Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (1992). Predicting Table VIII tank
gunnery performance from M-COFT hit rate and demographic
variables (ARI Tech. Rep. No. 955). Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences. (AD A254 580)

Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (1994). Predicting Table VIII tank
gunnery performance from M-COFT hit rate (ARI Tech. Rep. No.
1009). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A285 904

U.S. Army Armor Center (1991). Instructor utilization handbook
for the M1/M1Ai advanced matrix. Fort Knox, KY: Author.

U.S. Army Armor Center (1995). Enhanced mounted brigade training
strategy. Fort Knox, KY: Author.

U.S. Army Armor School. (1990). Armor Training Strategy (ST 17-
12-7). Fort Knox, KY: Author.

U.S. Army Armor School. (1993). Reserve Component Tank Gunnery
Training Program (ST 17-12-RC). Fort Knox, KY: Author.

U.S. Army Training Board. (1987). Training and organization of
the U.S. Army Reserve Components. Fort Monroe, VA: Author.

14



(i.e., the pretest criterion score [or standard] set by the unit
commander divided by 10, the number of engagements fired per
exercise). For a pretest criterion score of 861, for instance,
an average score (calculated by adding the four scores for a
specific engagement and then dividing by four) of < 86.1 on any
single engagement would be considered substandard and the
engagement in need of training. Unlike pretesting, training can
be conducted on either COFT or AFIST, except for the training of
simultaneous engagement A2 that must be conducted on COFT because
AFIST does not simulate the needed Caliber .50 machine gun.

Table 3

Predicted Tank Crew Table VIII Score and Probability of First-Run
Qualification for Selected COFT Pretest Scores

620 562 10%
669 609 20%
706 644 30%
737 673 40%
765 700 50%
793 727 60%
824 756 70%
861 791 80%
910 838 90%

Note. From "Device-Based Prediction of Tank Gunnery Performance,"
by J. D. Hagman and M. D. Smith, 1996, Military Psychology, 8, p.
66. Copyright 1996 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Reprinted with permission.

Except for under the most stringent pretest criteria (e.g., >
900) set by the unit commander, device-unqualified crews will
need training on more than one type of Table VIII engagement to
achieve qualified status. Although the order in which these
engagements is trained is likely to influence efficiency because
of differential transfer effects, little is known about the
nature and extent of these effects for Table VIII engagements.
As a result, we recommend that engagement training follow the
traditional easy-to-difficult progression.

Table 4 shows the difficulty rating of each Table VIII

engagement, as found by Hagman (1994) in his empirical analysis
of the live-fire performance of 109 ARNG armor tank crews. Using

7



FOREWORD

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is seeking to place greater
emphasis on the use of training devices to enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of home-station tank gunnery
training. To help ensure the success of this approach, ARNG
armor unit trainers need “how to” guidance on the use of specific
devices to maximize the payoff from their usage. This report
provides such guidance in the form of a device-based strategy
designed to prepare ARNG tank crews for subsequent on-tank
training and live-five gunnery qualification.

This research was conducted by the U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Reserve
Component Training Research Unit (USARI-RCTRU), whose mission is
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of reserve component
training through use of the latest in training technology. The
research task supporting this mission, “Train UP: Technology-
Based RC Training Strategies,” is organized under Science and
Technology Objective III.Q.2, Unit Training Strategies.

The National Guard Bureau (NGB) sponsored this research
under a continuing Memorandum of Understanding initially signed
12 June 1985. Results have been presented to Chief, Training
Division, NGB; and Special Assistant to the Commanding General,
U.S. Army Armor Center.

ZITA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Deputy Director Director
(Science and Technology)



toward the end of each matrix. Unfortunately, most crews run out
of training time under this traditional approach and undergo
little if any device-based training on the more difficult
engagements required for Table VIII qualification.

In contrast, the proposed strategy allows crews to move
about within each matrix on the basis of demonstrated
proficiency, thereby allowing training time to be focused on
engagements not performed to standard (i.e., on the pretest). In
doing so, time is not wasted on training engagements that crews
are already proficient at performing.

Although the primary purpose of strategy development was to
provide ARNG unit commanders and trainers with detailed guidance
on how to implement efficient and effective device-based
training, the development process has uncovered several areas in
need of further investigation. For example, a prediction tool
similar to that developed for the COFT (Hagman & Smith, 1996
needs to be developed for the AFIST. This would enable AFIST to
be used for pre~ and posttesting, as well as for training, and
allow units to proceed with strategy implementation at times when
both devices are not available. Currently, training can be done
on either device, but pre- and posttesting must be done on the
COFT.

Research is also required to determine the need for strategy
refinement in certain areas. It is unknown, for example, whether
or not (a) two successful criterion performances during training
are sufficient to ensure crew passage of the posttest, (b) an
easy-to-difficult training approach is most efficient for Table
VIII-related engagements, and (c) strategy implementation can be
effected in the amount of time anticipated (i.e., 60-90 min for
pretesting plus three drill weekends for training and
posttesting). Until these issues are resolved, the above
strategy is proposed to help ARNG armor unit trainers identify
which crews to train, which devices to use, which engagements to
present, and which proficiency standards to apply for achieving
maximum payoff from the limited time available for device-based
tank gunnery training.

1



coaxial machine gun, and Caliber .50 machine gun), whereas AFIST
simulates all but the Caliber .50 machine gun.

Table 1

Description of Table VIII Engagements

Engagement

Description

Al

R2

A3

B4

ASA

ASS

B1s

B2

B3

B4

BS

BSA

Table VIIIA (Day)

On defense, engage a moving and a stationary tank
with main gun using the gunner's auxiliary sight
(GAS) and battlesight gunnery.

On defense, simultaneously engage a stationary BMP
(tracked armored personnel carrier [APC]) with main
gun and a stationary BTR (wheeled APC) with TC's
Caliber .50 machine gun.

On offense, engage two sets of troops with coaxial
machine gun using precision gunnery.

On offense and under nuclear, biological, and
chemical (NBC) protection status, engage two
stationary tanks with main gun using precision
gunnery.

On offense, engage stationary and moving tank with
main gun using precision gunnery.

On offense, engage two moving tanks with main gun
using precision gunnery.

Table VIIIB (Night)

On defense, engage a stationary tank with main gun
from a three-man crew configuration using precision
gunnery.

On defense, engage two stationary BMPs with main gun
using precision gunnery.

On offense and under NBC protection status, engage a
stationary BMP with main gun and a stationary rocket-
propelled grenade launcher (RPG) team with coaxial
machine gun using precision gunnery.

On offense, engage a stationary and moving tank with
main gun using precision gunnery.

On defense, engage a stationary tank with main gun
using GAS battlesight gunnery under external
illumination.

On defense, engage a moving tank with main gun using
precision gunnery.



A STRATEGY FOR EFFICIENT DEVICE-BASED TANK GUNNERY TRAINING IN
THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

CONTENTS
Page
BACKGROUND ...... eee eee cece cece ee nee tent eens eee eee e wees 1
APPROACH ...........4 tee ccc eccee tee eee eee ee sence tee eceee were 2
Live-Fire Evaluation Requirements ............2cceceeeeeeee 2
Device Capabilities : sees . 2
Training and Evaluation Exercises ......... bee eee ween eee A
THE PROPOSED STRATEGY .......... see ee eee meee ween eee wane wee 5
Pretesting ........... 5
Training... = 6
Posttesting..... 9
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS .......... eee eee ewer eer cece eens 9
REFERENCES 1... eee cece cece cee eect cece cece cece cece eee eceeeence 13
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Description of Table VIII Engagements ...............- 3

2.  COFT and AFIST Training Exercises Corresponding to
Table VIII Engagements ........... tere eee ener e eee cees 4

3. Predicted Tank Crew Table VIII Score and Probability of
First-Run Qualification for Selected COFT Pretest
Scores......... tee e cence cece tee ececeee ste eeeee seeee 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flowchart depiction of strategy ..............ce eee 6

ix



A STRATEGY FOR EFFICIENT DEVICE-BASED TANK GUNNERY TRAINING IN
THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

To develop a strategy that minimizes the device-based
training time required to prepare armor crews of the U.S. Army
National Guard (ARNG) for on-tank training and live-fire gunnery
qualification on Tank Table VIII.

Procedure:

The strategy was developed on the basis of past tank gunnery
research findings reported since 1991 by the U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Science’s Reserve
Component Training Research Unit.

Findings:

Using two devices (i.e., the Conduct-of Fire Trainer [COFT]
and Abrams Full-Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer [AFIST]),
efficiency is achieved by training only gunnery engagements
subjected to later live-fire evaluation on Tank Table VIII,
Focusing on those engagements not performed to standard, and
allocation training time to crews that need it most, as
determined through pretesting. Guidance is provided to support
strategy implementation at the company level and the conduct of
research needed for future strategy refinement.

Utilization of Findings:

The developed strategy will help ARNG armor unit trainers
identify which crews to train, which devices to use, which
gunnery engagements to present, and which proficiency standards
to apply for achieving maximum payoff from the limited time
available for device-based tank gunnery training.

vii



References

Campshure, D. A. (1991). Devices and aids for training Mi tank
gunnery in the Army National Guard: A detailed analysis of
training requirements (ARI Research Rep. No. 1588).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A240 931)

Computer Sciences Corporation. (1995). Abrams full-crew
interactive simulation trainer (TM 9-6920-716-10-1).
Hampton, VA: Author.

Department of the Army. (1993). Tank Gunnery Training (Abrams)
(FM 17-12-1-2). Washington, DC: Author.

Hagman, J. D. (1994). Performance analysis of Table VIII tank

gunnery engagements (ARI Research Rep. No. 1669).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A286 186

Hagman, J. D., & Smith, M. D. (1995). Device-based prediction of
tank gunnery performance. Military Psychology, 8, 59-68.

Headquarters, U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (1992,
August 13). Combined arms training strategy development
(Draft TRADOC Pamphlet 350-XX). Fort Monroe, VA: Author.

Morrison, J. E., Campshure, D. A., & Doyle, E. L. (1991). A
device-aid-based strategy for training Ml tank gunnery in
the Army National Guard (ARI Research Rep. No. 1587).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A240 752)

Morrison, J. E., & Hagman, J. D. (1994). A device-based, time-
compressed strategy for Army National Guard tank gunnery
training (ARI Tech. Rep. 1012). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(AD A286 278)

Schmidt, R. A., & Young, D. E. (1987). Transfer of movement
control in motor skill learning. In S. M. Cormier, and J. D.
Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning (pp. 48-74). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

Shaler, M. D. (1995). Compressed gunnery program for Abrams Tank
Battalions: Trainer’s Handbook. Unpublished manuscript.

13



Approach

Strategy development involved the identification of live-
fire gunnery evaluation requirements, determination of device
capabilities to support these requirements, and selection of a
training and evaluation approach to support efficient device-
based acquisition of tank gunnery skills.

Live-Fire Evaluation Requirements

A primary goal of ARNG armor unit commanders is to qualify
as many tank crews as possible on Table VIII, a live-fire
evaluation exercise fired annually for record by ARNG armor units
to assess intermediate crew-level tank gunnery proficiency
(Department of the Army, 1993). Table VIII consists of the six
daytime (Table VIIIA) and six nighttime (Table VIIIB) engagements
shown in Table 1. Of these 12 engagements, two (A5S and B1S) are
"swing" engagements that may be fired day or night (depending on
range conditions, time of year, etc.), and two (A5A and B5A) are
alternate engagements that may be fired in place of A5S and B5.
Thus, each tank crew fires only 10 of 12 possible engagements and
must score 70 or more points on at least 7 out of the 10
engagements presented and fire a total score of 700 points or
more out of a possible 1,000 to qualify. Because of its
importance to crew-level gunnery evaluation and the overall
assessment of unit combat readiness, successful Table VIII
qualification was adopted as the terminal objective of strategy
development.

Device Capabilities

Two training devices available to ARNG armor units at their
home-station armories were selected for inclusion in the
strategy: the Conduct-of-Fire Trainer (COFT) (U.S. Army Armor
Center, 1991) and the Abrams Full-Crew Interactive Simulation
Trainer (AFIST) (Computer Sciences Corporation, 1995). Both
devices allow crews to use realistic tank controls in response to
computer-generated images displayed through tank optics. They
differ, however, in certain respects.

The COFT, for example, is a standalone, computer-based device
designed to support the gunnery training of tank commander (TC)
and gunner pairs within the confines of a simulated tank crew
compartment, with inputs from the remaining crew members (i.e.,
driver and loader) simulated by an instructor/operator (I/O). In
contrast, the AFIST is appended to a stationary tank to support
full-crew training, although the loader and driver simulations
are of considerably lower fidelity than the TC and gunner
simulations (Campshure, 1991; Morrison & Hagman, 1994). COFT
also simulates all three M1/M1Al tank weapon systems (main gun,



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

Research Report 1694

A Strategy for Efficient Device-Based Tank
Gunnery Training in the Army National Guard

Joseph D. Hagman
U.S. Army Research Institute

John E. Morrison
Institute for Defense Analyses

19961028 087 sce is

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DTIC QUALITY INSPECTED 1



Group 1 of the COFT matrix also includes 16 evaluation
exercises (i.e., 130-145) that contain a different selection and
random ordering of the actual engagements fired on Table VIII.
Some evaluation exercises, for example, include engagement B5,
whereas others include B5A. In addition, engagement A5A is not
simulated at all. Engagements A5S and A5A, however, are similar
in their targeting conditions, thereby eliminating the need for
their separate representation.

The AFIST matrix contains six groups of training and
evaluation exercises similar in content to those found on the
COFT matrix. To promote efficiency, only the training exercises
in Group 6 that simulate actual Table VIII engagements (Computer
Sciences Corporation, 1995) were used in strategy development.
Table 4 shows that AFIST exercise 6A2, for example, supports the
training of offensive, coaxial machine gun-based engagements of
troop targets as required by engagement A3 of Table VIII.
Because AFIST does not simulate the Caliber .50 machine gun, it
cannot be used to train or evaluate Table VIII engagement A2.

The Proposed Strategy

Given identification of the specific engagements fired on
Table VIII and the capability of COFT and AFIST to simulate these
engagements, the following strategy is proposed to guide tank
crew training and evaluation of Table VIII-related engagements on
each device.

Pretesting

As shown in Figure 1, the strategy begins with a pretest on
COFT. The purpose of this pretest is to (a) assess tank crew
proficiency on simulated Table VIII engagements, and (b) identify
those engagements not performed to standard and, therefore, in
need of training. Theoretically, pretesting could also be
conducted on AFIST, given that it also contains a Table VIII
evaluation exercise as part of matrix Group 6. To date, however,
the relation between simulated Table VIII performance on AFIST
and actual Table VIII performance on the range has not been
determined. As a result, pretesting must be conducted on the
COFT, where the relation between device and live-fire performance
has recently been described (Hagman & Smith, 1996).

The COFT-based pretest that we recommend for strategy
adoption was developed and validated by Hagman and Smith (1996
for the purpose of predicting the probability of first-run Table
VIII qualification. The test consists of four 10-engagement
evaluation exercises (i.e., 131, 132, 133, and 134) from Group 1
of the COFT training and evaluation matrix. To promote



Both devices feature a software-driven matrix of training and
evaluation exercises. Although structured differently, both
matrices support presentation and automated scoring of various
Table VIII-related target engagement exercises depicted on either
simulated European or desert terrain (U.S. Army Armor Center,
1991). A matrix progression algorithm allows crews to advance
from one exercise to the next, in a lock step fashion, contingent
upon demonstrated gunnery proficiency. Both devices' algorithms
can be overridden, however, to enable random access to any
exercise, a capability needed to implement the proposed strategy.

Training and Evaluation Exercises

The training exercises on each device permit TC and gunner
(COFT) and full-crew (AFIST) engagement of single and multiple
targets under fully operational (i.e., precision gunnery) and
degraded mode (e.g., inoperative laser range finder) firing
conditions. The COFT training exercises are separated into four
groups. Unlike AC tank crews, ARNG tank crews are not required
to fire the training exercises in Groups 2-4 before undergoing
live-fire Table VIII evaluation; thus, only exercises contained
in Group 1 (i.e., 101-120) were considered for strategy adoption.
Table 2 shows which of these exercises simulate the targeting
conditions of Table VIII engagements. The COFT exercises 113 and
117, for example, present defensive, GAS-based, main gun
engagements similar to that fired on Table VIII engagement Al.

Table 2

COFT and AFIST Training Exercises Corresponding to Table VIII
Engagements

Table VIII COFT Training AFIST Training
Engagements Exercises Exercises
Al 113, 117 6AT1
A2 101, 111 --

A3 102, 106 6AT2
B4 102, 106, 110 6AT3
ASS 102, 106, 110 6AT4
ASA 102, 106, 110 6ATS
B1sS 103, 107, 119 6BT1
B2 105 6BT2
B3 110 6BT3
B4 102, 106, 110 6BT4
BS 113, 117 6AT1
BSA 105 6BTS



A STRATEGY FOR EFFICIENT DEVICE-BASED TANK GUNNERY TRAINING IN
THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Background

In attempting to attain and maintain readiness standards
comparable to their Active Component (AC) counterparts, U.S. Army
National Guard (ARNG) combat arms units face serious challenges
stemming from congressionally imposed limitations on training
time (i.e.,12 Inactive Duty Training [IDT] weekends and 2 weeks
of Annual Training [AT] per year [U.S. Army Training Board,
1987]). To maximize the payoff from the limited time available
for training tank gunnery, for example, ARNG armor units plan to
shift more of the training emphasis from a tank-based to a
device-based approach (U.S. Army Armor School, 1990).

For this shift in approach to be successful, an efficient
strategy is needed to help guide the design and execution of
device-based tank gunnery training at the unit (i.e., company)
level where such training typically is conducted. Issues
requiring resolution include, for example, which device(s) to
use, which training and evaluation exercises to conduct, and
which proficiency standards to apply (Hagman & Smith, 1995).

Although several strategies have been developed in response
to this need, they either do not provide the specific level of
device usage guidance needed for standardized implementation
(e.g., Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command,
1992; Shaler, 1995), fail to promote efficiency by requiring
either a full training calendar year to complete (e.g., Morrison,
Campshure, & Doyle, 1991) or redundant use of devices (U.S. Army
Armor Center, 1995), or fail to recommend sufficient device usage
(U.S. Army Armor School, 1993). In addition, none rely on
validated device-based performance standards.

The purpose of the present research, therefore, was to
develop a tank gunnery training strategy for the ARNG that
maximizes the efficiency of device usage, provides sufficient
guidance to support standardized implementation, and promotes
successful transition from device- to tank-based training and
associated live-fire gunnery qualification through application of
validated device-based performance standards keyed to expected
live-fire gunnery performance. Efficiency is achieved by (a)
emphasizing device-based training of only those gunnery
engagements subjected to live-fire evaluation, (b) focusing on
engagements not performed to standard, and (c) allocating
training time to crews that need it most, as determined through
pretesting.



Research Report 1694

A Strategy for Efficient Device-Based Tank Gunnery Training
in the Army National Guard

Joseph D. Hagman
U.S. Army Research Institute

John E. Morrison
Institute for Defense Analyses

Reserve Component Research Unit
Ruth H. Phelps, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Department of the Army

June 1996

Army Project Number Training Systems and Education
20363007A793

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.



this table, unit trainers should proceed with the training of
engagements Al, A3, and B1S, for example, in the order B1S, Al,
and A3. Although we do not know if an easy-to-difficult
progression is indeed the most efficient, it should lead to
effective acquisition and transfer of enabling skills (e.g.,
proper reticle aim) needed for successful performance of more
difficult engagements. It should also be accepted well by ARNG
trainers who have become accustomed to training under such an
approach in the past.

Table 4

Difficulty Rankings of Table VIII Engagements

Table VIII Difficulty
Engagement Ranking
A3 1
B3 2
A2 3
Al 4
B2 5
A4 6.5
B4 6.5
BS 8
ASS 9
ASA 10
BSA 11
B1s 12

Note. 1 = most difficult

As shown in Table 2, COFT can be used to train all Table VIII
engagements, whereas AFIST can be used to train only a subset
(because of the missing Caliber .50 machine gun). When both
devices are capable of supporting the training of a particular
Table VIII engagement (e.g., Bl), we recommend that AFIST be used
as the device of choice because of its ability to involve all
four crew members during the engagement, thereby promoting full-
crew integration in the process. Regardless of the device used,
when two or more exercises are identified for the training of a
particular Table VIII engagement (e.g., A3), trainers should
alternate between or among exercises to enhance variety and
facilitate transfer (Schmidt & Young, 1987).

We recommend that a provisional standard for crew proficiency
on training exercises be set at two successful criterion
performances. On the COFT, criterion performance is achieved



(Shaler, 1995). Regardless of which approach is adopted, on-tank
training is essential for crews to experience the different
aspects of gunnery not practiced or simulated on devices, yet
important for successful Table VIII qualification (e.g., open-
hatch target acquisition, misfire procedures, tank movement and
gun recoil effects, and safe handling of heavy main gun
ammunition).

Discussion

The strategy just described suggests a number of ways for
promoting efficient use of the device-based training time
required to prepare ARNG armor crews for on-tank training and
subsequent live-fire gunnery qualification on Table VIII. Using
COFT alone or in combination with AFIST, time is saved by
restricting the scope of device-based training to only
engagements subjected to Table VIII evaluation, and then only to
that subset not fired to the pretest standard set by the unit
commander. In addition, by excusing device-qualified crews
(i.e., those passing the pretest) from further training on
devices, training time can be spent on crews that need it most.
Posttesting then ensures that previously device-unqualified crews
have attained the level of proficiency required for successful
transition to on-tank training and live-fire gunnery.

In attempting to streamline device-based training, it might
be argued that the proposed strategy recommends "teaching the
test" in order to boost Table VIII qualification rates, and that
crew gunnery involves more than proficiency on just the limited
number of engagements fired on Table VIII. While we would agree
that Table VIII does not represent an exhaustive set of gunnery
engagements needed to survive and win on the battlefield, it
does, however, contain the array of engagements judged
appropriate for certification of intermediate crew-level tank
gunnery proficiency (Department of the Army, 1993). Given the
present training time constraints and yearly gunnery evaluation
demands placed on most ARNG armor units, it seems reasonable that
the emphasis of device-based training should be placed on
engagements that impact this certification as opposed to those
that do not. Such a strategy will maximize the payoff from the
device-based training time invested without compromising existing
live-fire performance goals.

In attempting to save time, the proposed strategy recommends
that the training and evaluation matrices on COFT and AFIST be
used in ways not originally intended. Traditionally, crews start
training on the easier engagements (e.g., engagement of a single
stationary target from a stationary tank) found early in each
matrix and proceed to the more difficult engagements (e.g.,
engagement of multiple moving targets from a moving tank) found

10



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1, REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
1996, June Final July 1995-March 1996
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

A Strategy for Efficient Device-Based Tank Gunnery Training in the Sb, PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

Army National Guard 0603007A.
6. AUTHOR(S) Sc. PROJECT NUMBER
A793
Joseph D. Hagman (ARI) and John E. Morrison (Institute for Defense | 54, Task NUMBER
Analyses) 2125
5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER
HO1
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: PERI-ID

5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

9, SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARI
5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 11, MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1694

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

A strategy is proposed for minimizing the device-based training time required to prepare armor crews of the U.S. Army National
Guard for on-tank training and live-fire gunnery qualification. Using two devices (i.c., the Conduct-of-Fire Trainer [COFT] and
Abrams Full-Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer [AFIST]), efficiency is achieved by training only gunnery engagements subjected to
later live-fire evaluation, focusing on those engagements not performed to standard, and allocating training time to crews that need it
most, as determined through pretesting. Guidance is provided to support strategy implementation at the company level and the
conduct of research needed for future strategy refinement.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Reserve component Armor training
Tank gunnery Tank Table VIII
SNE SECURITY, CLASSIFICATION OF) 19. LIMITATION OF | 20. NUMBER | 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)
16. REPORT | 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified | Unclassified | Unclassified | Unlimited 20



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

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director

a
Technical review by

Ronald E. Kraemer
Bruce Sterling

NOTICES

| FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to
the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, }
unless so designated by other authorized documents.



standardization of testing, the exercises are fired in ascending
order without feedback from the I/O (except for sector
adjustments), with crews given a 5 min rest period after each of
the first three exercises. The scores for the four test
exercises are then added (after subtracting points for procedural
errors, such as attempting to fire the main gun before it is
safely armed or not firing first at the most dangerous target
during a multiple target engagement) and divided by four to
obtain a mean COFT pretest score from 0-1,000 points. This
pretest score is then used to predict the probability of tank
crew first-run qualification on Table VIII.

Pretest
Sei Fail
Train -——
vy
Pass Posttest
Device Pass raw Fail
Qualified |* Score

Figure 1. Flowchart depiction of strategy

Table 3 depicts a selected range of potential COFT pretest
scores (column 1) along with each pretest score's predicted mean
Table VIII score (column 2) and associated probability of first-
run Table VIII qualification (column 3). Use of this table
enables a unit commander to predict that a particular crew
obtaining a COFT pretest score of 765, for example, will on the
average fire 700 on Table VIII and have a 50% chance of actual
first-run qualification. Depending on whether pretest scores
fall above or below the standard for Table VIII qualification
(e.g., 50%) set by the unit commander, some crews will be device
qualified, whereas others will be device unqualified.

Training

As shown in Figure 1, only device-unqualified crews receive
device-based training under the proposed strategy. Thus,
training time is devoted only to those crews lacking in gunnery
proficiency, thereby promoting efficient allocation of the time
available. To promote further efficiency, training is restricted
only to individual engagements not performed to pretest standard

6



upon crew receipt of an "advance" recommendation from the device
in the areas of target acquisition, reticle aim, and system
management, as provided on the performance analysis printout. on
the AFIST, criterion performance is achieved upon crew receipt of
a "pass" recommendation from the device for the exercise being
trained.

Posttesting

As a final step, crews that have completed training must be
posttested (i.e., by refiring the pretest) to ensure that device-
based proficiency has been achieved. Crews passing the posttest
are considered device qualified, whereas those failing the
posttest must repeat device-based training as outlined above.

Implementation Considerations

The proposed strategy is designed for unit implementation
over three (preferably consecutive) drill periods. To promote
efficiency, we recommend that pretesting be conducted during IDT
in conjunction with administration of the Tank Crew Gunnery
Skills Test (TCGST), the test used to certify crew member
proficiency on basic gunnery tasks (e.g., identify armored
vehicles, load main gun ammunition, issue fire commands).
According to Hagman and Smith (1996), pretesting will take 60-90
min per crew. If insufficient time is available to pretest all
crews during TCGST administration, then additional time should be
provided through use of 4-hr Readiness Management Assemblies
(RMAs) often reserved for gunnery training of individual crews
outside of monthly scheduled unit drill periods.

Before the first scheduled drill after pretesting, pretest
performance should be reviewed for the purpose of identifying
device-unqualified crews and selecting the appropriate Table
VIII-related engagement(s) for training (i.e., those not
performed to standard on the pretest). Similarly, the training
results of this and the following two drill periods should be
reviewed to select the appropriate exercises for training crews
yet to qualify for posttesting, and to posttest those that have
successfully completed training.

Once all crews have achieved device-qualified status by
passing the pre- or posttest, on-tank training should begin
either with (a) the Tank Crew Proficiency Course (i.e., Table IV)
and proceed as prescribed in FM 17-12-1-2 (Department of the
Army, 1993) or (b) Combat Table I and proceed as prescribed in
the Enhanced Mounted Brigade Training Strategy (U.S. Army Armor
Center, 1995), or with (c) an AFIST-based Table IV and proceed as
prescribed in the Compressed Gunnery Program proposed under
Project SIMITAR (Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness)