AD-A254 580

Technical Report 955 '/

Predicting Table VIII Tank Gunnery

Performance From M-COFT Hit Rate

and Demographic Variables

Monte D. Smith

CAE.Link Corporation

Joseph D. Hagman

U.S. Army Research Institute TIC

July 1992 U6 17, IM,

92-22901

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

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

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON MICHAEL D. SHALER

Technical Director COL, AR

Commanding

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

CAE-Link Corporation

Technical review by

John A. Boldovici

Scott E. Graham

NOTICES

oralci s, -P0 I li weAv e *ii

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.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE j OME 14c. 4 719C

-, : ,e-' "e , : 1 -c ,st.ax s.' "c , e o, e , e o, rse ivuamc tire tre rt e. r ,'s- - . - - -

~. ~.. . - 31 dC ij diall DIerCr Re'.c!O4 u ct e. '4 S . .<

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blanA.) 12. REPORT DATE I~REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

I1992, July I inal Apr 91 -Feb 92

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Predicting Table VIII Tank Gunnery Performance From DABT60-87-C-2776

M-COFT Hit Rate and Demographic Variables 63007A

795

6. AUTHOR(S) 3308

Smith, Monte D. (CAB-Link); and Hagman, Joseph D. (ARI) X07

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

CA-Link Corporation REPORT NUMBER

Link Training Services Division

209 Madison Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences ARI Technical Report 955

ATTN: PERI-I

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Funding provided by National Guard Bureau (NGB-ARO), 111 S. George Mason Drive,

Arlington, VA 22204

12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report describes research efforts to determine the ability to predict

Table VIII performance from Conduct-of-Fire Trainer (COFT) proficiency and tank crew

demographics and to develop cut scores for predicting Table VIII qualification.

Tank commanders (TCs) and gunners in 24 Army National Guard MI tank crews completed

the COFT Test of Gunnery Proficiency (CTGP) before firing Table VIII during annual

training. Hit Rate, based on 22 engagements from the CTGP, correlated positively

with Table VIII scores. Gunner's age, TC vision, and crew years of military service

also correlated with Table VIII. TC vision was positively related to Table VIII

scores, whereas gunner's age was negatively related to both Table VIII scores and

CTGP Hit Rate. The relationship between crew years of military service and Table

VIII was curvilinear (crews with intermediate years of service outperformed those

with either few or many years of service). When the three best predictor variables

were combined in a multiple regression algorithm, they accounted for more than 60%

of the variance in Table VIII scores. The results show that Table VIII performance

can be predicted from a combination of COFT Hit Rate and other measures and support

(Continued)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Reserve component Tank gunnery 59

Training devices I-COFT 16. PRICE CODE

Armor training

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89) Prunbed by ANSI Std 139-18 1 298,102
ARI Technical Report 955

13. ABSTRACT (Continued)

the viability of device-based training strategies for Army National Guard armor

units. If the results are replicable, COFT cut scores can be constructed to

serve as training guidelines. Crews trained to specified levels of COFT

proficiency can be expected (with known levels of probability) to qualify on

Table VIII.

DTTrC QTAL7vv T7KP C

Aooesslon For

DTIC TAB [

Ju.-!. Lf ' c.t ton

ii
Technical Report 955

Predicting Table VIII Tank Gunnery Performance

From M-COFT Hit Rate and Demographic

Variables

Monte D. Smith

CAE-Link Corporation

Joseph D. Hagman

U.S. Army Research Institute

ARI Boise Element

Ruth H. Phelps, Chief

Training Systems Research Division

Jack H. Hiller, Director

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

July 1992

Army Project Number Training Simulation

2Q263007A795

Approved for public releme; distibution is unirmiited.

i

• -K , ..
FOREWORD

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is emphasizing the use of

training devices to enhance home-station training of M1 tank

gunnery. To this end, work is under way to develop a devicebased tank gunnery training and evaluation strategy for ARNG use

at the company level. This report describes the results of

research performed to (a) determine the ability to predict livefire Table VIII performance from M-COFT proficiency and tank crew

demographic variables, and (b) develop an M-COFT test-based cut

score for predicting Table VIII qualification.

The research was conducted by the Training Technology Field

Activity, Gowen Field (TTFA-GF), whose mission is to improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of Reserve Component (RC) training

by using the latest in training technology. The research task

supporting this mission, "Application of Technology to Meet RC

Training Needs," is organized under the "Training for Combat

Effectiveness" program area.

The National Guard Bureau (NGB) sponsored this research

under a Memorandum of Understanding signed 12 June 1985 and

establishing the TTFA-GF. Results have been presented to Chief,

Organization and Training Division, Training Support .nd Management Branch, NGB; Chief, Training Division, Office of the Chief,

Army Reserve; Director, Training Development and Analysis Directorate, Training and Doctrine Command; and Deputy Director,

Training and Doctrine, U.S. Army Armor School.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Technical Director

v
PREDICTING TABLE VIII TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE FROM M-COFT HIT

RATE AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The purposes of this research were to (1) test the relative

effectiveness of a composite COFT achievement measure (Hit Rate

based on the COFT Test of M1 Gunnery Proficiency [CTGP] versus

more specific COFT measures as predictors of Table VIII performance; (2) investigate the incremental contribution of demographic variables to the Table VIII prediction equation; (3)

examine the predictability of COFT achievement; (4) evaluate the

impact of temporal proximity between the CTGP and Table VIII on

the COFT-to-live-fire gunnery relationship; and (5) develop COFT

cut scores, based on the derived Table VIII prediction model, for

use in setting COFT training objectives.

Procedure:

M-COFT, Table VIII, and demographic data were obtained from

tank commanders (TCs) and gunners of 24 M1 tank crews in four

Army National Guard armor companies. All data except M-COFT and

demographic measures were also collected from TCs and gunners of

12 additional crews from the same battalion to assess the impact

of CTGP administration. Hoffman and Witmer's (1989) Hit Rate,

based on the CTGP, provided the composite assessment of COFT gunnery skills. Table VIII scores were collected during annual

training (AT) at the first operation of a new computer-automated

firing range with electronic scoring. Tank crews were randomly

assigned to one of three treatment conditions, determined by

whether the CTGP was administered and the timing of its administration (either 1 month prior to AT or 1 day prior to AT). All

tank crews subsequently fired Table VIII during AT.

Findings:

COFT Hit Rate, a composite measure of tank gunnery performance from the CTGP, correlated significantly with Table VIII

scores. Hit Rate was superior to specific performance measures

in predicting Table VIII performance. Generally, the greater the

number of COFT exercises used to calculate Hit Rate, the stronger

its correlation with Table VIII. Relationships between COFT Hit

Rate and Table VIII were robust with either 1-day or 30-day

intervals between COFT testing and Table VIII. The addition of

vii
demographic variables (gunner's age, crew years of military

service, and TC vision) significantly enhanced the Table VIII

prediction equation.

Utilization of Findings:

These research findings are not suitable bases for revising

training policies until they can be replicated in all essential

details. However, the results demonstrate that Table VIII performance can be predicted from a combination of COFT Hit Rate and

demographic variables. If the findings are replicable and the

suggested model is valid, the COFT device can be used to identify

tank crews with both the highest probability of qualifying on

Table VIII, as well as those most urgently in need of remedial

training. COFT cut scores can be developed to serve as gunnery

simulation training objectives. Tank crews trained to specified

levels of COFT proficiency can be expected (with known levels of

probability) to qualify on Table VIII.

viii
PREDICTING TABLE VIII TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE FROM M-COFT HIT

RATE AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND........................ 1

Tank Gunnery Simulation...................1

M-COFT (Mobile Conduct-of-Fire Trainer)...........1

Relationship Between M-COFT and Table VIII...........2

Implications of Transitioning to M-COFT Training . . .4

PUJR.POSE ............................. 4

Specific Questions to be Answered..............4

METHOD.............................5

Participants.........................5

The COFT Test of Gunnery Proficiency (CTGP) ..... 5

Table VIII . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... ... ..... 7

Design and Procedure......................8

RESULTS..........................................8

Relationship Between COFT Hit Rate and Table

VIII Scores..........................8

Timing of CTGP Administration and Its Relationship and Table VIII Scores.........................16

The Relationship Between Demographic Variables

and Table VIIIScores ........ ... ...... 19

Table VIII Prediction Model.................27

COFT Cut-Scores for Establishing Training

Guidelines............................28

Predicting COFT Hit Rate....................35

COFT Impact on Table VIII Scores .............. 35

DISCUSSION....................................38

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................43

REFERENCES.....................................45

APPENDIX A. DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE .................. A-1

B. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE.............B-1

ix
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Table VIII Total Scores . . . 9

2. Correlations Between COFT Measures and

Table VIII Total Score ............... 12

3. Correlations Between Table VIII Total

Score and CTGP Fire Rate, Hit Proposition,

Hit Rate Based on Single Exercises and

Combinations of Two, Three, and Four

Exercises . . . . . . . ................ 15

4. COFT Inter-exercise Correlations ...... 17

5. COFT Part-to-Whole (Single Exercise-toComposite) Intercorrelations . ........ 19

6. Correlations Between COFT Composite

Measures and Table VIII Total Score

for Two Time Intervals .. ........... 20

7. Correlations Between Demographic Variables

and Table VIII Total Score .. ......... o. 20

8. Association Between Gunner's Age and

Table VIII Scores ... .............. 22

9. Crew Years of Military Service Mean

Quartile Scores and Corresponding Mean

Table VIII Total Score . . .......... 25

10. TC and Gunner Mean Age and Year of

Military Service Corresponding to

Table VIII Total Score Quartiles ....... 26

11. TC Vision and Table VIII Scores . ....... 26

12. Table VIII Stepwise Multiple

Regression Predictors ... . ........... 27

13. Mean and Extreme Values of Table

VIII Auxiliary Predictor Variables 30

14. COFT Hit Rate Needed in Order to

Predict Mean and Minimum Table VIII

Scores of 700 .................. ... 33

x
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table 15. Correlations Between Demographic

Variable and COFT Hit Rate . ......... 37

16. COFT Hit Rate Stepwise Multiple

Regression Predictors ... ............ 37

17. Mean Table VIII Night Engagement

Scores for "COFT Crews" and "No

COFT Crews" ...... ................. 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conditions represented in CTGP exercises . 6

2. Treatment design ......... .............. 8

3. Distribution of COFT Hit Rate scores . . .. 10

4. Plot of COFT Hit Rate with Table

VIII total score .... .............. 14

5. Plot of gunner's age with Table

VIII total score ... . .............. o. 21

6. Plot of "crew years of military

service" with Table VIII total score o 23

7. Plot of transformed "crew years of

military service" with Table VIII

total score .... .................. 24

8. Plot of predicted and actual Table

VIII scores ...... ................ o29

9. COFT proficiency required to predict

minimum Table VIII score of 700 for

crews with various "years of military

service" and two levels of "TC vision" o o . 34

10. Plot of predicted and actual COFT

Hit Rate scores .. ............... .... 36

xi
PREDICTING TABLE VIII TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE FROM

M-COFT HIT RATE AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Background

Total Force Policy requires that the Army's Reserve Component (RC) soldiers attain and maintain readiness standards

comparable to those of their Active Component counterparts.

Because of constraints on time, mission-essential equipment, and

access to range/maneuver areas, the majority of RC training must

be accomplished at home station (i.e., armory or reserve center),

where it is difficult to provide the kind of realistic tank

gunnery training necessary to ensure skill proficiency.

Tank Gunnery Simulation

To increase RC home-station training capability (especially

for combat arms units) the National Guard Bureau is seeking to

use technology in the form of simulators and training devices.

To guide the use of this technology and thereby promote the

successful RC transition from equipment-based to device-based

training in the area of tank gunnery, Morrison, Campshure and

Doyle (1991) developed a strategy to link device-based training

with on-tank performance. Under this strategy, the purpose of

device-based training is to prepare individuals, crews, and

platoons to be trained on the tank combat tables, with these

tables providing the intermediate and terminal performance

objectives for gunnery training.

The strategy has three phases: 1) begin with basic devicebased training at the armory, 2) proceed to intermediate devicebased training at home station coupled with on-tank training at

the Local Training Area (LTA), and 3) conclude with live-fire

tank combat table evaluation at the Major Training Area (MTA).

M-COFT (Mobile Conduct-of-Fire Trainer)

The centerpiece device for this strategy is the M1 M-COFT

(Mobile Conduct-of-Fire Trainer), a computer-based tank gunnery

simulator. Tank commander (TC) and gunner teams are placed in

simulated crew stations and presented with a full range of target

engagement situations. The crew stations replicate interior

features, dimensions, and lighting of the Ml tank, including

weapons, sights/optics, and TC/gunner fire control systems.

TC/gunner teams follow actual engagement procedures, striving to

produce "kills" of the computer-generated target images. The MCOFT simulates all major TC/gunner M1 tank components across a

variety of potential operating conditions (see Campshure, 1991,

p. 12, 21-22). Functionally equivalent to its predecessor, the

U-COFT (Unit Conduct-of-Fire Trainer; U.S. Army Armor Center,

1985), the M-COFT can be moved from site to site because it is

mounted on an enclosed flatbed truck. The M-COFT's mobility
reflects its intended purpose of fulfilling the unique training

needs of armor units primarily in the Army National Guard (ARNG).

These units often have company-sized elements that are

geographically dispersed from the rest of the battalion.

Out of six devices included in the Morrison, Campshure and

Doyle (1991) strategy, COFT was allocated over one third of

recommended basic and intermediate training hours. According to

Morrison, Campshure, and Doyle (1991), and Morrison, Drucker and

Campshure (1991), COFT simulates more gunnery training

requirements than any other simulation device, and is the only

device that can support the training of some gunnery related

tasks (e.g., simultaneous engagements and most degraded mode

gunnery procedures).

Relationship Between M-COFT Pnd Table VIII

Morrison (1991, p. 29) concluded that the M-COFT "simulates

the most comprehensive segment of ... gunnery training

requirements, and rightly deserves its prominent role in current

armor gunnery training." If the COFT device simulates a broad

spectrum of M1 components and condition parameters, it is not

unrealistic to expect that proficiency on the COFT should

correlate with M1 tank gunnery scores. If crews can be trained

to M-COFT proficiency at home station, and this training

transfers to subsequent live-fire tank combat evaluations,

numerous advantages will result, including reduced training

costs, more efficient allocation of training time, and reduced

ammunition requirements. Theoretically, it should be possible to

examine COFT scores and predict which crews will successfully

qualify on Table VIII. Support for this notion, however, has

been mixed at best. Morrison, et al. (1991) reviewed four

investigations that reported either no significant correlations

between COFT and live-fire gunnery performance (Butler, Reynolds,

Kroh & Thorne, 1982; Kuma & McConville, 1982; Hughes, Butler,

Sterling & Bergland, 1987) or a few low correlations on the

speed, but not the accuracy, of performance (Black & Abel, 1987).

One reason for this inconsistent relationship may be unreliable

COFT and gunnery table scores. Graham (1986), however, reported

robust COFT test-retest reliability coefficients, based on data

samples of approximately 15 to 20 min at each administration.

Six of his nine measures produced reliability coefficients of .70

or greater, and three of the six were in excess of .80. DuBois

(1987) successfully replicated Graham's findings, although the

obtained reliability coefficients were lower.

The clearest demonstration of a COFT-to-live-fire gunnery

relationship suggests the importance of both methodological and

analytic factors. Campshure and Drucker (1990) reported significant bivariate correlations between Table VIII total score and

either crew Reticle Aim Level or TC Reticle Aim Level of the COFT

training matrix. An even stronger relationship emerged when they

2
analyzed the data with a multiple regression routine, a statistical technique that simultaneously examines the relationship

between two or more predictor variables and a single outcome

measure.

As Campshure and Drucker (1990) observed, a composite

measure of COFT achievement (e.g., COFT matrix position, based on

aggregated sessions) may provide a more reliable prediction of

Table VIII performance than scores from a few COFT engagements.

Both empirical and logical grounds suggest that composite

measures are more stable than specific test performance scores.

Table VIII performance represents a multi-faceted composite of

many behaviors (including cognitive, motivational, and perceptual-motor functioning) as well as quality, extent and intensity of

prior training. Because of the complexity of the criterion

measure, only a composite sampling of COFT performance, encompassing a broad array of specific COFT behaviors, can reasonably

be expected to predict Table VIII outcomes. Campshure and

Drucker (1990) used composite measures on both sides of their

prediction equation. Table VIII total score (the sum of 10

engagements, or "tasks") served as the live-fire composite

measure, and COFT matrix position (a broad but admittedly undifferentiated aggregate) served as their primary composite predictor.

Analytic procedure also may play a role in efforts to

predict Table VIII qualification. The COFT-to-live-fire relationship may be extremely difficult to demonstrate with bivariate

correlations based on limited COFT performance from a few engagements. Other analytic approaches may be required, where the

influence of multiple factors can be examined simultaneously. In

addition to COFT matrix position, Campshure and Drucker (1990)

used two other measures (time in crew and total number of

exercises) to augment the power of their prediction equation. Ml

tank operation depends critically upon high levels of coordination and communication efficiency among crew members.

Campshure and Drucker (1990) reasoned that crew turbulence would

jeopardize performance. They examined such variables as the

total length of time a crew had served together, and total number

of COFT exercises the TC and gunner had completed. Consistent

with their hypothesis, the best prediction of Table VIII performance was obtained by combining time in crew with Crew Reticle

Aim Level (a composite measure from the COFT matrix) in a

multiple regression equation.

Thus, the only clear demonstration of a COFT-to-live fire

relationship incorporated composite performance measures on both

sides of the prediction equation with an analytic procedure that

permitted simultaneous examination of multiple predictor variables. Much of the previous research into the COFT-to-live-fire

relationship has been characterized by limited data samples on

both the predictor and criterion sides of the prediction eua3
tion. That is, although numerous tank crews are usually

observed, only a limited sample of data is collected from each

crew, sometimes as little as one COFT exercise and a single livefive gunnery exercise. A typical procedure has involved

calculation of bivariate correlations between a single COFT

exercise and a single live-fire gunnery exercise (Butler, et al.,

1982; Kuma & McConville, 1982), or discrete speed and/or accuracy

measures and live-fire performance (Black & Abel, 1987; Hughes,

et al., 1987).

Implications of Transitioning to M-COFT Training

Even if RC units accept the M-COFT as an effective tank

gunnery simulator, little is known about how they can best use

the device in order to facilitate subsequent Table VIII

qualification. Despite the central importance of M-COFT devices

in planned RC tank gunnery training, extant research provides

little guidance for setting COFT proficiency objectives. How

much COFT proficiency is necessary in order to confidently

predict subsequent Table VIII qualification? The present research addresses these information deficits, with special attention to probing the basic COFT-'to-live-fire gunnery relationship.

Purpose

The research (1) tested the relative effectiveness of a

composite COFT achievement measure (the COFT Test of M1 Gunnery

Proficiency [CTGP]; Hoffman & Witmer, 1989) versus more specific

COFT measures as predictors of Table VIII performance, (2)

investigated the incremental contribution of demographic

variables to the Table VIII prediction equation, (3) examined the

predictability of COFT achievement, (4) evaluated the impact of

temporal proximity between the CTGP and Table VIII, and (5)

developed M-COFT cut-scores, based on the derived Table VIII

prediction model, for use in setting COFT proficiency objectives.

Specific Questions to be Answered

1. To what extent can a composite measure of COFT proficiency

predict Table VIII performance?

2. What is the relative effectiveness of a composite measure

compared to specific performance benchmarks in predicting Table

VIII performance?

3. To what extent are COFT predictions of Table VIII stable, or

is better prediction possible with a shorter time interval

between COFT and Table VIII?

4. To what extent does the addition of demographic variables

improve the Table VIII prediction equation?

4
5. To what extent is cut-score development possible, so that

crews with the highest probability of qualifying on Table VIII

can be identified, as well as those most urgently in need of

remedial attention?

6. To what extent does collection of COFT proficiency measures,

per se, improve subsequent Table VIII performance?

Method

Participants

M-COFT, Table VIII, and demographic data were obtained from

TCs and gunners of 24 M1 tank crews in four Army National Guard

armor companies. All data except M-COFT and demographic measures

also were collected from TCs and gunners of 12 additional crews

from the same battalion in order to assess the impact of CTGP

administration per se.

The COFT Test of Gunnery Proficiency (CTGP)

Matrix position, the only previous COFT measure to convincingly demonstrate a relationship with Table VIII scores, was not

suitable for the present research. Although matrix position

provides a composite measure of COFT achievement, it is a gross

metric that is largely unsuitable for differentiation into

analyzable subcomponents. Also, all TCs and gunners in the

present research had approximately the same matrix position. All

TCs and gunners were experienced tankers (with a wide range of

experience levels), but because the COFT arrived at their

armories only days before the research began, each crew had

received only two hours prior familiarization with the COFT

device.

Hoffman and Witmer's (1989) CTGP provided an alternative

composite assessment of COFT gunnery skills. The CTGP consists

of four COFT matrix exercises (duration of administration

approximately one hour) selected to correspond to conditions that

occur in Table VIII. The exercises cover: target arrays, ranges,

firing tank movement, target movement, Nuclear, Biological and

Chemical (NBC), crew configuration (four- or three-man),

day/night, and number of targets per engagement. The selected

COFT exercises do not replicate Table VIII tasks exactly, but

they represent all Table VIII conditions in somewhat different

sequences and combinations. Figure 1 lists exercises included in

the CTGP, with major Table VIII conditions represented. Hoffman

and Witmer (1989) provide extended discussion on the rationale

for selecting COFT exercises and the overlap among coz.diticns

represented in Table VIII, the CTGP, and the known domain of M1

gunnery conditions.

5
EXERCISE CONDITIONS REPRESENTED

34611 STATIONARY FIRING TANK

MULTIPLE MOVING AND STATIONARY TARGETS

DAYLIGHT WITH UNLIMITED VISIBILITY

SIMULTANEOUS ENGAGEMENT

MODIFIED TO INCLUDE NBC CONDITIONS

MODIFIED TO COVER THREE-MAN CREW ENGAGEMENT

34633 MOVING FIRING TANK

MULTIPLE MOVING AND STATIONARY TARGETS

TANK, HELICOPTER, TROOP AND ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIER

TARGETS

BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS

FRIENDLY M1 TANK IN ONE ENGAGEMENT

FIRING FROM OTHER VEHICLES DEPICTED IN THE SCENE

VISIBILITY REDUCED BY FOG

34622 NIGHT GUNNERY

STATIONARY FIRING TANK

MULTIPLE, MOVING AND STATIONARY TARGETS

TANKS, APC, AND HELICOPTER TARGETS

MODIFIED TO INCLUDE NBC CONDITIONS

MODIFIED TO COVER THREE-MAN CREW ENGAGEMENT

31563 STATIONARY AND MOVING TARGETS

GUNNER'S AUXILIARY SIGHT (GAS)

FIRING FROM SHORT HALT

Figure 1. Conditions represented in CTGP exercises (Exercise 1 =

34611; Exercise 2 = 34633; Exercise 3 =34622; Exercise 4 =

31563).

Standardized Administration. A standardized set of CTGP

administration procedures (Hoffman and Witmer, 1989) was followed

closely, including verbatim reading of instructions at the

beginning of each exercise. The test procedures emphasized

testing requirements, rather than usual COFT training needs. For

example, no feedback or coaching was provided during testing, and

switch setting instructions were given only at the start of each

exercise.

Instructor/Operator (I/0) Training. To ensure consistency

of CTGP administration, I/Os were limited to two master gunners.

(Two were required in order to avoid fatigue from consecutive

testing sessions.) Both I/Os were provided an overview of research objectives through briefings that highlighted differences

between CTGP testing and normal COFT training. Briefings also

emphasized the critical importance of withholding feedback. I/Os

practiced the test administration scenario prior to the first

6
actual session, and observed each other's performance during

early sessions to ensure that they were implementing a

standardized set of administration procedures. At least one

principal researcher was present during test administrations in

case questions or problems arose.

Hit Rate. The CTGP produces a composite measure of gunnery

proficiency -- a "test-wide" COFT performance measure that is

weighted for the number of targets in each of 22 contributing

engagements. This composite measure of gunnery proficiency is

called Hit Rate, which Hoffman and Witmer (1989) define as:

Hit Rate = Hit Proportion x Fire Rate

(hits/time) (hits/rounds) (rounds/time)

"Hit rate, adjusted for hits on friendly targets, is the

recommended metric for assessment of overall crew proficiency.

Hit rate is calculated for each engagement from information on

COFT printouts on rounds fired, hits, and time. Overall hit rate

is calculated from the weighted averages for firing rate and hit

probability, where engagement firing rates and hit probabilities

are weighted by the number of targets in the engagement."

(Hoffman and Witmer, 1989; p 28)

Although the scoring procedure for Hit Rate is computationally complex and laborious, it does capture in a single

metric the essential elements of gunnery success: rounds fired,

time expended, accuracy of fire, and completeness (were all

threat targets hit?). (For details on the Hit Rate scoring

procedure, refer to Hoffman and Witmer, 1989.) In addition to

the overall Hit Rate which is based on a weighted combination of

all exercises, similar scores can be calculated for individual

exercises. Additionally, standard COFT computer printouts

provide numerous subsidiary measures, all of which can be

compared and contrasted with the predictive utility of the

various Hit Rate measures.

Table VIII

Table VIII scores were collected during Annual Training (AT)

at the first operation of a new, computer-automated firing range

where all hit/miss decisions were determined electronically. It

was the first time the range was used. Each crew fired six day

engagements and four night engagements, selected from among

fourteen engagements described in FM 17-12-1 (Department of the

Army, 1988).

Scorinf. Crews received raw scores of from 0 to 100 on each

engagement, based on engagement speed, accuracy of fire, and

threat capability. Penalty points (crew cuts) were deducted from

each engagement raw score based on observed procedural errors.

Scores were summed (after deduction of penalty points) for the

7
six day engagements, producing a total day score. Similarly,

scores were summed for the four night engagements, producing a

total night score. Day score and night score were summed to

produce a total Table VIII score for each crew. Crews must

obtain a minimum score of 700 out of a possible 1,000 in order to

qualify on Table VIII.

Design and Procedure

Tank crews were randomly assigned to one of three treatment

conditions, as shown in Figure 2. The CTGP was administered

either one month prior to AT (Group 1), one day prior to AT

(Group 2), or not at all (Group 3). All tank crews subsequently

fired Table VIII during AT.

N OF TABLE

GROUP CREWS TIMING OF CTGP VIII?

1 10 ONE MONTH BEFORE AT ........................ YES

2 14 ......................... ONE DAY BEFORE AT YES

3 12 NO COFT TEST OF GUNNERY PROFICIENCY YES

Figure 2. Treatment design.

Ouestionnaires. During Table VIII debriefing, information

was collected on age, rank, length of military service, and years

in current tanker MOS (see Apperdix A). Following AT, additional

data were collected from crews in Groups 1 and 2 on TC and gunner

amount of tank operations experience, and on vision (see Appendix

B). Appendix B data were collected as part of subsequent COFT

training sessions or via mailed questionnaires. Efforts to

recontact three TCs and three gunners were unsuccessful.

Only intact crews were retained for data analysis. Intact

crews were defined as those having no TC or gunner changes

between CTGP administration and completion of Table VIII.

Differential attrition from Group 1 occurred because of TC/gunner

changes in the 30 day interval between administration of the CTGP

and Table VIII.

Results

Relationship Between COFT Hit Rate and Table VIII Scores

Table VIII scores. The mean Table VIII score was 356, with

a standard deviation of 184. Only one of 24 crews qualified

(with a score of 703). As indicated in Table 1, scores were

distributed widely about the mean, ranging from 59 to 703.

8
Debriefing comments indicated that the predominant reason

for low scores was the inability to acquire targets in time to

fire a round. Forty-four percent of engagements, for example,

ended with a zero score, and no round was fired in the vast

majority of these engagements. The percentage of zero scores was

49 for night engagements and 41 for day engagements. The most

common explanation for a day engagement with zero score was that

a target was eventually identified, but too late to permit a

round to be fired. Among night engagements with a zero score,

however, targets were never identified in a majority (54.3%) of

cases.

Table 1

Distribution of Table VIII Total Scores

Cumulative

Score Frequency Percentage Percentage

59 1 4.2 4.2

77 1 4.2 8.3

136 1 4.2 12.5

138 1 4.2 16.7

164 1 4.2 20.8

198 1 4.2 25.0

227 1 4.2 29.2

274 1 4.2 33.3

284 1 4.2 37.5

291 1 4.2 41.7

322 1 4.2 45.8

335 1 4.2 50.0

357 1 4.2 54.2

364 1 4.2 58.3

373 1 4.2 62.5

418 1 4.2 66.7

433 1 4.2 70.8

487 1 4.2 75.0

499 1 4.2 79.2

501 1 4.2 83.3

609 1 4.2 87.5

624 1 4.2 91.7

671 1 4.2 95.8

703 1 4.2 100.0

Note. N =24

Mean = 356

SD = 184

9
Contrary to previous research (Campshure and Drucker, 1990;

Hoffman, 1989), night and day scores were positively correlated,

r(24) = .56, p = .005. Another index of internal consistency was

calculated by summing scores for odd-numbered and even-numbered

engagements for each crew. (Each sum comprised three day

engagement scores and two night engagement scores.) The

correlation between odd/even sums was significant: r(24) =

.43, p = .038

COFT Measures. Hit Rate is the composite index of COFT

proficiency. Hit Rate scores, as shown in Figure 3, were

normally distributed about a mean of .018, with a standard

deviation of .007. In addition to Hit Rate, the COFT provides

four types of measures, assessing a crew's ability to: a)

correctly identify targets and prepare for engagement, b) fire at

correctly identified targets, c) hit the targets, and d)

manage the tank's fire control systems. The left column in Table

2 lists specific measures in these four areas, followed by

coefficients of correlation between each listed COFT score ai.:

Table VIII total score. The first four data columns show

correlations between scores from individual COFT exercises and

Table VIII. The last column reports correlations between data

combined from all four exercises and Table VIII scores.

.005 1

.007 I _ _ 1

.009 1

.012 1

.013 _ 1

.014 _ 3

.017 3

.018 1

.019 II3

.020 2

.022 I 2

.024 1

.027 1

.029 1

.031 1

.032 1SI I I I

0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 3. Distribution of COFT Hit Rate scores (N = 24; Mean =

.018; Median = .019; Standard Deviation = .007)

10
Predictive utility of individual exercises versus composite

measures. As seen in the first four data columns of Table 2,

eight percent of COFT measures from individual exercises

correlated significantly with Table VIII total score, and no

coefficient exceeded r = .46. The fifth data column, however,

shows that when these same COFT measures were calculated on the

basis of data combined from all four exercises, 33% of the

correlations were significant. Significant correlations in

column five of Table 2 range from r - .45 to .65. The highest

coefficient in the table is between composite COFT Hit Rate and

Table VIII, r(24) - .65, R < .01. Hit Rate, accounting for 42 %

of Table VIII total score variance, is listed in the "Accuracy of

Fire" category. Along with its constituent elements (Fire Rate

and Hit Proportion), its correlations with Table VIII are

highlighted in Table 2.

Although composite Fire Rate and composite Hit Rate produced robust correlations with Table VIII total score I[24] = .64,

R < .01 and r[24] = .65, R < .01, respectively), this was not the

case when these measures were based on data from individual

exercises. Only Fire Rate based on Exercise 3 and Hit Rate based

on Exercise 1 correlated significantly with Table VIII total

score. Thus, even COFT Hit Rate did not reliably correlate with

Table VIII when based on single exercises.

Of the eight significant composite correlations, five

measures are relatively easy to obtain and/or calculate.

Proportion of targets fired upon (r = .57, p < .01) is obtained

by dividing the number of targets fired upon by the total number

of available targets. The measure of did not fire at a target

(1 = -.53, p < .01) is automatically recorded (as one of several

error scores) on COFT printouts. However, these two simple-tocalculate indices measure the same thing, from different approaches, as indicated by their robust intercorrelation of

r = -.94, p < .01. These two variables also correlate highly with the other easy-to-calculate measures. The average

(absolute) intercorrelation between the five "easy-to-obtain"

measures that correlate significantly with Table VIII scores is

= .71 (based on n(n-l)/2 possible intercorrelations).

Moreover, these five easy-to-obtain measures also correlate

highly with composite COFT Hit Rate, with an average coefficient

of r = .67. Thus, any combination of simple-to-obtain COFT

variables adds little to a prediction equation beyond what any

one measure in isolation contributes, and all are highly related

to composite Hit Rate. Because composite Hit Rate is more highly

correlated with Table VIII scores than any other COFT measure, it

emerges as the superior predictor of live-fire gunnery

performance. Figure 4 plots COFT Hit Rate with Table VIII total

score.

Predictive utility of two and three exercise combinations.

Composite Hit Rate is a calculationally complex measure that

11
+ -4

+0 Ln ~Cn~o MVNMNNON~ 0

el)a * * . . .

+ 40

0I I- 

$40' %0 - M r) toiU 4 to~

a) i I

$4

0

u

to

r-4

to ci)

4.1 $4c M %0N D EUlr 00h CA -4

0 4)' %DC4 ,.C'j N0 0 MN"ire.4N4oo 9-4

E-4 x -W . . . *

-4 x -

0

0) 9:) H U

Z~). a 0 t $4 w

to We~a Q4 $4 0 w40

As 44 t)M:: t $4 W. r 4

4) *e-Iq H 6 E-4 $4 X '-a)

C PE $4 4,4 4) 44 W A 0 r

E-a) 0 04 $4 0 0 to

44 c 4)a$v 4) V m$410~

0 0 toV$ 10k % a) m 0' w to- W4U %.. tP M W$ 41)-

t) EU 4z 0 * 4) IV w r. 0 a

a) a) V- 4) V) a) 0. E-i$4 W--0 $4

a)l a0 9 4) %. 01 0 0 $4 0 E

to 44W $H 0 0 $4 -E-1 10M k 34a) k

4 *r4 H4 EU -- 1$4 54 EU w4m40 ON w

a) V44 E4 0 4Jit 0 E4) 4) V W p k u~ w

>EU 444 -il- 44)E 10 -H ~- w r.

p4 a) r. a) g C 0 4-4 $ V E 0rz4 W

U)q 4.) V 0-4~ 4 0 4p0v0V 2q 4

IM H ., 44-) 4) 0q .40 ) U) W :

4 EU 40t 4) IV 4) A4J W 04) V t4 C

$4 $4 0 0 44U $44o"

4) a) to EU (a v9 21v*,0F 4 O )

$4 Of 0$4 tP) 14 %4 4 k - 0 r FI

$4 0) w w % 00 4) VWu t 0'-44w 0

EU 0 .. 4$> IV-r-H 0 m44" -II EU $4EUEUt U

Ug At E4 C 4 0 QC 0 0 WE12
m o)0 %0f m ~~ N 0oe

+0 0 4t ..w. .0.-IO0N w4

N 14 . . . . .

r-0

a) LO 'C41 H -NH 

54

C.,- 0

N '4 n %0)

4) D 0 r CY N NC1m.m

$4 -4

00

0 4)% M 0 4 014r

EU H

4) .c (4H)UEE

4) In N0t HrN0 

H4 i-4 ff $0 4-4 i. 4)NNbC'E 

EU 0 ('1' E-40 -4~ 4)4 4 w

E- gk H - - % t

rq 4) 4. -- $

4) 41 41 xW w14(

rI) 4" 4 4kC0 4

CD0 5.4 r4 Mv y F 0 4

$U4 es 4 U- o t r al) $4 k4

0l (E- '-4 0 CD

0 VH V H

94) W- 04 E'0 p 0 o q

0a > H= 0 Q(U 01a0t

0 $4 J~~.0 '4 -f49F 3q(

a)4 0J~ (cW 6vU is r4 - 0 E4z Hz 1- 4)

N 0v 4 0 00 V w 0 0 0 V W Z0to

0 V .. ~W $4 %, W-( tP ON-to v

4 %45 W 14PW$ .4 WV -00W 0r-

$ U %4 0 4)0 4) ( V$4 0 U W

it 0 00 $4>$ >>4 0

CD ~ ~ ~ l a.. 40~W V(Uu:

0 ~ ( 0(UWU 013
750-

11

T

A 625-

B I R

L

E

V 500- 1

I

I

I i

T 375

0

T

A

L 250-

S

C

0 1

R

E 125 1

1

.00825 .01375 .01925 .02475 .03025

.0055 .011 .0165 .022 .0275

COFT HIT RATE

Figure 4. Plot of COFT Hit Rate with Table VIII total score

(N = 24; r = .65; p = .0006). The "Rs" printed on the

vertical axes indicate the points of intercept for the bestfit linear regression line.

14
takes into consideration number of rounds fired, time expended to

fire the rounds, accuracy of the rounds, and whether or not all

targets were hit. Because the Hit Rate measure is laborious to

calculate, it is desirable to base its calculation on as few

exercises as possible. Four exercises produce a robust correlation with Table VIII (r = .65). Basing the Hit Rate measure on

single exercises, however, seriously compromises the strength of

observed relationships. In order to determine the predictive

utility of Hit Rate when based on more than one -- but fewer than

four -- exercises, correlations were calculated between Table

VIII scores and Hit Rate measures based on all possible combinations of two and three exercises. Table 3 summarizes the results.

Table 3

Correlations Between Table VIII Total Score and CTGP Fire Rate,

Hit Proportion, and Hit Rate Based on Single Exercises and

Combinations of Two, Three, and Four Exercises

Exercise(s) Fire Rate Hit Pro. Hit Rate

1 .28 .33 .42*

2 .09 .16 .21

3 .43* .05 .27

4 .32 .16 .20

1+2 .38 .35 .39

1+3 .49* .32 .54**

1+4 .47* .34 .43*

2+3 .31 .18 .28

2+4 .17 .24 .23

3+4 .36 .24 .33

1+2+3 .48* .33 .47*

2+3+4 .31 .26 .31

1+3+4 .50* .37 .51*

1+2+4 .36 .35 .38

All Four .64** .49** .65**

Note. N = 24 crews

* p <.05

** p <.01

1 = 34611

2 = 34633

3 = 34622

4 = 31563

15
The average correlation between Hit Rate and Table VIII

based on one, two, three and four exercise combinations was .28,

.37, .42, and .65, respectively. For the Hit Rate index, the

best single exercise was 34611 (Number 1). The best combination

of two exercises was 34611 and 34622 (Number 1 and Number 3),

with r = .54, p < .01, which is superior to any combination of

three exercises. However, in terms of the ability to account

for variance in Table VIII scores, all four exercises combined

are approximately 45% more successful than the best two

(.65 2/.542 = 1.45).

Inter-exercise correlations among COFT measures. To

determine if the same COFT variables from different exercises

correlated with one another, correlations were calculated for all

possible exercise pair-wise combinations. The results are

presented in Table 4. Only three variables (Openiag Time, Gross

Kill Rate, Exposed Too Long in Hull Defilade) produced

significant correlations on as many as two of the six possible

pair-wise combinations of exercises. The last column in Table 4

presents algebraic averages for the six possible pairings of the

four exercises. Only 17% of the inter-orrelat'ons in the last

column were greater than .20, and none was as great as .30.

Part (single exercises) - whole (,our exercises combined)

correlations. Table 5 reporri correlations between COFT measures

based on single exercises anu their composite counterparts based

on all four exercisRe (part-';hole correlations), for the eight

variables haviny a sionificant relationship with Table VIII (see

Table 2). Although their inter-exercise correlations were

negligible (refer to Table <), part-whole coefficients are

robust, averaging r = .51

Timing of CTGP Admi,.istration and Its Relationship with Table

VIII.

Table 6 compares correlations between COFT composite measures and Table VIII total score for crews tested 30 days before

AT versus those tested one day before AT. Only the eight composite measures (based on all four exercises) with an overall

significant correlation with Table VIII (refer to Table 2) are

compared. Coefficients of correlation with Table VIII are higher

for a majority of measures when based on a single day's interval

between COFT and Table VIII, but the small number of crews in

each group make interpretation of differences in magnitude risky.

Moreover, correlations between composite Hit Rate (the most

omnibus COFT measure) and Table VIII total score are virtually

identical for 1 day and 30 day intervals.

16
u

.- 4

I

to4

>'. r4 4 4" " 

'4:

U) * * 0 *0

.,I ,- 9 1. -

4iV M ( UON -W.N C- (D

U) 0

0

4.1

to (4 r- - - -, w co OU

*P4 CM.

tI w cI

to C) r- 0 .0 0 . 04

0AH

0 m m 4. N e - 0 - -

fO4 0 0O 0- O "

-,4 . w EC 0 0 . o V , n ,.

Sen rM-r

9-4~~f . -4.

4.) H4$ 41 4) 0 th

0 w'4 0 0 $4 

44 *H$4 E-4 P Z _-'01

4) U 1.4 ONI

r. E- 4 4)4 4 0

00 0 1. 0O 0 '

1-4 0) ~ m4 -"q 4.)

p w $4 44 % 0)4 1-

o 4 (d A 0 PQ 3-4z 4)

'U0 j 4)4 a 4) fli z 00

0 0-I4 4) r OE-0 W-Z

ti) 41 ty 0 ) 5 l - 0 0 w- 0 '

.4 as 'U .H 0 t 1-E-4 0W P WX1W

0 U4 V -. 4 E 'U 41 0 .41 W0 O -

ON 0- 4)44 N 4 10 - ' 1-40w r.

O 0 v 0 -- 4 0 9, W 14 .0 rW4) z

41r 1: 4) J I 14 0) 03.0 4 O TA

' 4) 90 r-'4 'z i 'U ~0-1w 41u 04 w V

00 V 0 E-'U Q ~ 94As0 0 4Oz3.) it4) -4 0)

V) H -q"4 4J 4) Izxj"4 :1

. 41 4) 'U0d 4) we0.) . 4 )

4) 0 90 4) 10 I-, t to z- rbI~ .--4 tr :3 ) -

a0 tdP0~ 4) w. 0 4 tom .4 0 r. -4 O r

p 00 kw 031- 0. 4Oo to ON 0-4q-w 0

to 0 toU I.> (a-4 *. 0 1 w > -4'U tv S.t' wt o u

U4 E-4 4 E-a4 W m M N a4 in0 :4E- 9 

17
kJ ON C ) e qNJ 40

04> ~0 0,4 40

x '-iV4 0CvIn 0,.0

x nq 0 r~Vq~4 0 M00

4)

10 enc 1- Vfn4

C x cc (vV- 0 LO)-4

0I >

o 0

G) 4 ~' 4cN 

M'4 4C (400

4) 0

x

x '0 (N 0 V- 0P "1c1)0 r

0

at4 (o 0 CIO4

x- o *q N * 0 0

V-4I 1-

4u 0

4) 03 4 0 ) r-4 0

o4 it~ 'r4 

o E -4-,j 4))

4) 0 41 .E-4 E0 4) 0

V- 4 0% to0

-) ,4 4) .4) ) 4-)

01 i41 tn t i) u 0

4) 0) "4 k 4J 1-4 $4 r.) 9 0

Vr %U CA -4~4 -A to 4-) w1 '.4

a.rL4 $4 - x o t 0 ONw4)

640 Q 0 Ow01 0 0 o g 0.4 '-4

*r4 0 4. 4J 44 V4)4 9 0 0) U A

0) 0. > 14 a 0 to) 0 0 0 

0C4 ) tv 4 8 r I F 0 0 P0 xl ) 9 4 ) -- ) L 0 

w.-4 *Hr4.) a) 4.4 1404)

4 0 9 G0 4M 0 00 41 PC 4) m* , . 0

8) to0 1- o 0 - 4-)

44 (4.4 o$4 0~4 $ 4 -4 ) 0 14 41 1~1~

#4 I 004)0 004) 4 'U IS0

0 0. 0 $ %>0 *) *> 0)

18
Table 5

COFT Part- to- Whole (Single Exercise- to- Composite)

Intercorrelations

Category/Measure Exercise # with Composite

Exi Ex2 Ex3 Ex4

B: Fire Rate

Hoffman & Witmer (1989) Fire Rate .16 .03 .58* .51"

Proportion of Targets Fired Upon .44* .63** .69 ** .69**

Gross Fire Rate (Rnds/# of Targets) .33 .44* .49* .82**

Did Not Fire at a Target (Error 21) .50** .66 .70** 55

C: Accuracy of Fire

Hoffman & Witmer Hit Proportion .41" .52** .24 .45*

Hoffman & Witmer Hit Rate .50" .56" .37 .62"*

Gross Kill Rate (# Kills/# Targets) .49* .76** .48* .77**

Proportion of First Round Kills

(# First Round Kills/# Targets) .37 .53** .45* .70**

Note. N = 24 crews

Two-tailed tests.

* p <.05

** p <.01

The Relationship Between DemoQraphic Variables and Table VIII

Scores.

Table 7 lists variables that correlated significantly with

Table VIII scores. Figure 5 graphically depicts the significant

negative relationship between gunner's age and Table VIII total

score. Although the depicted negative correlation in Figure 5 is

modest in magnitude (r[24) = -.44), the plot shows that the six

crews with highest Table VIII scores had gunners under 25 years

of age (mean age = 23). Moreover, no crew with a gunner over age

30 shot higher than 418 (mean Table VIII total score = 356;

standard deviation = 184). The highest Table VIII score (703)

was fired by a crew with a 22 year-old gunner. The lowest Table

VIII score (59) was fired by a crew with a 45 year-old gunner.

19
Table 6

Correlations Between COFT Composite Measures and Table VIII Total

Score For Two Time Intervals

Variable 30 Days One Day

(N = 10) (N = 14)

Fire Rate .61 .74

Hit Proportion .46 .53

Hit Rate .67* .64*

Proportion of Targets Fired Upon .58 .49

Gross Fire Rate .25 .42

Did Not Fire at Tgt -.54 -.53

Gross Kill Rate .51 .57*

Proportion of First Round Kills .47 .60*

Mean (Absolute) Correlation .51 .57

Note. *p<.05 P<.01

Table 7

Correlations Between Demographic Variables and Table VIII Total

Score

Variable X R N

Gunner's Age -.44 .032 24

TC VisionI -.49 .025 21

Crew Years of Military Service2 -.54 .006 24

(Quadratic Component)4

Note. All probability levels are based on two-tailed tests.

TPerfect Vision = 1; Corrected Vision = 2. 2[(TC years + Gunner years)/2].

3The quadratic component was tested with squared z-scores.

20
750-

T

A 625- 1

B1

L

E

V 5001 1 1

1 1

T

A

L1

250-

S1

C

o

R1

E 125- 1

0-

22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5

20 25 30 35 40 45

GUNNERS AGE

Figure 5. Plot of gunner's age with Table VIII total score

(N = 24; r: = -.44; R = .032).

21
The association between gunner's age and Table VIII scores

is further illustrated in Table 8, where Table VIII scores for

crews with the twelve youngest (mean age = 23) and twelve oldest

(mean age = 37) gunners are compared. Day score (the sum of six

day engagements) differed significantly for the two groups,

f(1, 22) = 6.25, 2 < .05, and total score (the sum of day and

night engagement scores) approached significance, f(1, 22)

= 3.44, 2 = .077.

Table 8

Association Between Gunner's Age and Table VIII Scores

Mean Table VIII

Gunner's Age Day Night Total

Score Score Score

Youngest (N=12) 275 148 422

Oldest (N=12) 158 132 290

The unexpected negative relationship between gunner's age

and Table VIII scores prompted close examination of all

demographic data via scatter plots in order to judge if the data

contained nonlinear relationships. One distinct curvilinear

relationship was uncovered, between Table VIII total score and

crew years of military service (defined as the sum of TC and

gunner years of service divided by two). Graphically depicted in

Figure 6, the linear coefficient of correlation was nonsignificant, r = -.31. However, the two variables seem to be related

curvilinearly (in the shape of an inverted "V"). When the crew

years of military service variable was transformed (by

substituting squared z scores for raw data values), the resulting

correlation with Table VIII total score was significant (X[24]

= -.54, p < 011, revealing a strong quadratic trend. Crews with

either relatively few or many years of military service obtained

low Table VIII scores, compared to crews with intermediate years

of service. A plot of Table VIII total score with the

transformed variable (squared z-scores) is presented in Figure 7.

To probe the non-linear relationship between Table VIII

total score and crew years of military service, crews were

divided into quartiles based on years of military service ([TC +

gunner]/2). Table 9 presents quartile means for crew years of

military service and corresponding scores on Table VIII. The

highest mean Table VIII scores were obtained by crews in the

second and third quartiles, suggesting that about 10 years of

military service is optimal for TCs and gunners. The data are

potentially misleading, however, because crew years of military

22
750-

1

1

T

A 625 1

B 1

L

E

V 500 2 I 1

I R I 1

T 375- 1 O 1

T 1

A 1

L 1 1

250-

S 1

C 1 R

o

R

E 125

1

1

0

I I I I I

6.25 8.75 11.25 13.75 16.25

5 7.5 10 12.5 15

CREW YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE

Figure 6. Plot of "crew years of military service" with Table

VIII total score (N = 24; = -.31; ns).

23
750-

1

1

T

A 625- 1

B 1

L

E

V 500 2

I 1

I

I 11

T 375 1

O 1

T 1 1

A 1

L 1 1

250-

S 1

C 1

0

R 1

E 125 1

0

I ' I' 1 " I R I

.6 1.8 3 4.2 5.4

0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6

TRANSFORMED CREW YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE

Figure 7. Plot of transformed "crew years of military

service" with Table VIII total score (N = 24; _r = -.54;

= .0063). The transformation consisted of squaring zscores.

24
Table 9

Crew Years of Military Service Mean Quartile Scores and

Corresponding Mean Table VIII Total Score

Crew Years Table VIII Score

Quartile of Military

Service Total Day Night

1 (N = 6) 6.2 331.2 212.2 119.0

2 (N = 6) 7.3 401.0 262.8 138.2

3 (N = 6) 9.7 491.2 273.3 217.8

4 (N = 6) 13.4 200.7 115.8 84.8

f(3, 20) 3.52 2.23 4.19

<.05 ns <.05

service is an average of TC and gunner service records. Table 9

provides no insight regarding which combinations of TC and gunner

years of service were associated with relatively high Table VIII

scores. That is, crew years of military service = 10 could be

obtained from a gunner and TC, each with 10 years of service -- or from a gunner with 5 years and a TC with 15 years of service

Other combinations of TC and gunner age are possible, and they

are not necessarily equally efficacious.

Table 10 probes the issue by partitioning crews into quartiles based on Table VIII total score and examining corresponding

TC and gunner demographic variables. Neither TC age nor TC years

of military service differed across Table VIII quartile groups.

Mean TC age and TC years of military service were virtually

identical in the top and bottom quartiles. Gunner's age,

however, differed significantly across Table VIII quartiles, and

a corresponding but nonsignificant trend emerged on the gunner's

years of military service variable. Gunners in the lowest

quartile of Table VIII scores were almost twelve years older, on

average, than gunners in the top quartile, and they had over

twice the years of military service. TCs in the top quartile

crews, however, were no different in age or years of service than

TCs in other quartiles. Two TCs in the top quartile were over

age 40. One TC in this quartile was 48 years of age.

TCs rated their own vision as either perfect (N = 8; defined

as at least 20/20 vision without glasses or contact lenses),

corrected (N = 12), or imperfect but not corrected (N = 1).

Perfect vision was coded = 1. The other two vision categories

were combined and coded = 2. TC vision correlated negatively

25
Table 10

TC and Gunner Mean Age and Years of Military Service

Corresponding to Table VIII Total Score Quartiles

Mean Tank Commander Gunner

Table VIII Years of Years of

Quartile Total Score Age Service Age Service

1 (N = 6) 128.7 36.3 11.8 34.5 11.3

2 (N = 6) 288.8 31.5 9.3 28.2 6.3

3 (N = 6) 405.3 34.2 11.5 33.8 8.2

4 (N = 6) 601.2 36.2 11.2 22.8 4.5

F(3,20) <1 <1 3.62 2.11

- - <.05 ns

Table 11

TC Vision and Table 4 11 Scores

Total

TC Vision Day i Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day

Perfect 56.5 18.0 54.6 47.6 55.5 54.4 286.6

Corrected 30.8 4.3 42.4 26.9 33.1 44.5 182.0

F(1, 19) 1.61 2.87 < 1 1.21 1.24 < 1 3.64

...... .0715

Total Total

TC Vision Night 1 Night 2 Night 3 Night 4 Night Total

Perfect 44.3 23.8 44.3 75.3 188.8 475.8

Corrected 10.5 19.8 22.9 53.5 106.6 288.6

F(1, 19) 7.54 < 1 2.30 1.07 5.81 5.94

R <.05 - - - <.05 <.05

26
(K[21] = -.49, p < .05) with Table VIII total score. (Perfect TC

vision was associated with higher Table VIII scores and corrected

TC vision was associated with lower Table VIII scores.)

To determine if the influence of TC vision was more pronounced on some types of engagements, one-way ANOVAS were conducted in order to compare TC perfect vision crews (N = 8) with

TC corrected vision crews (N = 13). Table 11 summarizes these

comparisons. The two TC vision groups differed significantly on

Table VIII total score and on total night score (the sum of four

night engagements), but not on total day score (the sum of six

day engagements).

Table VIII Prediction Model

Four variables correlated significantly with Table VIII

(COFT Hit Rate, gunner's age, TC vision, and crew years of

military service [squared z-scores]). These four variables were

entered into a multiple regression algorithm to determine if

jointly they could successfully model Table VIII performance.

(Missing vision data on three TCs were estimated using the mean

substitution technique.) The resulting prediction equation was

highly significant, producing a Multiple R = .79 and R2 = .62

(E[4, 19] = 7.88, p = .0006. The same variables also were

entered into a stepwise routine to determine the order in which

they would enter the prediction equation. The stepwise procedure

selected three of the four variables. Table 12 lists the predictors in order of their entry into the prediction equation. The

final Multiple R in Table 12 is as large as the one based on all

four predictors, indicating that the three-predictor combination

is a parsimonious model. (The excluded variable, gunner's age,

was highly correlated with COFT Hit Rate. Once Hit Rate entered

the equation, little unique variance remained in the gunner's age

variable.)

Table 12

Table VIII Stepwise Multiple Regression Predictors

Variable Multiple R RF F df R

COFT Hit Rate .65 .42 15.84 (1, 22) .0006

Crew Years of Mil Ser .74 .55 13.02 (2, 21) .0002

TC Vision .79 .62 10.72 (3, 20) .0002

Y = 347.5 + 12,600(HitRate) - 55.3(Crew Years of Military

Service) - 105.0(TC Vision)

Note. 1Quadradic component, obtained by squaring z-scores.

27
The strength of the multiple relationship can be seen by

regressing predicted scores (based upon three significant predictor variables) upon actual Table VIII scores and plotting the

results (see Figure 8). The correlation between actual and

predicted scores (I[24) = .79) is the same as the Multiple B

between the three predictor variables and Table VIII total score.

COFT Cut-Scores for Establishing Training Guidelines

Using the multiple regression prediction equation:

Y = B0 + B1 (Xj) + B2 (X2 ) + B3 (X3 )

where Y is the predicted Table VIII score, B0 is the intercept

(or theoretical Table VIII performance with COFT and crew measures of zero), and B1 through B3 are the empirically determined

regression coefficients for the three predictor variables, we can

arbitrarily set crew variables (at obtained mean levels), set Y =

the minimum Table VIII qualifying score, and algebraically solve

for the single unknown: the COFT Hit Rate necessary in order to

predict a mean Table VIII score of 700.

Using the stepwise multiple regression equation based on 24

crews (with Multiple R = .79 and R2 of .62), we have:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(CwYrsMSv) - 105(TC Vision)

Setting the crew variables at their means, we have:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(0.96) - 105(1.6)

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 53.1 - 168

700 = 12,600(Hit Rate) + 126.4

573.6 = 12,600(Hit Rate)

Solving for the only remaining unknown (Hit Rate) we have:

12,600(x) = 573.6

x = .046

Therefore, the model predicts that a new sample of tank

crews (with average crew experience and TC vision capabilities)

trained to a COFT proficiency as indicated by Hit Rate scores of

.046, will shoot a mean Table VIII score of 700. Extreme levels

on either TC vision or crew years of military service would

change the required COFT Hit Rate. To see how this works, we can

set TC vision and crew years of military service variables at

extreme levels and calculate COFT Hit Rate required for

relatively handicapped crews (that is, crews with corrected TC

vision and either few or many years of military service) and

relatively advantaged crews (that is, crews with perfect TC

vision and crew years of military service squared z-scores = 0).

28
750

11r

625-

A

C

T

U

A 500-

L

T 1

A

B 375- 1

L

E 1

V

I 250-

I

I 1

1251

1

OR

I I I I i I I I II

60 180 300 420 540

0 120 240 360 480 600

PREDICTED TABLE VIII

Figure 8. Plot of predicted and actual Table VIII scores

(N = 24; r = .79; R < .000). Predicted total score = 347.5

+ [12,600 x COFT Hit Rate] + [-55.3 x crew years of military

service] + [-105 x TC vision]. Crew years of military

service = ((TC years + gunner years)/2]. TC vision: 1 =

perfect vision without correction; 2 = corrected vision or

impaired and uncorrected.

29
Because TC vision was coded dichotomously (1 = 20/20 vision

without corrective lenses; 2 = corrected vision), values of I on

this variable (perfect vision) will be substituted for the advantaged crew and values of 2 (corrected vision) will be used for

the relatively handicapped crew. The remaining predictor, the

quadratic form of crew years of military service, had a mean of

0.96 and standard deviation of 1.13. Values of 0.0 and 2.09 will

be used for advantaged and disadvantaged crews, respectively.

Table 13 presents extreme TC vision and crew years of military

service values that will be plugged into the Table VIII

prediction equation.

Table 13

Mean and Extreme Values of Table VIII Auxiliary Predictor

Variables

Extreme Values

Variable Mean SD Advantaged Disadvantaged

Crew Crew

lCwYrsMSv 9.27 3.17 na na

CwYrsMSv z-score 0.00 1.00 na na

(CwYrsMSv z-score)2 0.96 1.13 0.00 2.09

TC Vision 1.60 0.50 1.00 2.00

Note. CwYrsMSv = Crew years of military service

First, the relatively advantaged crew, which will have a

lower required COFT Hit Rate:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(CwYrsMSv) - 105(TC Vision)

Re-setting crew years of military service at 0.00 and TC

vision = 1, we have:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(0.00) - 105(1)

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 105

700 = 12,600(Hit Rate) + 242.5

457.5 = 12,600(Hit Rate)

Solving for the only remaining unknown (Hit Rate) we have:

12,600(x) = 457.5

x = .036

In a similar fashion, we can estimate the necessary COFT Hit

Rate for a relatively disadvantaged crew. The required COFT Hit

30
Rate will be higher for this crew because it has an extreme

(either high or low) number of years of military service and is

led by a TC with corrected vision:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(CwYrsMSv) - 105(TC Vision)

Re-setting crew years of military service at +1 standard

deviation and TC vision = 2, we have:

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(2.09) - 105(2)

700 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 115.6 - 210

700 = 12,600(Hit Rate) + 21.9

678.1 = 12,600(Hit Rate)

Solving for the only remaining unknown (Hit Rate) we have:

12,600(x) = 678.1

x = .054

Depending upon crew characteristics, the level of COFT Hit

Rate necessary to predict a mean Table VIII score of 700 ranges

from .036 to .054. With average TC vision and crew years of

military service, the required COFT Hit Rate is .046, in order to

predict a mean Table VIII score of 700. Of the 24 crews tested

on COFT in the present research, none scored as high as .046.

The highest score was .032. The crew with the highest Table VIII

score (703) had a COFT Hit Rate of .029.

The calculations above are concerned with predicting a mean

outcome score of 700 for a new sample of tank crews. However, a

mean Table VIII score of 700 will produce only 50% qualification.

(Half the crews will score above the predicted mean of 700 and

half will score below the mean.) A more pertinent issue is: what

COFT Hit Rate is necessary in order to predict, with 95 percent

confidence, that crews will qualify on Table VIII? This is an

extremely tricky issue for several reasons. To paraphrase Hays

(1963):

[Be sure to note the interesting fact that the regression

equation found for a sample is not equally good ... over all the

different values of the predictor variable. The prediction is at

its best when the predicted score is the same as the mean predicted score, since the confidence interval is smallest at this

point. However, as predicted values grow increasingly deviant

from the mean predicted score (in either direction) the confidence intervals grow wider. For the more extreme values of the

predicted score, we can have little confidence that the actual

mean obtained for a sample of individuals (each showing the same

predicted score) will be anywhere near what we have predicted.)

Based on data from the present research, a predicted mean

score of 700 is definitely in the region of extremity, and

31
warrants a cautionary approach. Moreover, predicting the level

of COFT Hit Rate that will ensure a minimum Table VIII score of

700 takes us beyond the range of data values upon which the

prediction model was constructed. Statistical extrapolation

beyond the range of observed values is always risky. That the

relationship between predictor and criterion variables will

remain essentially unchanged outside the bounds of observed data

values is an unsubstantiated assumption. For these and other

reasons, the following analyses must be considered as

speculative.

Another problem concerns the exact nature of the prediction, which is that a specified mean score will be obtained by a new

sample of tank crews, given that all predictor variables fall

within specified ranges. The prediction is not for any specific

tank crew. An additional source of variance is introduced if we

wish to pinpoint scores of individual crews. Individual crew

performance on Table VIII can be predicted (and in fact the

prediction will be the same as that for the sample), but the

confidence interval around that prediction will enlarge substantially.

Nevertheless, given these caveats, the necessary level of

COFT Hit Rate can be estimated that will predict with 95% confidence a minimum Table VIII score of 700. We can regress predicted Table VIII scores (which become the independent, or

predictor variable) upon actual Table VIII scores (the dependent,

or criterion variable). The squared correlation is the same as

the multiple R2 obtained in the stepwise algorithm with three

predictor variables. The procedure also yields a single sample

standard error of estimate. With this estimate, we can construct

a confidence interval around the predicted mean criterion score

of 700.

The 95% confidence interval is from 556 to 844 (see Hays [1963), p. 522). If we wish to ensure that 95% of crews shoot at

least 700 on the next Table VIII exercise, and we assume that

confidence intervals outside the bounds of observed values will

be similar to those on the fringe of observed values, and we

arbitrarily set crew measures at mean levels, we can calculate

the COFT Hit Rate necessary to predict a minimum score of 700 on

the Table VIII exercise, as follows:

844 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(CwYrsMSv) - 105(TC Vision)

Setting crew years of military service and TC vision at

their obtained mean values, we have:

844 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 55.3(0.96) - 105(1.6)

844 = 347.5 + 12,600(Hit Rate) - 53.1 - 168

844 = 12,600(Hit Rate) + 126.4

717.6 = 12,600(Hit Rate)

32
Solving for the only remaining unknown (Hit Rate) we have:

12,600(x) = 717.6

x = .057

Thus, average crews need approximately the same COFT Hit

Rate (.057) to predict a minimum Table VIII score of 700 as

disadvantaged crews (those having TCs with corrected vision and

crew years of military service squared z-scores = 2.09) need in

order to predict a mean Table VIII score of 700. An advantaged

crew (perfect TC vision and crew years of military service

squared z-score = 0.00) would require a COFT Hit Rate of .048 in

order to predict a minimum Table VIII score of 700. Table 14

summarizes the previous calculations.

Table 14

COFT Hit Rate Needed in Order to Predict Mean and Minimum Table

VIII scores of 700

COFT Hit Rate

Crew Characteristics Needed to Predict

Mean Minimum

700 700

TC Perfect Vision

+ CwYrsMSv squared z-score = 0.00 .036 .048

TC Average Vision +

+ CwYrsMSv squared z-score = 0.96 .046 .057

TC Corrected Vision

+ CwYrsMSv squared z-score = 2.09 .054 .065

Note. CwYrsMSv = Crew Years of Military Service.

Figure 9 illustrates the interplay among the predictor

variables of COFT Hit Rate, TC vision, and crew years of military

service squared z-score by depicting the level of COFT Hit Rate

needed in order to predict a minimum Table VIII score of 700 for

crews with TC perfect vision and for crews with TC corrected

vision as a function of crew years of military service. Because

the relationship between Table VIII and crew years of military

service is curvilinear, lower COFT Hit Rates are required for

crews with intermediate years of military service (i.e., crews

with a squared z-score = 0.00 on this variable). As crew years

of military service become extreme (in either direction), the

level of required COFT Hit Rate increases.

33
COFT Hit Rate

0.09

0 .0 8 ..... .................................... ....... .................... ... ... ..................... .. ....... .. ... ...

........ i!

o M. i! i i .................... ............................... ..... .. ..... 0.07

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 14 15 16 1718

Crew Years of Military Service

STC Perfect Vision TC Corrected Vision

Figure 9. COFT proficiency required to predict minimum

Table VIII score of 700 for crews with various "years of

military service" and two levels of "TC vision."

34
Predicting COFT Hit Rate

Seven variables, listed in Table 15, correlated significantly with COFT Hit Rate. Four of the seven variables, all related

to age or years of military service, correlated negatively with

Hit Rate. As with Table VIII scores, younger gunners received

higher scores on the CTGP than older gunners. Three variables

correlated positively with COFT Hit Rate: gunner main gun

engagement experience (from both offensive and defensive

positions) and TC experience with emergency mode degraded

gunnery. These seven variables were entered into a multiple

regression algorithm to determine their joint ability to model

COFT Hit Rate. (Missing data on three of the variables were

estimated using the mean substitution technique.) The resulting

prediction equation was highly significant, producing a Multiple

R = .85 and R2 = .72 (f[7, 16] = 5.91, p = .0016. The same

variables also were entered into a stepwise routine to determine

if all seven were needed in order to model COFT Hit Rate, and to

observe the order in which they entered the prediction equation.

The stepwise procedure selected three of the seven variables.

Table 16 lists the predictors in order of their entry into the

prediction equation. This combination of three variables

accounted for almost two-thirds of the variance in COFT Hit Rate

scores. The strength of the multiple relationship can be seen by

regressing predicted scores upon actual Hit Rate scores and

plotting the results (see Figure 10).

COFT Impact on Table VIII Scores

Timing of the CTGP. Table VIII scores for crews that were

administered the CTGP 30 days before AT (N = 10) did not differ

from those taking the test 1 day prior to AT (N = 14). E ratios

for Table VIII total score, total day score, and total night

score were all < 1.

Presence versus absence of the CTGP. Twelve crews shot

Table VIII without benefit of prior CTGP testing (No COFT crews).

When Table VIII scores for these crews were compared with scores

for the 24 crews that were administered the CTGP (COFT crews), an

ANOVA indicated that night scores differed significantly, F(1,

34) = 8.74, p < .01. COFT and No COFT crews differed significantly on two of the four individual night engagements. Means

and F ratios for night engagements are presented in Table 17.

Other ANOVAS comparing COFT and No COFT crews revealed

significant differences on both TC and Gunner variables. COFT

TCs were significantly older (34.5 years versus 29.0 years; E[1,

34] = 6.48, p < .05), had more years of active army background

(2.4 years versus 0.2 years; £[I, 34] = 5.69, p < .05), and had

served fewer years in the RC (6.0 years versus 9.3 years; E(1,

34) = 4.58, p < .05). None of these TC variables, however,

correlated with Table VIII night scores. Gunners in the two

35
1

.0315-

A

C .027- 1 R

T

U

A

L

.0225-

C1

0

F 1 1

T 11 1

.018- 1

H 1y11

I

T

1 1

R .0135-

A

T

E

.009-

1 I I I I I fI I I

.00675 .01125 .01575 .02025 .02475

.0045 .009 .0135 .018 .0225 .027

PREDICTED COFT HIT RATE

Figure 10. Plot of predicted and actual COFT Hit Rate scores

(N = 24; 1 = .80; p < .0000). Predicted COFT Hit Rate =

.024514 + [-.000443 x gunner's age] + [-.001676 x "crew years

of service in the Active Army) + (.002311 x "gunner's main gun

engagement experience"). "Crew years of service in the Active

Army = [(TC years + gunner years)/2]. "Gunner's main gun

engagement experience" was measured on a 5-point self-rating

scale.

36
Table 15

Correlations Be' -n Demographic Variable and COFT Hit Rate

Variable I R N

Gunners Age -.60 .002 24

Gunners Years of Military Service -.56 .005 24

Gunners Main Gun Engagement Experience .53 .013 21

(Offensive Position)1

Gunners Main Gun Engagement Experience .52 .015 21

(Defensive Position)1

Crew Years of Military Service2 -.46 .024 24

Crew Years in Active Army2 -.44 .033 24

TC Experience with Emergency Mode -.43 .050 21

Degraded Gunnery1

Note. All probability levels are based on two-tailed tests.

Th-Point scale (self-rated).

2([TC years + gunner years]/2).

Table 16

COFT Hit Rate Stepwise Multiple Regression Predictors

Variable Multiple

R R2 df R

Gunner's Age .60 .36 12.41 (1, 22) .0019

Crew Years in Active Army1 .74 .55 12.87 (2, 21) .0002

Gunner's Main Gun Eng Exper .80 .64 11.90 (3, 20) .0001

(Offensive Position)2

Y = .024514 - .000443299(Gunner's Age) - .001676(Crew Years in

Active Army) + .002311(Gunner's Main Gun Engagement

Experience)

'[(TC 2 years + gunners years)/2]. 5-point scale (self-rated).

37
Table 17

Mean Table VIII Night Engagement Scores for "COFT Crews" and "No

COFT Crews"

Night Engagement #

Group 1 2 3 4 Total

COFT Crews (N=24) 24.5 18.6 29.9 66.5 139.5

No COFT Crews (N=12) 8.6 21.3 9.3 24.2 63.4

ANOVA F 2.0 < 1 4.5 7.5 8.7

R ns ns <.05 <.01 <.01

groups had similar mean ages (29.8 years for COFT versus 29.3 for

No COFT), but COFT crews had fewer years of active army experience (0.3 years versus 2.7 years), F(1, 34) = 9.14, p < .01.

Gunner's years in the active army correlated significantly with

Table VIII night score, x(36) = -.34, R < .05.

Discussion

Because the COFT device simulates a broad spectrum of Ml

tank components and engagement condition parameters (Campshure,

1991), it is not unrealistic to expect that crew performance on

the COFT should correlate with Table VIII scores. Yet this has

been difficult to document. Even in instances where positive

correlations have been reported, they were weak (e.g., Campshure

and Drucker, 1990).

This investigation provided insight into conditions under

which the relationship between COFT proficiency and Table VIII

scores can be demonstrated. The relationship was convincingly

demonstrated in the present research only when two conditions

were met: 1) COFT proficiency was indexed by the Hit Rate metric,

and 2) Hit Rate was based upon a broad sample of COFT engagement

conditions (the CTGP: a total of four carefully selected and

emendated exercises selected to represent Table VIII conditions,

requiring slightly over 1 hour, administered according to a

standardized set of instructions; Hoffman and Witmer, 1989).

Reference to Table 2 in the results section will reinforce

the conclusion that COFT-to-Table VIII correlations depend

critically upon which COFT scores are collected. If the present

investigation had depended on any single COFT exercise, conclusions would have differed. If only Exercise No. 4 (31563) had

been collected, the conclusion would have been that COFT perfor38
mance and Table VIII scores are unrelated. Consistent with most

past research, individual COFT measures showed little relationship with live-fire gunnery performance. Although difficult to

administer and laborious to score, the Hoffman and Witmer (1989)

CTGP (or some reasonably equivalent selection of exercises

administered under rigorously standardized instructions) is

highly recommended in future COFT research.

Other conditions may have influenced the robust correlation

between COFT and Table VIII. On the criterion side of the

prediction equation, dispersion of Table VIII scores may hold

part of the key. Truncation of range is a well known suppressor

of statistical relationships, and some Table VIII data reported

in previous research may have embodied this characteristic. For

example, Hoffman (1989) reported that 95.5% of the crews at

Grafenwoehr passed Table VIII (and hence their scores were

truncated between 700 and 1,000). Part of the robust COFT-tolive fire relationship that occurred in the present research may

be attributable to the large amount of dispersion in Table VIII

scores, which had a range of 644 and a standard deviation of 184.

It is interesting to note that the only previous research to

demonstrate a convincing COFT-to-Table VIII relationship (Campshure & Drucker, 1990) also reported robust Table VIII score

dispersion (Range = 688; standard deviation = 153).

Table VIII scores in the present research were also similar

to Campshure and Drucker (1990) in that both mean scores were

under 700 (613 in Campshure & Drucker; 356 in the present research), with approximately equal dispersion above and below the

mean. Although both means were depressed, relative to the

expected qualifying score of 700, they differed by over 250

points. It is not known why scores were so depressed in the

present research, but during debriefing sessions crews often

blamed the range, especially the new computer-mediated features.

It is possible that the new electronic scoring system influenced

both mean level and internal consistency of the scores. (Both

day/night and odd/even indexes of internal consistency were

statistically significant.) By removing human judgment error,

the electronic scoring system may not have left much, but what it

did leave may have been highly reliable. Nevertheless, the

current findings are suspect because they are based on atypically

low Table VIII scores. Future research should probe the impact

of electronic scoring systems on Table VIII data.

Future research also should explore which combinations of

COFT exercises most reliably predict subsequent Table VIII

performance. Although Hit Rate scores from four exercises in the

present research predicted Table VIII performance, the vast

majority of predictive utility came from only two of the exercises. It is possible that a better combination of four exercises

might be selected. In any event, care should be taken to avoid

the pitfall of over-reliance on any single exercise. Because of

39
the complexity of Table VIII performance, COFT prediction measures must encompass a broad array of specific simulation behaviors. Specific measures of COFT performance fromu one exercise do

not reliably correlate with the same measures taken from other

exercises. The individual measures, however, do correlate

reliably with a composite measure based on several exercises.

For these reasons, it seems prudent to base future investigations

of the COFT-to-live-fire relationship on the broadest possible

sample of COFT exercises. Future research might probe the effect

of expanding the sample base from four exercises to six, or even

eight.

Stability of the COFT-to-live fire gunnery relationship is

another topic worthy of future research. In the current research, the relationship was almost as robust when the two

measures were separated by 30 days as when they were separated by

1 day. Nothing is known, however, about intervals greater than

30 days.

Although COFT Hit Rate was the best predictor of Table VIII

scores, the prediction equation was enhanced significantly by

addition of three other variables. Given the predominant importance of optical devices in modern tank gunnery, it was not

surprising to discover that TC vision plays some role in performance outcomes. The magnitude of its influence, however, (especially on night engagement scores) was surprising. The importance of these results, if they are replicable, is hard to overemphasize, especially because the measurement of visual acuity in

the present research was rudimentary. If measured more precisely, this variable could have been even more important. The topic

is deserving of further research.

Gunner's age was inversely related to Table VIII scores, and

even more strongly related (also inversely) to COFT Hit Rate.

The influence of gunner's age was also seen in the non-linear

impact of crew years of military service. The best cxew combinations consisted of young gunners and highly experienced TCs with

perfect vision. If both TC and gunner were young and inexperienced, Table VIII scores suffered. Otherwise, TC age and years

of experience made little difference. Tank commanders in some of

the best crews were over age 40. An older gunner, however, was

the "kiss of death," regardless of the TC's vision or other

capabilities. Although this conclusion is unavoidable, given the

strength of the observed relationships, it was not expected and

it is not readily explicable. While it seems reasonable that

faster reaction time and better vision would be associated with

youth, it seems equally tenable that advantages of experience and

possibly superior judgment in ambiguous circumstances would favor

age. This is another area which deserves closer scrutiny.

40
The strong multiple correlation between the combination of

COFT Hit Rate, TC vision, and crew years of military service

permitted development of cut scores, or specific COFT Hit Rate

objectives. If the prediction model proves to be valid, COFT

scores can be used to predict the probability of Table VIII

qualification. Perhaps of even greater practical importance, the

model will permit identification of crews most in need of intensive remedial practice prior to Table VIII. A reliable prediction model between simulator scores and Table VIII scores will

smooth the transition to device-based training strategies. Based

on the present research, it seems that such a model is possible.

The present research, however, must be replicated in all essential details, with different tank crews, before that model can be

offered for practical use. This is especially important because

of the low observed Table VIII scores. The model should be

viewed as demonstrative in nature. It demonstrates how COFT Hit

Rate and demographic variables can be used to facilitate transition to a device-based training regimen. It is imperative,

however, that the model be validated with additional data before

it is used as the basis for any policy decisions.

The CTGP was constructed specifically for diagnostic purposes. The test is not intended as a training device. Hence it was

not surprising that Table VIII scores for crews receiving the

test differed little from comparison crews in the same battalion

that did not take the test. The differences that emerged were on

night engagements. It will be recalled that the CTGP contains

one exercise of night engagements. Hence, it may be possible

that the CTGP, per se, enhances a crew's ability to deal with

night tank gunnery engagements. The effect, however, was weak,

and COFT versus NO COFT crews also differed on one gunner variable (number of years in the Active Army) that was significantly

correlated with Table VIII night scores.

In conclusion, there does seem to be a robust COFT-to-Table

VIII relationship, at least when COFT proficiency is assessed

with a composite measure like Hit Rate from the CTGP (Hoffman and

Witmer, 1989) and Table VIII scores embody a large degree of

dispersion. Other demographic variables enhance the Table VIII

prediction equation. The combination of predictor variables can

be used to construct COFT cut scores, or training objectives.

Once these objectives are met, a crew will have a specifiable

probability of qualification on Table VIII. More research is

needed to pinpoint conditions under which these predictive

relationships can and cannot be replicated.

41
Recommendations

Recommendations based on the conduct and results of this

research are to:

1. Conduct variations on the present research to establish

conditions under which the results generalize, with close attention to Table VIII score distributions and range conditions.

2. Develop a normative data base on Table VIII scores, to

include basic reliability coefficients (test-retest and internal

consistency).

2. Employ Hoffman and Witmer's (1989) Hit Rate, based upon

the unabridged CTGP (or some reasonably equivalent selection of

exercises), as the composite index of COFT proficiency. Regardless of the particular sample of COFT exercises, rigorously

standardize the conditions of administration.

3. Consider expanding the sample of exercises beyond the

four recommended for the CTGP, in order to explore which combinations of exercises most reliably predict subsequent Table VIII

scores.

4. Probe the relationship between gunner's age and Table

VIII scores.

5. Clarify the role of TC vision in tank gunnery performance.

6. Examine the differential effect of COFT practice onTable

VIII day and night scores.

The results of this research, although promising, are not

suitable bases for revising training policy. The present research must be replicated in all essential details before policy

implications can be derived, for the following reasons:

1. The prediction model was based on a small (N = 24) number

of tank crews with atypically depressed (mean = 356) Table VIII

scores.

2. Table VIII data were collected on a computer-mediated

firing range with an electronic scoring system. The innovative

range may have affected Table VIII scores in unknown ways.

3. Cut-scores discussed in the results depended upon extrapolation well beyond the observed range of data values.

4. Tank crews trained to higher performance levels on the

COFT may (or may not) subsequently improve on Table VIII. That

they should do so is a reasonable assumption, to the extent that

43
COFT simulates a broad spectrum of the domain of tank gunnery

engagement behaviors (Campshure, 1991). It is, nevertheless, an

empirical issue that in the best of circumstances subtly confounds the concept of correlation with that of causation, and in

adverse circumstances may invite spurious "teaching to the test."

44
REFERENCES

Black, B.A., & Abel, M.H. (1987). Review of U.S. armor crew and

platoon training in preparation for the 1985 Canadian Army

Trophy (CAT) competition (ARI Research Report 1442). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences. (AD A185 470)

Butler, W.G., Reynolds, M.J., Kroh, M.Z., & Torney, H.W. (1982).

Training developments study--Mi (Abrams) Tank Unit-Conduct of

Fire Trainer (TRASANA TEA 11-82). White Sands Missile Range,

NM: U.S. Army TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity.

Campshure, D.A. (1991). Devices and aids for training M1 tank

gunnery in the Army National Guard: A detailed analysis of

training reguirements (ARI Research Report 1588). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences. (AD A240 931)

Campshure, D.A., & Drucker, E.H. (1990). Predicting first-run

gunnery performance on Tank Table VIII (ARI Research Report

1571). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A228 201)

Department of the Army. (1988). Tank combat tables M1 (FM

17-12-1). Washington, DC.

DuBois, R.S. (1987). The M1 Unit-Conduct of Fire Trainer (UCOFT) as a tank gunnery testing device: A psychometric

evaluation. Unpublished master's thesis, Western Kentucky

University, Bowling Green, KY.

Graham, S.E. (1986). The Unit-Conduct of Fire Trainer (U-COFT)

as a medium for assessing gunner Proficiency: Test reliability and utility. (ARI Research Report 1422). Alexandria,

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (AD A169 196)

Hays, W.L. (1963). Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Hoffman, R.G. (1989). Description and prediction of Grafenwoehr

M1 tank table VIII performance (ARI Technical Report 837).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD B136 331)

Hoffman, R.G., & Witmer, B.G. (1989). Development of a UnitConduct of Fire Trainer (U-COFT) Test of M1 Gunnery Proficiency. (ARI Technical Report 859). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD A219 045)

45
Hughes, C.R., Butler, W.G., Sterling, B.S., & Berland, A.W.

(1987). M1 Unit Conduct-of-Fire Trainer (TRAC-WSMR-TEA-16-

87). White Sand, NM: Department of the Army, U.S. Army

TRADOC Analysis Command.

Kuma, D., & McConville, L. (1882). Independent evaluation report

for Ml/M60 series Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer (UCOFT)

(TRADOC ACN 39373). Fort Knox, KY: Directorate of Training

Developments, U.S. Army Armor Center.

Morrison, J.E., Campshure, D.A., & Doyle, E.L. (1991). A Device/

Aid-Based Strategy for training M1 tank gunnery in the Army

National Guard (ARI Research Report 1587). Alexandria, VA:

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

Sciences. (AD A240 752)

Morrison, J.E., Drucker, E.H., & Campshure, D.A. (1991). Devices

and aids for training Ml tank gunnery in the Army National

Guard: A review of military documents and the research

literature (ARI Research Report 1586). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD A240 628)

U.S. Army Armor Center (1985). X1 Unit Conduct-of-Fire trainer

(U-COFT) training device suDDort package (FC 17-12-7-1).

Fort Knox, KY: Author.

46
Appendix A

Debriefing Questionnaire

1. Name

2. SSN

3. Rank

4. Unit Duty Assignment

5. Age

6a. How many years have you spent in military service?

6b. How many of your military years were in the Army Active

Component? (Round to the nearest year)

6c. How many of your years in the Army Active Component were in

a tank related MOS or specialty area? _ (e.g., 19 Series

MOS - Round to the nearest year)

6d. How many of your military years were in the Army Reserve

Component? (Round to the nearest year)

6e. How many of your years in the Army Reserve Component were in

a tank related MOS or specialty area? - (e.g., 19 Series

MOS - Round to the nearest year)

A-1
Appendix B

Follow-up Questionnaire

1. Name

2. Rank 3. Age

4. Do you have 20/20 vision without glasses or contact lenses?

Yes

No

If no, do you wear glasses or contact lenses?

Yes

No

Throughout your military career, how much experience have you

had with each of the following Armor crew-level activities? Rate

your amount of experience on the tasks listed at the bottom of

the page by circling a number from 1 to 5 that best tells how

many times you have performed each task. Use the following

scale:

1 2 3 4 5

/ --------- /--------- / --------- / --------- /

Never During 1 During 4 During 7 During 10

to 3 to 6 to 9 or more

training training training training

events events events events

NOTE: A "training event" may be a Tank Gunnery Table, a Tactical

Table, a GUARDFIST TRAINING session, an N-COFT training session,

or some other gunnery exercise in which you practiced the task.

5. Perform prepare-to-fire checks 1 2 3 4 5

6. Acquire targets:

Search during day with closed hatch 1 2 3 4 5

Search at night 1 2 3 4 5

Detect/locate/identify/targets 1 2 3 4 5

Evaluate situation 1 2 3 4 5

7. Engage single target with main gun

Offensive precision gunnery 1 2 3 4 5

Defensive precision gunnery 1 2 3 4 5

8. Engage single target with coax 1 2 3 4 5

9. Adjust fire using re-engage technique 1 2 3 4 5

B-1
10. Engage multiple targets with main gun 1 2 3 4 5

11. Engage target: emergency degraded mode 1 2 3 4 5

12. Engage targets from gunner's position 1 2 3 4 5

13. Acquire targets: Evaluate situation 1 2 3 4 5

920810

B-2