable of supporting a division size tank

maneuver might necessitate the location of roads which could support

class 80 vehicles.

The task-based approach uncovered both overlapping information requirements among users as well as unique requirements for specific users of

road network information. The three tasks sampled required detailed

road information about load classification, widths and conditions. As

noted by Table 4-2, the G-4 requires additional information when performing an MSR analysis. The information requirements of this task,

however, would be considered excessive for the other users.

4.2.3 Built-up Areas

Traditionally, built-up areas are portrayed on standard topographic maps.

Generally, 1:250,000 scale maps portray the following:

(1) Cities with populations in excess of 25,000.

(2) Cities with populations of less than 25,000.

(3) Scattered settlements and isolated farms.

On the other hand, 1:50,000 topographic maps provide greater detail of

built-up areas. Some maps provide not only the location of all built-up

areas, but also feature locations such as the following:

4-10
(1) House.

(2) Hut.

(3) Railway station.

(4) Youth hostel.

(5) Hospital.

(6) Rest center.

(7) Barn, shed, stable.

(8) Castle.

(9) Military training area.

(10) Inn.

The primary reason for the portrayal of these details appears to be due to

their recognizability as landmarks. Most buildings other than those

mentioned above, however, are portrayed only as black rectangles.

As noted in Table 4-3, the task-based analysis illuminated a primary

requirement for the map portrayal of built-up area locations. While two

tasks require the location of all built-up-areas (cav squadron, plan

reconnaissance route and G-1, select POW collection sites) one task

requires the locations of only those built-up areas which exceed a

specific size (G-2, determine enemy avenues of approach). Thus, two of

the tasks could be easily accomplished with a conventional 1:50,000

scale topographic map. The standard 1:50,000 scale map did, however,

provide more information than necessary for one task (i.e., G-2,

determine enemy avenues of approach).

While the standard topographic map provides considerable detail of

built-up area locations, these locations are not the only important

dimension of built-up areas; in fact, location information is not sufficient

for the completion of one of the tasks which was sampled. Specifically, a

G-1 attempting to locate possible POW collection sites requires much more

detail than is provided by a 1:50,000 standard topographic map. This task

4-11

_ U ..
C) CD C) L/ w,: -) 1-4 I- LU I U V) L) i - F - -) o 0- (0 4J Q0 LLI" :r4- 0- LU j Ln E EW

LU C)

O~ 0. LA C to 

or I J'

co (Aj V

Co L.) Lii

0~0

S.- CA LJ a_ CO 0 L- u t rr)- 4

I-LO : -C m C',i V c 4-w C WC) CACC I - S

-J

CCC

I- 0

C:) 4-) C-9 4- 4-)

FLU F- U 

-jLL 0 0

4-12
requires not only the location of all buildings but also, the maximum

occupancy, height in stories and the building construction type.

Furthermore, the G-I is somewhat unique in that the manpower or resources

available to this map user for conducting reconnaissance are limited.

Although the tasks of the G-l are vital, this user must rely solely on

a map which, in fact, does not currently contain the required information

detail; thus the G-1 might, for example, have to choose POW sites on the

basis of a 'best guess." While the detail requirements of the G-I do not

overlap with the requirements of any of the other user-task combinations

sampled, this special need should nevertheless be considered.

4.3 Map Development Implications

The task-based methodology is generally applicable to the development

of any military map, be it special purpose or general purpose. For

this reason the following discussion will focus on the development of

maps, whether they be designed for general or specific use. Figure

4-1 provides an overview of the development of guidelines for user-oriented

map products as it evolves from the task-based approach.

In brief, task-based map information requirements can be employed to

compa" data which is required for tactical task performance with data

that is currently available on standard maps. From this comparison, three

important identifications about map information can be made:

(1) Information categories which are required by the user and

are portrayed at an appropriate level of detail on

conventional maps;

(2) Information categories and/or levels of detail which are

required by the user but are not available on conventional

maps;

4-13

_______.... .. .. .. ...I l .. .. .... i ' i~ T Ii ... .... . ... . . " U 
MAPPTS-AE INFORMATION

COPAEMEPLRDEERU

ADDITIONALENTI

I OP-USE QUESTIONS

USERREQIRED USE-REQIRE INFOMATON NFORATIN IFORATION I

EVALUEEN CRITERIAI

I AP INFOR14TION

REQUMI RUCENTS

TICOMPARE REQUIRED VERSUS CONVENTIONALLY AVAILABLE

I4-FOR14TION

iZE

+YES

REQUIREMENTS METHODS OF PORTRAYAL

FIGUIDELINES

TASK-BASE GUIDLIN O ENT INELP F R

USER-RIER-OIENTE MAMPOUCS

4-14
(3) Information categories and/or levels of detail which are

not needed by map users.

By focussing in on these map-related information distinctions, suggestions

can be offered concerning the adequacy of conventional maps and the

design of future maps which might meet user requirements as precisely as

possible. These suggestions are primarily guided by an accounting of

common user requirements and consideration of alternative methods of

graphic portrayal. In addition to the generation of guidelines for

user-oriented military maps, the map-use questions and specific map

information requirements derived from the application of the task-based

approach can also provide explicit criteria for evaluating the impact

of map variables on human performance.

4.3.1 Common User Requirements

One of the most important advantages of a task-based approach is the

opportunity it offers the map maker to accommodate the specialized requirements of different map user groups. Once a representative sample of task

requirements has been established, as illustrated in Chapter 3, cross-task

comparisons can begin to identify the common as well as the unique categories of information required by different military users. Those tasks

which overlap considerably in their information requirements could be

grouped together and a single map developed to meet their common information

needs. In this case, however, a "lowest common denominator" rule would need

to be applied to insure that minimum level of detail requirements were

satisfied for each user. At issue here is a compromise between user needs

on the one hand, and development cost-effectiveness on the other.

4-15
A cost-effective map product is one which can be used successfully by a

large segment of the military population without any undue strain resulting

from unnecessary and/or irrelevant information detail. The task-based

approach can help to develop such products by providing map makers with a

detailed inventory of competing task-based requirements. The problem for

map development, in this context, is to identify those subtasks which hold

many or even most of their information requirements in common.

Information Categories

One method for assessing common information requirements across users was

demonstrated via the frequency tabulations applied to Tables 4-1, 4-2, and

4-3, which resulted from the task-based analyses. Such a tabulation of

information requirements can be used to determine map content for general

purpose as well as special purpose maps. In the same manner, information

categories not generally needed for the performance of common tactical

tasks could, in the interest of map simplification and clutter reduction,

.be systematically eliminated from new map~products. Thus, for example, if

a general purpose map is being developed for tactical planning tasks, the

map maker can look across the relevant tasks analyzed to identify the

common information requirements of users. Finding that most of the potential

users would probably require road network information, the map maker can

then compare the projected use of the information categories (e.g.,

military load classification, width, conditions, gradients, etc.) toward

deciding on a user-oriented portrayal of road networks. If it were

observed, as in the case of the tasks sampled here, that military load

classification, width and condition were much more frequently required than

the other attributes, only these categories might therefore be included

on the intended map.

4-16
The task-based approach can also be used to help identify unique or nonoverlapping information requirements. For example, consider the map

information item of contc ," intervals. From the tasks sampled, it was

observed that users arf enerally concerned with areas where vehicles

can and cannot travel; in other words, the user is primarily interested

in the slope of the area. By extending the task-user-echelon sample,

other uses of contour intervals may be defined. If further sampling

revealed that contour lines are used primarily for slope determination,

various methods of portraying slope information directly might be considered. ETL (1973), for example, in their experimental terrain graphic

(A.O.G. IIc) portrays slope directly by using various colors keyed to

categories of slopes, thus relieving the user of the need to calculate

slope from contour intervals. We are not advocating the removal of contour intervals from maps and portraying slope directly; rather, this is

an attempt to illustrate the very basic issues in map making which may

arise from an application of a task-based analysis.

Level of Information Detail

In order to provide a map product which would be useful to a wide range

of users, the level of information detail portrayed must satisfy their

needs. One approach to this problem is to identify the lowest common

denominator of detail across user requirements. For example, tactical

map users must frequently assess concealment, canopy closure and fields

of fire on the battlefield. The common denominator for these information

categories is vegetation height. Thus by portraying appropriate categories of vegetation heights on a multi-purpose map, the needs of all

those interested in concealment, canopy closure and fields of fire could

be served.

4-17
In contrast, ETL (1973) using-an operations-based rather than task-based

approach, created a map (A.O.G. IIc) that directly portrays varying

amounts of concealment, canopy closure and fields of fire which are

graded specifically in support of armor-related information requirements.

Users needing to assess concealment, canopy closure and fields of fire

for other purposes might have difficulty using this map because vegetation providing concealment, for example, for a tank (see Exhibits A and

B) differs from the concealment needed for, say, the selection of a POW

collection site (see Exhibit G). Hence, the portrayal of the lowest

common denominator of information detail can represent a cost-effective

approach to map development in that a wide range of users may be satisfied

with a minimum number of graphics.

Summary

Each role-play of another map use task will add user-specified requirements to the map content database, and the corresponding information

requirements and levels of detail common among users will require

reassessment. Creating a comprehensive map content database will, of

course, require an expanded task sampling and hence the present research

effort represents only a starting point. However, the establishment of

such a database can serve as an important foundi.tion from which useroriented map products may be developed.

4.3.2 Information Portrayal Alternatives

Within the framework for map development, an important step is the consideration of alternative methods of portrayal. Clearly, the information

portrayal technique and the task-based use for the information impact

upon each other. For example, in terms of how information is portrayed,

road information would be more useful for tactical planning tasks if the

roads were distinguished by functional categories, such as military load

4-18
classification and condition. On the other hand, these functional categories may not be very helpful in ground navigation tasks, where a

descriptive categorization scheme such as specification of the number of

road lanes would be preferable. Whether categorization systems can be

devised which combine functional as well as descriptive attributes Viill

require further investigation.

Traditionally, military maps have provided the user with a flat, overhead perspective of the environment, using contour lines, color coding,

and symbols to indicate the natural and man-made features. For many map

users, however, it seems possible that there may exist more effective

ways of representing the map information content. As pointed out in

Section 2.3.2, ETL (1973), for example, has for several years been

experimenting with new portrayal techniques. Recently a guide to innovative design has been prepared (Weltman, 1979) which provides 151 different

examples of useful ways of displaying geographic and environmental information. Several examples from the guide are described in Table 4-4. They

have been selected because they: (1) are relevant to the map-related

tactical tasks analyzed in the present report; (2) promise an improvement

over a conventional display technique; and (3) are theoretically amenable

to modern forms of graphic display. Each example includes a brief

description of the portrayal technique and its application potential for

military tasks.

Most of the examples presented in Table 4-4 were drawn from "thematic map"

representations in the sense that they focus on the display of individual

variations of a single phenomenon or the relationship between phenomena.

The rationale, therefore, for studying these creative maps has been provided by Robinson and Petchenik (1976):

4-19
TABLE 4-4

INNOVATIVE EXAMPLES WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY INFORMATION PORTRAYAL

(The number in parentheses following each map title

refers to its identification in the Weltman (1979) report.)

EXAMPLE 1: COMPUTER GENERATED TOPOGRAPHY AND CONCEALMENT MAP (1.1)

DESCRIPTION: Provides three-dimensional representations of surface

configuration; Allows easy visualization of gross surface features

and areas of concealment potential.

APPLICATION: May prove useful to tactical planners concerned with

the availability of natural concealment (see Exhibits E and F); As

an insert to a standard topographic mapmay provide users with a

quick, easy-to-recognize view of an area.

EXAMPLE 2: SEQUENTIAL SECTIONS (1.4)

DESCRIPTION: Shows the cross-section of topography for one axis only,

thus providing a sense of travel conditions over the land in the same

direction as the contour lines.

APPLICATION: Might be useful to tactical route-planners (see Exhibits

A and E).

EXAMPLE 3: AIR LANDING GRAPHIC (1.5)

DESCRIPTION: Aerial photograph with color overlayed to indicate ground

cover and potential helicopter landing sites; Detailed photos and site

descriptions provided on reverse side.

APPLICATION: Could provide direct information needed for selecting

landing sites (see Exhibit C).

4-20
TABLE 4-4 (CONTINUED)

INNOVATIVE EXAMPLES WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY INFORMATION PORTRAYAL

EXAMPLE 4: GROUND TACTICAL DATA (1.111

DESCRIPTION: Soil type is noted by color, and vegetation classifications

are represented by texture; Various patterns of dotted and dashed lines

represent stream widths and depths.

APPLICATION: Provides valuable information for the assessment of

trafficability (see Exhibit A).

EXAMPLE 5: ORIENTEERING MAP (1.15)

DESCRIPTION: A topographical map of an area refined to include terrain

details such as cliffs, boulders, ruins, fences, small foot paths, etc.,

designed for on-foot navigation.

APPLICATION: Might be useful to ground forces involved in non-vehicular

movement.

EXAMPLE 6: FISH EYE AERIAL PHOTO (2.3)

DESCRIPTION: Provides a wide field of view by means of distortion;

Information is clearest in the center of the photograph; Surrounding

information, while visible, recedes rapidly into impressionistic

information.

APPLICATION: May be helpful to users requiring information about

buildings (see Exhibit 6); Although slightly distorted, the wide field

of vision provides a sense of context within a built-up area.

4-21
TABLE 4-4 (CONTINUED)

INNOVATIVE EXAMPLES WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY INFORMATION PORTRAYAL

EXAMPLE 7: 3600 PANORAMIC PERSPECTIVE (2.5)

DESCRIPTION: Provides a four-directional view of an urban area from

the top of a specified landmark; Diagonal intersections of the four

perspectives create discontinuous street patterns; Avoids the distortion problems of the "fish-eye" view, which also offers a panorama

perspective.

APPLICATION: Might prove helpful to users concerned with building

heights (see Exhibit 6); Might aid in self-orientation and self-localization since mimetic representations of the environment are utilized.

EXAMPLE 8: BAR MAP (4.9)

DESCRIPTION: A variation of the bar graph; For example, bar segment

lengths may be proportional to the percentage of time that winds of

varying velocities occur in specific directions averaged over a

period of time.

APPLICATION: Could offer a valuable overview of seasonal aspects of

battlefield weather, such as rainfall estimation (see Exhibits A and D);

Might be applied to the seasonal variation of river depths, vegetation

(in terms of concealment afforded), as well as soil trafficability;

Might provide an alternative to tabularized seasonal information

portrayed on some graphics (e.g., A.O.G. lib, ETL, 1973).

4-22
TABLE 4-4 (CONTINUED)

INNOVATIVE EXAMPLES WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY INFORMATION PORTRAYAL

EXAMPLE 9: TIME-DISTANCE MAP (5.10)

DESCRIPTION: Warped in such a way as to indicate travel time rather

than distance from a specified location; Concentric circle bands

represent time frames for locations of the various points, and a point

which takes a long time to reach will appear relatively far away.

APPLICATION: Could be adapted to reflect travel time for tracked or

wheeled vehicular movement; Might be of assistance to tactical routeplanners (see Exhibits A, B, E and G).

EXAMPLE 10: PROBABILITY OF AERIAL DETECTION, HORIZONTAL VISIBILITY

AND FIELDS OF FIRE (6.16)

DESCRIPTION: Color and value express degree of concealment from aerial

observation; Superimposed numbers provide maximum horizontal visibility

in meters; Colored dot patterns and numbers indicate restricted field

of fire and their depth in meters.

APPLICATION: Could provide tactical planners with valuable information

(see Exhibits D and F).

EXAMPLE 11: COMPUTER SIMULATION (8.3)

DESCRIPTION: A mathematical construction generated via a computer

system; Offers a realistic three-dimensional and/or dynamic representation.

APPLICATION: Might prove useful to tactical planners requiring an overview of the surface configuration of an area (see Exhibits C, D and G);

Could indicate slopes (though not in the precision available on standard topographic maps), natural concealment and potential movement

corridors; Might be useful as a navigational training aid.

4-23
TABLE 4-4 (CONTINUED)

INNOVATIVE EXAMPLES WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY INFORMATION PORTRAYAL

EXAMPLE 12: COMPUTER REPRESENTATIONS OF AIRPLANE LANDINGS (8.4)

DESCRIPTION: Computer generated sequence of pictures simulating

landings.

APPLICATION: Provides a useful training or planning device since.

sequence allows one to move through the important steps prior to

actual execution; Might be useful for small areas of operation, such

as inner-city navigation (possibly for commando-type operations).

4-24
"One of the most elegant things about thematic mapping,

in fact, is that it makes it possible for us to achieve

a total view of phenomena when that view is not possible

in any other way. There may well be a preferred scale

for each phenomenon being mapped thematically, as

asserted by Miller and Voskuil (1964), who argue that we

search for this "correct" scale in any thematic mapping

activity." (p. 122)

In light of the preceding remarks, it is interesting to note that some

of these creative maps violate the principles of standard cartographic

design. For example, Robinson, Scale, and Morrison (1978) list balance

as a desirable element of map design. They define the terms as follows:

"Balance in graphic design is the positioning of the

various visual components in such a way that their

relationship appears logical or, in other words, so

that it does not unconsciously or consciously disturb

the viewer. In a well balanced design nothing is too

light or too dark, too long or too short, in the wrong

place, too close to the edge, or too small or too large.

Layout is the process of arriving at proper balance."

(p. 286)

Nevertheless, some of the innovative map portrayal techniques referred

to above clearly violate the principle of balance. A case in point is

the 3600 Panoramic Perspective (Example 7); yet this display method may

be very effective and useful in providing a necessary view in certain

situations. Consequently, map developers will have to properly integrate

possibly conflicting graphic portrayal guidelines derived from varied

sources.

4.3.3 Map Evaluation Issues

The task-based approach to map database development has important implications for map evaluation as well. The decomposition of superordinate

4-25
map-use tasks, first into subtasks and finally into tactical questions,

serves to specify a set of explicit criteria for judging map product

effectiveness. For example, determining an enemy avenue of approach

involves intermediate subtask components (e.g., identify obstacles to

movement, identify areas sufficient for enemy movement; etc.) and these

in turn involve several concrete map-use questions (e.g., Are there any

slopes enemy vehicles cannot climb?; Where are the areas providing cover

for enemy tracked vehicles?; etc.). Each question, in effect, reflects

a potential requirement for effective map use performance. The relative

ease with which a particular map enables the user to answer each question

can be taken as a measure of that product's content adequacy.

The task-based approach to map evaluation may also prove valuable in

diagnosing the effects of multiple independent variables. For example,

as new map products are developed they are likely to portray numerous

categories of geographical and tactical information. Thus, emerging

products may portray some categories in a new way while leaving others

in their traditional form. A major problem for research, therefore, will

be tu pinpoint the relative effectiveness of multiple map factors.

Potash (1977) gives the following example:

"If one wants to test the effect of using layer tints

for evaluation as contrasted with contours by themselves

than one is automatically excluding the use of layer

tints for vegetation. If ability to extract information

about oegetation from the map is also of interest, it is

legitimate to contrast a map with contour lines plus

layer tints for vegetation with a map using contour

lines and layer tints for elevation plus iconic figure

coding for veletation."

Thus, by offering a set of multiple performance criteria corresponding to

basic subtask requirements, the use of a question-based approach to map

evaluation should make it easier to interpret the effects of complex map

4-26
variables. It would, for example, permit a more detailed analysis of

map effectiveness by specifying which subtask skills were improved and

which were not. In addition, a profile of subtask performance might be

developed to reflect the composite input of numerous independent map

variables. Ideally, such a profile should allow one to match a set of

map parameters with a corresponding set of task-based skill requirements.

The result could perhaps lead to guidelines for the design of maps

specially tailored to enhance performance over a well-defined range of

tactical rquirements.

In the evaluation of alternative map products, simple research strategies

should be sought. A straight-forward methodology might be to present

test subjects, who have been exposed to various map products, with a

sample set of task-oriented questions in order to assess the accuracy and'

the timeliness of their responses. This technique seems to offer a costeffective compromise between empirical field testing and subjective

rating-scale procedures. The former methodology cannot be used routinely

because of its prohibitive cost, while the latter has not always proved

to be sufficiently reliable (Farrell, 1977). Thus, the use of paper and

pencil question-based techniques to objectively evaluate performance with

maps such as demonstrated by Wheaton, Zavala, and Van Cott (1967), should

be further explored and developed.

4.4 Summary and Conclusions

The application of an in-depth analysis of information requirements for

specific map-use tasks appears to be a valuable technique for supporting

the development of improved military map products. While this effort

examined only a few representative tasks, the analyses showed that

by drawing comDarisons *of information needs across different tasks,

specific requirements can be identified which are relatively common

4-27
among tasks or somewhat unique to particular tasks. The integrated

analysis of such commonalities and differences, as they relate to

various task objectives, can provide a basis for enabling map developers

to make sensible trade-offs in considering the production of new useroriented maps. From an analysis of such information, it was illustrated

that development guidelines, for either general purpose or special purpose maps, can be systematically derived. In order to generate more

comprehensive map-development guidelines, it will be necessary to

sample a wider range of battlefield users and tasks and to analyze their

specific, detailed information requirements.

From the analyses performed here, it appears that, overall, the content

of standard topographic maps do not as yet satisfy many user requirements

for terrain information. As one example, consider vegetation portrayal.

Although vegetation classifications are provided on a standard map, the

level of detail does not enable distinction between vegetation as an

obstacle to movement from vegetation which provides concealment; and such

a functional distinction appears to be required for the successful

accomplishment of certain tactical tasks. In addition, the research

results indicate that deficiencies with standard maps do not seem to favor

particular groups of users. That is, for the tasks sampled, the information detail requirements of one user-echelon (e.g., Corps G-4) do not

appear to be met by the standard topographic map any more readily than

the requirements of a different user-echelon (e.g., Company Commander).

Maps, whether special purpose or standard topographic, play a vital and

integral part in battlefield decision making, and their context must

reflect the information needs of the user. The present research effort

focused upon the development and demonstration of a methodology designed

to systematically specify such information needs at a detailed, functional

level. The emphasis of the technical approach applied can perhaps be

4-28
adequately summarized by the following eloquent quote from Robinson and

Petchnik (1976):

... a map is constructed fundamentally to accomplish one

or more informative purposes; like any utilitarian article,

it must be designed with primary attention to its functioning. Recent developments in cartography have been phenomenal. This is especially true of the technical aspects:

as new methods and products of cartographic ingenuity are

developed and applied, we can look forward to a continuous

and exciting transformation of the field. But the real

basis for evaluating such things as manual landform representation, or systems of computer hill shading, or methods

of generalization, or the orthophoto map, lies not in the

reduction of cost, the lessening of the lag time between

the beginning and the completion of a map, or in the map's

popular appeal, but is to be found in the character of the

precepts the map marks actually induce. The worth of all

research in cartography, whether the investigation be

evaluative or innovative, technical or philosophical, must

ultimately be judged on functional, perceptual-cognitive

grounds." (pp. 108-109)

Within the context of research in cartography, therefore, the present

work began with the precept that military maps are primarily intended

to serve users in the performance of functional tasks. By capitalizing

on the task-based approach, progress was made in the direction of

improving techniques for identifying map-related information requirements. However, such progress can be considered only as an initial step

in the study of the mapping process, which must eventually lead to the

improvement of cartographic portrayel techniques and to the evaluation

of task performance based on resultant, innovative map products.

4-29
5. REFERENCES

Astley, R.W. A Note on the Requirements of Road Map Use. The Cartographer

Joutrial, 1969, 6, 130.

Berlin, G.L. Application of Aerial Photographs and Remote Sensing Imagery

to Urban Research and Studies. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange

Bibliography, 1971, No. 222.

Bowen, R.J., Halpin, J.A., Long, C.A., Lukes, G., Mullarkey, M.M., and Triggs,

T.J. Decision Flow Diagrams and Data Aggregation in Army Tactical

Intelligence. Bolt Beranek and Newman (Cambridge, MA), Report No. 2570,

June 1973.

Ciccone, D., Landee, B. and Weltman, G. Use of Computer-Generated Movie

Maps to Improve Tactical Map Performance. Perceptronics (Woodland

Hills, CA), Technical Report PTR-10335-78-4, April 1978.

Downs, R. and Stea, D. (Eds.) Image and Environment. Chicago: Aldine,

1973.

ETL, Development of an Experimental Family of Military Geographic

Intelligence Products to Support Armor Operations, Draft Version, U.S.

Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories (Fort Belvior, VA), June 1973.

Farrell, J. Effects of Terrain Portrayal Format on User Performance,

In TCATA, Proceedings of the Computer Graphic Smposium (Fort Hood, TX),

August 1977, pp. 51-81.

FM 5-36 Route Reconnaissance and Classification, Department of the Army

(Washington, D.C.), 20 January 1970.

FM 7-11 Soldier's Manual liB50, Infantryman, Skill Level 5, Department of

the Army (Washington, D.C.), 14 January 1977.

FM 7-20 The Infantry Battalion, Department of the Army (Washington, D.C.),

3 April 1978.

FM 23-3 Tactics, Techniques and Concepts of Antiarmor Warfare, Department

of the Army (Washington, D.C.), 24 August 1972.

FM 24-1 Combat Communications, Department of the Army (Washington, D.C.),

30 September 1976.

FM 30-10 Military Geographic Intelligence (Terrain), Department of the Army

(Washington, D.C.), 12 February 1971.

FM 100-5 Operations, Department of the Army (Washington, D.C.), 1 July 1976.

5-1
FM 100-20 Internal Defense and Development U.S. Army Doctrine, Department

of the Army, (Washington, D.C.), 28 November 1974.

FM 101-5 Staff Officers' Field Manual: Staff Organization and Procedure,

Department of the Amy, (Washington, D.C.), 19 July 1972.

Gaun, G.A. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. Military Intelligence Magazine, Summer 1976, pp. 29-33.

Granda, J.M. A Comparison Between a Standard Map and a Reduced Detail

Map Within a Simulated Tactical Operations System. U.S. Army Research

Institute (Alexandria, Virginia), Technical Paper 274, June 1976.

Hooper, K. and Cuff, D. Superfeatures of the UCSC Environment. University

of California (Santa Cruz, CA), Unpublished Manuscript, 1976.

Hooper, K. The Mapping Process, In Weltman, G. Maps: A Guide to Innovative design, Perceptronics (Woodland Hills, CA), Technical Report PTR10335-78-1, February 1979.

Huizar, N.R. Evaluation of 1:50,000 Scale and Experimental Air Movement

Data and Military STandard Maps. Headquarters MASSTER (Fort Hood, TX),

MASSTER Evaluation Number 4012, 1972.

Imhof, E. Tasks and Methods of Theoretical Cartography. International

Yearbook of Cartography, 1963, pp. 13-23.

IPB, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield, U.S. Army Intelligence

Center and School (Ft. Huachuca, AZ), Draft Version, 1977.

Kolacny, A. Cartographic Information--A Fundamental Concept and Term in

Modern Cartography. The Cartographic Journal, 1969, 6(1), 47-49.

Lo. D.P. Cartographic Presentation of Three-Dimensional Urban Information.

The Cartographic Journal, 1973, 10(2), 77-84.

Lynch, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.

McGrath, S. and Borden, G. Geographic Orientation in Aircraft Pilots:

An Analytic Study of Visual Checkpoints. Human Factors Research (Goleta,

CA), Technical Report 751-759, 1969.

Maggart, L.E. An Analytical Approach to Terrain Analysis and Allocation

of Combat Power. Military Review, 4 April 1978, LVIII.

Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain (MOUT), (formerly MOBA), Draft

Version, 1978.

Miller, O.M. and Vosjuil, R.J. Thematic Map Generalization. Geographical

Review, 1964, 54, 13-19.

5-2
Muehercke, P. Thematic Cartography. Commission on College Geography

Resource Paper No. 19, 1972.

Potash, L.M. Desiqn of Maps and Map-Related Research. Human Factors,

1977, 19, 139-150.

Potash, L.M., Farrell, J.P., and Jeffrey, T. A Technique for Assessing

Map Relief Legibility. U.S. Army Research Institute (Alexandria, VA),

Unpublished Manuscript, 1976.

Price, D. The effects of Certain Gimbal Orders on Target Acquisition and

Workload. Human Factors, 1975, 17(6), 571-576.

Rabchevsky, G.A. Remote Sensing of the Earth's Surface--Applications of

Remote Sensor Data. Journal of Remote Sensing, August/September 1970,

5-15.

Rhind, D.W. Generalization and Realism Within Automated Cartographic

Systems. The Canadian Cartographer, 1973, 10(1), 56-62.

Robinson, A., Sale, R., and Morrison, J. Elements of Cartography (Fourth

Edition. New York: Wiley, 1978.

Robinson, A.H. and Petchenik, B.B. The Nature of Maps. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Sheppard, D. and Adams, J. A Survey of Drivers' Opinions on Maps for

Route Finding. The Cartographic Journal, 1971, 8(2), 105-114.

Southworth, M. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 1970.

U.S. Army. Project Team I. Test of New and Improved Maps and Map

Products. U.S. Army Combat Developments. Experimentation Command

(Ford Ord, CA) 1974.

Watson, W.C. A Study of the Generalization of a Small-Scale Map Series.

International Yearbook of Cartography, 1970, pp. 24-32.

Weltman, G. (Ed.) Maps: A Guide to Innovative Design. Perceptronics

(Woodiand Hills, CA) Technical Report PTR-10335-78-1, February 1979.

Wheaton, G., Zavala, A., and Van Cott, H. The Effect of Map Design

Variables on Map User Performance. American Institute for Research

(Washington, D.C.), Technical Report No. R67-3, April 1967.

Wright, J.K. Terrae Incognita: The Place of the Imagination in Geography.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1947, 37(1), pp. 1-15.

Zannaras, G. The Cognitive Structure of Urban Areas. EDRA, 1973, 2,

214-220.

5-3
DISTRIBUTION

ARI [I,t,inrrrrr List

4 QASOW(&RAI 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

2 H-ODA IDAMI CSZI I HOUSACOEC, Ft Ordl, ATTN: ATEC - EX -F Hum Factors

1HODA IDAPE PBIRI 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Liiriiy

I fI ODA IDAMA AR) I USAI'ACDC, Ft Bmrli'i1 Harrisciri, ATTN: ATCP -HR

1 HOFIA IDAPF HRE PO)I 1 USA Comm- Elect Sch, Ft Monrmoruthi, ATTN ATSN -EA

I HODA (SGRD-lD) 1 USAEC. Ft Mornmouth, ATTN: AMSEL CT HOP

I HODA (UAMI.DOT.C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL -PA P

1HODA (DAPC PMZ-A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL SI -CB

I HUDA IDACH-PPZ A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Fact Dev Bt

IHODA (DAPE HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anial Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY P

I HODA (DAPE MPO CI I Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen. ATTN: SAREA HIL H

IHODA IDAPF DWI 1 USA OrrI Ctr & Sch, Alreideen, ATTN: ATSL--TEM- C

1 HODA (DAPE HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Alserdevir, ATTN: Lilirary/Dir

1 HODA (DAPE CPS) 1 USA Comnbat Arms Trrg Bd, Ft Benrtiir, ATTN: Ad Suprervisor

I HODA (OAFD MFAI I USA Infanrtry Hum Rsclr Unit. Ft Benninq. ATTN: Chiref

I HODA IDARO-ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Bd. Ft Berining, ATTN: STEBC IF- T

I HODA IDAPC PAS Al 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSS LRC

01HODA IDUSA OR) 1 USA Arr Det Sch. Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA CTO MF

I IlIODA IOAMfI RORI 1 LISA Arr Oret Schr, Ft Blrss, ATTN: Teclr Lit,

I1101 i/ (l)AFGI 1 USA Arr Oet Bd. FtI Blrss, ATTN: FILES

I HUISA IflAtOPII 1 USA Air Del Ed. Ft Blrss, ATTN: STEBO PO

I CI I.Conirii. Dry (DA-OTSGI. Arlelphi, MD t USA Crnd & General Sit College.. Ft Leaenrworthr, ATTN: ILih

I1N1r1 A-t Hu..mt Res, ODORAF, CAD lL&LS) I lISA Crid & Genreral Stf Collette. Ft Leavenwoith, ATTN: A1SW -SE L.

I HO ISARAL, APO S,trl,-. ATTN: ARAGP R I USA CmrI & General StO Crollege, Ft Leaverrmrrrrh, ATTN. Erd Advisor

I HO First Army. AT1TN: AF KA-01 TI I LISA Cr rrrlrrred Arirrs Crrrlt Drev Art, Ft Lrrv-r or tlr, ATTN: DepC'lr

2 HO Frfth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Amt Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

I D1.,. Army SOI Studies Ole. ATTN: OAVCSA IOSPI t USA Combined Arms Cmnbt Dev Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

1 01,r Chrlirl ,ISi. ;trrr DIr 1 USA Crimlrirred Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: AICACO -F

I IrCSI'IR, At ITN CP!;'0(1' I USA Ciiirn-ri Arrir Crnlrt 0ev Air VIt Leavorricth. ATTN: ATCACC -C

I Wh.- Ainry Lib. I'vrrtaloi ATTN HSII Chrief I USAFCOM, Night Vrsion Lahr, Ft ltelerir. ATTN: AMSFL-NV-SO

I rhe Army Lrlr. Perrtaqorr. ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Conrputer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir. ATTN Tech Library

I DlIc. Asia Sect .it the Armry (R&D) 1 USAMEROC. Ft Belvoir, ATTN: SISFBt DO

I ITech Suprort Irc OJCS I USA Eng Srch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library

IUSASA, Arlrinitrri, ATTN IAR)) r 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL TDo-S

I tJSA Rsch O14,. Orirlirm, AT TN ifi'Scirrues Dir I (ISA Tortrnrrapfric Lali, Ft Belvoii. ATTN: STINFO Center

2 ISAIEM. Nitrik, A [TN SGRD UF CA t LISA Trilrirrjirc Lali, Ft Beleruir, ATTN: E VFL GSL

I US1A Ti, Ii Iyrri AlI I N '.1 111 M0) A I rI-NA Irvlhrlrrlrr Cri & Sch.r I lrlii,rma ATTIN CT1) MS

I US~AIMA, 1-1 Bretli. AlII N A ISU (D OM t USA Irrlrllrienci: Coo & Schr, Ft Huichi:, A fTN: ATS- CTD-MS

1 USAIMA. Ft B,alri ATTN. Muiruat Lrt) 1 USA Irrtelliciesce Ctr & Sch, Ft Hiachrrca. ATTN ATSI- TE

IUS WAC Cli & Si-I Ft McClellan, ATTN: Lit)r I USA lnrellrqetice C'& Schr.Ft Hrrachrrca. ATTN-ATSI- TFX GS

I US WAC Cli & SrI,. Ft McClellan, ATTN: Trri Drr I USA Intelligence Cti & Schr. Ft H-10,101ri:d. ATTN: ATSI -CTS- OR

1 USA Quartermasrir Sibh. Fri Lee. ATTN: ATSM TE t UJSA Intellittence Cli & Sc., Ft Huachrrca, ATTN ATSI--CTD DT

I Intelliglence Materi Di-v Ofr FWL. F t H(Ilalrrid 1 UISA Intelligence Cor & Schr, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI- CTD -CS

I USA SE Srr,al SrI, F t Giiil,rr ATTN ATSO L A 1 (iSA Intelligence Cr, & Sch, Ft Huachirra. ATTN: DAS/SRD

IUAChal.nrr Cot At';,r h I ~ r ATTN ATSC- TF RD 1 1, ISA hi.tell genre Crt & Sch, VtI Huachr r..;a. ATTN- A TSI - TF M

I UAS I-f u1%AT IN Lrlrrr Arlersor I USA Iittelligeuce Crr & Schr, Ft Huachuc, ATTN. Library

IUSAi War Cr1lerli Carl.Os lr Itcr,. ATTN itr I CDR, HO Ft Hriuijr..rca ATTN* Tech Ref Div

IUSA Conreit Anal AAIiy. Bethesdia. ATTN. MOCA MR 1 HO, TCATA. ATTN! AT CAT-OP-O F t HiroilI

1 USA Conciepit Anal Aqcy. Bethesda. ATTN: MOCA-JF IUARcutn mF hrdn TN SRP1 lISA Arctic Test Cli. APO S,-attlv. ATTN: STEAC P1-MI 1 Senior Army Adv.. USAFAGOD/TAC. Elgiri AF- Airs Flit Nor 9

1 USA Arctic Test Colr, APO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTE-PL TS 1 HO. USARPAC. DCSPER. APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPL SL

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

IUSA Armament Cmtl. Rock Islanod. ATTN: AMSAR.TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst . AT TN: Dean-MCI

I FAA NAFEC. Atlantic City. ATTN: Library 1 HO. USMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT

I FAA NAFEC. Atlantic City. ATTN: Iluman Engr Ri 1 HO. USMC. Commandant. ATTN - Code MPI 20-28

I FAA Aeronautical Cli. Olahioma City. ATTN: AAC 440 2 USCG Academy. New London, ATT'N: Admission

2 USA Fid Arty Sch. Fr Sill, ATTN Library 2 UJSCG Acadlemy, New London, ATTN: Library

I UISA Armor Sch. Ft Knoxt, ATTN: Library I UJSCG Training Ctr. NY, ATTN: CO

1 lISA Armorrr Soor, Ft Kioire ATTN. ATSR IN1 F I USCG Training Cli. NY, ATTN' tiuc Svc OftI USA Armirr Str,. It Vi-. ATTN ATSI FIT II' IIUSCG Psvctroll Res Ri. DC. ATTN GP' 1/62

1 USA Arnior Sch. Ft rrIe ATTN ATSII CD AD 1 HO MirI-Raisge Br. MC Det. Ouanticni. ATTN P&S Div

6-1
1 US Marine Corps Liaison Ofc. AMC, Alexandria, ATTN' AI4CGS -F 1 Oct & Civil Inst of Enviro, Medicine, Canada

1 USATRAOOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATRO-ED 1 AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATTN: Into Sys Br

6 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATPR -AD 1 Militisrsyliologsc Tieneste. Copenhagen

I USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATTS--EA 1 Military Attache, French Embassy, AT. N: Doc Sec

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

2 USA Aviation Test Br). Ft Rucker, ATTN: STEBG-PO 1 Prin Scientific Oft. Appi Hunm Engr Rsch Div. Ministry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Riockvr, ATTN: Library ul Defense, New Delhi

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Pert Fisch Ofc Library, AKA, Israel Defense Forces

U LSA Aviation Sets, Ft Rucker. ATTN: PO Drawer 0 1 Ministenis ran Deferisie, DOOP/KI Aid Sociaat

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, St Louis, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR Psychologitche Zaken. The Hae, Netherlands

2 USA Aitioii 'Y% Te%t Act , Fdwards AFR, ATTN: SAVTE- -T

I USA Air Del Sib, Ftl Htim., ATTN: ATSA TFM

1 USA Air Mirtsliiy Rsctr A l).v Lai), Mof fett Flit, ATTN: SAVOL -AS

I USA Aviation Sch. Rrs Trig Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

1 USA Aviation Seti, CO. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-D-A

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN: AMXCD -TL

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN: CDR

1 US Military Academy. West Point, ATT~N: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy. West Point, ATTN: Ofe oit Mitt Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy. Wesqt Point. ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Stanctaidi.,ation Gp. UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE -GC

1 Qfc of Naval Risch, Ar lrritori ATTN: Code 452

3 Of c of Naval Rsch, Arlington. ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington. ATTN: Code 450

1 Die of Natal Rtch, Arlingqton, ATTN: Codle 441

1 Naval Aeiospe Med Ret Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sets Div

I Naval Aerostir Mcii Ries Lab. Pensacola. ATTN: Code 151

I Naval Aerirstc Med Ries Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code L5

I Chief of Narl'nrs. ATTNc Pert-OR

I NAVAIRSTA. Noartolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr

I Nat Oceanograiihic. DC. ATTN: Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal. ATTN: Dore Ctr

I NivAirSysCom, ATTN: AIR-5313C

I Nat SuMed, ATTN: 713

1 Navl~ellcoptetSubSqua 2. FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRI. (FT) Williamts AFS

I AFHRL (TT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL JAS) WPAFB, OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brookts AFS

1 AFHRL (DOJN1 Lackland AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSO)

1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG fRD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAF8, OH

2 AF Inst ot Tech, WPAFB, OH, ATTN: ENE/SL

1 ATC IXPTD) Randoliph AFB

I UISAF AerorMerf Lih, Broirks AFB (SUL 4). ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NLI. Arlington

I AF Log Cmvif, McClellarn AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sol Seni

5 NavPers & Dew Cr San Diego

2 Navy Mil Neuropsychiatric Rtch Unit. San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab. San Diego, ATTN: Res Lab

1 Nay Tnivigien. Sari Diego. ATTN: Code 9000.-Lib

1 NavPostGraSclr. Munterry, ATTN: Code 55Aa

I NavPiistGraSch. Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

I Nfvl'rngEguipCtr, Orlando. ATTN: Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor. DC. ATTN: Manpower Admin

t US Dept of Justice. DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Our of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for MH- Into, Rockville

1 Denver Federal Cli, Lakewood, AT1TN: RIM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofes, Canberra

1 Scientific Advisr, Mif Bd. Army Ilq, Russell Dics. Canberra

I Mit and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

1 Centre dii Recherche Des Facteurs, Humaine de la Defense

Natimla Onissels

2 Canadian ,losir Stall Washtington

1 C/Air Staff. Royal Canadian AF, ATTN: Pars Slid Anal Of

3 Chief. Canadian Def Atch Staff, ATTN: C/CADS(W)

4 litfish flef Staff. Britsh Embasey, Washington

6-2