that the more U-COFT exercises run and levels advanced through
the matrix between gunneries, the more improvement in crew
gunnery.

Preliminary analyses using number of exercises run and
passed supplied by PGT personnel, and measures of sustainment of
gunnery skills from TAD records confirmed the judgment of PGT
personnel (Sterling 1993a). Collection of data on all exercises
run by all platoons, whether in or out of “density” was then
initiated. This data collection effort allowed attempts to
replicate the preliminary findings based on our own database in
the fourth quarter of FY93. This replication of the findings was
again attempted at the request of the Commander-in-Chief (CINC),
USAREUR in the third quarter of FY94. The hypothesis in both
cases was that platoons running and passing more exercises
between gunneries would have better sustainment of gunnery
performance.

Method

Sample

The PGT data for the first replication of this research were
collected from the tank PGT site located at GTA (Vilseck). The
PGT data for the second replication of this research were
collected from both the tank PGT sites located at GTA and
Schweinfurt, FRG. Most of the PGT exercises were run at GTA.

All measures of live-fire performance were collected at GTA.

Data for the first replication were collected from units that
fired TTXII in the second and fourth quarters of FY93. Data for
the second replication were collected from units that fired TTXII
in the first and third quarters of FY94. There were 26 platoons
in the first replication and 35 in the second replication.

Measures

The PGT use and proficiency measures included total number
of exercises run and total number of exercises successfully
completed (passed) between biannual gunnery “densities.”
Exercises run includes all platoon level exercises run
(regardless of outcome) between gunneries. Total number of
exercises passed includes all exercises run on which platoons
received a score of 70 or greater. Score roughly corresponded to
percentage of targets killed. The score was weighted so that
vehicle targets accounted for 70 percent of the score and troop
targets accounted for 30 percent. This weighting was similar to
the weighting of TTXII where main gun targets composed 70 percent
of the score and troop targets composed 30 percent.

Measures of percentage hits for targets represented and
presented were identical to those described above. However, we
defined sustainment of gunnery skills as the difference between
current gunnery performance and performance in the last gunnery.
Thus, a negative score represented a decline in performance (in

11



For these platoons, PGT personnel gave copies of PGT
printouts for exercises run “in density” to TAD. These printouts
contained the number of main gun and troop targets presented and
killed for each run of each exercise. These data were then
entered into a database and checked for accuracy. If a platoon
ran an exercise more than once, the average performance for all
iterations was computed; i.e., total targets killed divided by
total targets presented for all iterations of that exercise.

Similarly, range personnel supplied TTXII (live-fire) score
sheets to TAD. These score sheets contained the number of
targets presented and hit for each presentation of each task of
TTXII. Data were entered and error checked. Then the measures
of TTXII proficiency described above were calculated from this
data.

Measures of a platoon’s PGT performance on a given exercise
were paired with measures of that platoon’s TTXII (live-fire)
performance for that gunnery density. This pairing was limited
to exercises run by at least ten different platoons, to eliminate
analyzing data for exercises run by only a handful of platoons.
Then, all cases for a given exercise were combined for all of
FY93. For example, if 12 platoons firing TTXII ran an exercise
in the first quarter, 10 platoons firing TTXII in the second
quarter, no platoons in the third quarter, and 14 platoons firing
TTXII in the fourth quarter, then that exercise would have a
total of 36 cases available for analysis.

Results

There were only three commonly run PGT exercises (i.e., PGT
exercises run by more than 10 platoons firing TTXII in any
quarter of FY93). These were the basic exercises of day hasty
defense, day hasty attack, and day hasty defend/attack. Table 2
shows the number of platoons running various PGT exercises by
quarter. Pearson correlations between PGT and TTXII performance
for these exercises are displayed in Table 3. ‘These numbers in
Table 2 represent all platoons running the exercises in that
quarter, not just those firing TTXII. Therefore, these numbers
do not necessarily add to the number of platoons represented in
the Pearson correlations in Table 3.

In Table 3, correlations between like measures for PGT and
TTXII are shown. That is, total targets killed in PGT are
correlated with total targets (presented and represented) hit on
TTXII. Vehicle targets killed in PGT are correlated with main
gun targets hit on TTXII. Also, troop targets killed in PGT are
correlated with troop targets hit in TTXII.

As shown, for all three PGT exercises, there were small but
statistically significant correlations (p < .05, two-tailed)
between percentage of total targets killed in PGT and percentage
of total targets (presented) hit on TTXII. Additionally, for two
of the three PGT exercises (day hasty attack and day hasty



Measures

Measures of PGT exercise performance are identical to those
discussed in the previous section on tank PGT research.

Measures of BTXII performance, like measures of TTXII
performance, also included percentage hits of targets presented
and represented. However, unlike TTXII, BTXII does not use a
depleting scenario. That is, all targets were presented on all
bands. For example, if a platoon hit 4 of 10 targets on the
first band, and 4 more (of ten again) on the second band, range
personnel scored the platoon as hitting 8 of 10 targets
represented but 8 of 20 targets presented. In the rare instances
of platoons hitting more than the number of targets represented,
they were scored as hitting only the number of targets
represented.

The only data recorded for BTXII was number of targets hit
and number of times (bands) the targets were presented.
Therefore, unlike TTXII, it was impossible to distinguish between
platoons that hit 6 of 10 targets in the first band and 2 in the
second and platoons that hit 2 of 10 targets in the first band
and 6 in the second. In BTXII, both would be scored as hitting 8
of 10 targets represented and 8 of 20 targets presented.

The reason that BTXII did not have a depleting scenario was
the large number of troop targets. With the technology
available, it was too difficult to design a system that could
keep track of targets hit on each band. Although the number of
main gun targets was not large, the same system was used to
control both main gun and troop targets. Thus, the depleting
scenario was not used for either type of target.

Most troop targets in BTXII were engaged by dismounted
troops. Because the BFV PGT did not train dismounted troops, we
did not score targets that could have been engaged by dismounted
troops. At the time of this research, there were a few troop
targets that platoons were only allowed to engage with the COAX.
These were the only troop targets that were scored in this
research. Unlike TTXII, troop targets in BTXII were presented on
successive bands.

In general BTXII had an average of around 26 main gun
targets represented and an average of about 19 troop (COAX)
targets.

In summary, measures of BTXII performance were percentage
hits of total, main gun, and troop (COAX) targets, presented and
represented. Table 7 contains data on measures of PGT and BTXII
performance, by PGT exercise.

15



FOREWORD

The U.S. Army is making increased use of simulators in
training its mounted forces. However, in many cases there is
little empirical research concerning the effectiveness of these
simulators, or how use of and proficiency on these simulators
relates to performance on the actual equipment.

The research described in this report was performed when the
author worked in the Training Analysis Division of the Seventh
Army Training Command of the U.S. Army, Europe (USAEUR). This
research was performed on a noninterference basis to provide
commanders information concerning how use of the Tank and Bradley
Platoon Gunnery Trainers (PGTs) related to live-fire gunnery
performance.

The research was not formally reported in its entirety and
was not widely distributed out of the Seventh Army Training
Command. This research is relevant to the mission of the U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences’
Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) at Fort Knox, KY. Therefore,
this research is published by AFRU to more widely distribute
findings relevant to the armored forces community.

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



terms of percentage of targets hit) from last gunnery to current
gunnery, while a positive score represented an increase in
performance from the previous gunnery.

Table 5 contains data on PGT measures of use and proficiency
as well as TTXII performance for both replications of the
research.

Procedure

For this analysis PGT personnel gave printouts of all
exercises run by any unit to TAD. For each exercise, identifying
information and score were entered into a database and error
checked. Then measures of PGT use and proficiency described
above were computed. The PGT data was merged with measures of
changes in TTXII data for platoons live-firing TTXII in the
quarters mentioned.

Results

Pearson correlations between number of exercises run and
passed in PGT between densities and change in TTXII performance
between densities are reported in Table 6. Results show a
positive relationship between number of PGT exercises run and
passed and change in TTXII performance for several measures of
TTXII performance. In general, the more exercises run and
passed, the more improvement in TTXII performance.

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Measures by Replication: Tank
Data

PGT Measures " Replication
First Second
(n=26) (n=35)
MSD MSD
Exercises Run 4.6 2.5 7.8 5.5
Exercises Passed 1.9 2.3 3.8 2.9

(Change in Percentage TTXII
Targets Hit)

All Targets Presented 9.1 13.8 2.9 10.9
All Targets Represented 3.0 10.1 -11.5 13.6
Main Gun Targets Presented 11.0 14.8 -4 14.7
Main Gun Targets Represented 3.2 10.1 -20.2 17.8
Troop Targets 1.9 15.4 8.2 13.1

12



small relationship to percentage hits on BTXII targets presented.
Had the number of platoons been comparable to the numbers in the
tank platoon research, these correlations would have reached
statistical significance.

75

Number of Platoons ( )

Percent BTXII Targets Hit

50 J L 1
< 60 60 < 70 70+

Figure 6. Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Attack and BTXII
Performance

Total PGT Exercises Run and Passed and BTXII Performance

The rationale for this research was similar to the rationale
given in the previous section for the tank PGT research. A
difference, however, was that SMEs here recommended restricting
examination of PGT exercises run to those run during the quarter
of the current gunnery versus those run between gunneries. Units
ran most of these exercises while they were in “density.” One
possible reason for this recommendation is that observations of
crew gunnery suggest that turnover between densities is greater
for BFV crews. We hypothesized that the more exercises run and
passed in the current quarter, the better the performance on
BTXII.

18



15
Number of Platoons ( )

LO errr tte tirt eter cence snes lec cees

Change in Percent TTXII
Targets Presented Killed
uw

(17)
| | |
-5
0-3 4-7 8&9
Number of PGT Exercises Passed
Figure 5. PGT Exercises Passed Between Gunneries and Change in

TTXII Performance

BRADLEY PGT RESEARCH
Performance on Specific PGT Exercises and Bradley TXII (BTXII)

The purpose for these analyses is the same as that
described above in the comparable section on tank PGT research.
Because crews were running very basic exercises in the Bradley
PGT, we did not hypothesize a relationship between any specific
exercise(s) and BTXII performance. This analysis was
exploratory.

Method

Sample

All data for this portion of the research were collected
from GTA. The PGT data were collected from the Bradley PGT site
in Vilseck and the live-fire data from the GTA ranges. Data were
collected from July through September of 1994 (fourth quarter,
FY94). This research included data on 30 platoons that used PGT
and fired BTXII.

14



4 70
= Number of Platoons ( ) 67
n
v
© 65
n
4
«
& 60
H
H
x
Boss
vy
is]
0
o 50
4
o
a

45

< 40 40 < 50 50 < 60 60 < 70 70+

Percent PGT Targets Killed

Figure 2. Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Attack and TTXII
Performance

» 60
od
m Number of Platoons ( )
n
v
o
4
H 55
B
H
H
x
B
H
» 50
Fi 16
o (16)
uM
o
iy
4s ! 1 1 i

< 50 50 < 60 60 < 70 70+
Percent PGT Targets Killed

Figure 3. First & Second Quarter Performance on PGT Exercise Day
Hasty Defend/Attack and TTXII Performance



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLATOON GUNNERY
TRAINING AND LIVE-FIRE PERFORMANCE

The program to prepare the U.S. Army for the Twenty-First
Century, Force XXI Training Program (FXXI-TP), stresses the use
of simulators and simulations for training (Burnside, Quinkert,
Black & Maggart, 1995). A major reason for the use of simulators
and simulations is that they require fewer resources than
traditional field training. These resources not only include
dollar driven resources such as fuel, spare parts, ammunition and
the personnel to supply these resources, but also environmental
resources such as terrain damage and range time (an issue because
of limited live-fire hours in order to restrict noise pollution).
Simulators and simulations also have other advantages for
training. These advantages include facilitating standardization
of training, providing automated feedback and enabling the
training of tasks that cannot be trained in the field due to
safety constraints.

The U.S. Army has used simulators for armored forces gunnery
training since the mid 1980’s. The Unit-Conduct of Fire Trainer
(U-COFT) assists in training crew gunnery skills for M1 series
tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFVs). The U-COFT is a high
fidelity representation of the commander and gunner work
stations. Commanders and gunners view simulated targets through
their sights, and must perform all gunnery procedures necessary
to engage targets, just as they would on the actual vehicle.
Enemy vehicles appear to burn when a catastrophic kill is
achieved. The mobility and firepower kills are not represented
in U-COFT. The instructor/operator (1/0) plays the roles of
driver and loader (responding to the vehicle commander), as well
as platoon leader (giving and receiving information). The U-COFT
collects gunnery performance data automatically, and provides the
commander and gunner with feedback in the form of printouts of
their performance. The I/Os provide verbal feedback on command
and control (e.g., fire commands) and reporting procedures.

Crews advance through a matrix of exercises, depending on their
gunnery performance. See Hughes, Butler, Sterling & Burglund
(1987) and Hughes, Morales-Steigley & Musser (1990) for detailed
descriptions of the Ml and M2/3 U-COFT respectively.

In the early 1990’s the U. S. Army fielded the Platoon
Gunnery Trainers (PGTs) for tanks and BFVs. In January of 1992
the Seventh Army Training Command (7th ATC) changed the tank PGT
located at Vilseck, Federal Republic of Germany (FGR) froma
simulator designed to prepare platoons for the Canadian Army
Trophy competition to a simulator designed to train general
platoon gunnery skills. Also, in the second quarter of fiscal
year (FY) 93, the Bradley PGTs located at Vilseck and Baumholder,
FRG were ready for training. A second tank PGT was ready for
training at Schweinfurt, FRG in the first quarter of Fy94.



which the structured training is conducted. The fourth component
is STAARS. This component is an automated tool to assist in
recording data from the standard training exercises, and prepare
an automated AAR. The final component is the ADTL, which is a
composite of data from virtual (e.g., PGT), constructive (e.g.,
Janus) and live (e.g., live-fire) simulations.

The PGT had a sort of automated AAR, in that gunnery (but
not command and control) data were automatically recorded and
provided to the platoon by way of a printout. In FY94, TAD
succeeded in prompting a modification to the PGT contract whereby
the gunnery data automatically recorded by the PGT were also
downloaded to a personal computer attached to the PGT. The data
could periodically be copied on a diskette and forwarded to TAD.
Then TAD ran programs designed to extract specific information
from this data and link it to platoon TXII performance.

Such a training library database, including a variety of
training data such as simulator (virtual) data and live data
(reflecting performance on the actual weapon system), can be
useful. This data would be especially meaningful if based on use
of standardized training support packages. Researchers could use
regression type statistics to determine the amount of variance
accounted for in live-fire gunnery performance by different types
of gunnery training. Researchers could determine how those
relationships may change over time. Also, the database may help
to provide information to Army decision makers concerning the
optimum mix of simulator and other types of training for a given
level of live performance on the actual system.

This research contains a concrete example of useful
information from such an ADTL. The data shows how the
relationship between the day hasty defend and attack PGT exercise
and platoon gunnery performance strengthened once it was no
longer a required exercise. This suggests that it is unwise to
use a specific exercise as a “gate,” at least unless platoons are
prevented from “training the test.” The data instead suggests
that overall use of and proficiency on PGT may be a better
measure of readiness for live-fire gunnery.

In addition, controlled research on PGT training and live-
fire performance would also be useful. Although this type of
research will be difficult to conduct in a field setting, it may
be possible in an institutional setting. Here, researchers could
control use of PGT, personnel turnover and the performance
(dependent) measure to a degree that would likely prove
impossible in a field setting.

Although the research discussed here has shown a replicated
relationship between PGT training and platoon gunnery
performance, additional research along the lines suggested above
would be useful in further determining the true nature and size
of this relationship.

24



95

Number of Platoons ( )

90

85

80

Percent Main Gun Targets
Represented Killed

75

Total PGT Exercises Run

igure 7. PGT Exercises Run and BTXII Main Gun Performance

DISCUSSION
Summary of Results

Relationships between measures of PGT proficiency and use
and platoon gunnery performance were found for both tank and BFV
platoons. Concerning performance on specific PGT exercises,
there were relationships between performance on all three
frequently run tank PGT exercises and percentage of total targets
hit in tank platoon gunnery. One of these exercises was the one
hypothesized to relate to TTXII performance. For BFV platoons,
there was a relationship between performance on only one of the
three most frequently run exercises and platoon gunnery
performance. Performance on the PGT day hasty attack exercise
related to percentage of total and main gun targets hit.
Performance on troop targets in PGT exercises was not related to
performance against troop targets in platoon gunnery for either
tank or BFV platoons.

There were also relationships between measures of overall
use of and proficiency on the tank and Bradley PGTs and platoon
gunnery performance. For tank platoons, as hypothesized, the
more PGT exercises run and passed between gunneries, the more
improvement of gunnery performance between gunneries for total
and main gun targets in both replications. For BFV platoons

21



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLATOON GUNNERY TRAINING AND LIVE-FIRE
PERFORMANCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

Reduced training resources require the U.S. Army to
increasingly depend on simulators for routine training.
Regardless of how efficient simulators are, they are not
effective if they do not enhance performance on the actual
equipment. This research investigates the relationship between
tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) platoons’ use of and
proficiency on gunnery simulators and live-fire gunnery
performance.

Procedure:

This research was conducted on a strictly non-interference
basis. Measures reflecting platoons’ use of and proficiency on
tank and BFV Platoon Gunnery Trainers (PGTs) were collected.
These PGT measures were correlated with measures of performance
on platoon live-fire (Table XII) gunnery.

Findings:

For tank platoons, it was found that performance on all
three of the frequently run PGT exercises related to live-fire
performance. Also, the number of PGT exercises run and passed
between gunneries related to improvement between gunneries in
live-fire performance. These research findings were confirmed on
two replications. For BFV platoons, it was found that
performance on one of the three frequently run exercises related
to live-fire performance. Also, the number of PGT exercises run
prior to the current gunnery related to live-fire gunnery
performance, on two replications of the research.

Utilization of Findings:

This research demonstrates small but consistent
relationships between training on platoon gunnery simulators and
live-fire performance across replications. Results suggest that
platoon gunnery simulators may be effective for platoon-level
gunnery (Table XII) training.

vii



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author of this report gratefully acknowledges the
critical assistance provided by Mr. Stephan Arrington of the
Seventh Army Training Command’s Training Analysis Division. His
help in conceptualizing measures of Platoon Gunnery Trainer and
live-fire gunnery performance, and developing computer programs
to produce these measures was invaluable. The author also thanks
Mr. Kenneth Vlasek for help in data reduction and programming.

vi



75
Number of Platoons

Percent TTXII Targets HIT

55 | | i 1
< 50 50 < 60 60 < 70 70+

Percent PGT Targets Killed

Figure 4. Third & Fourth Quarter Performance on PGT Exercise Day
Hasty Defend/Attack and TTXII Performance

Total PGT Exercises Run and Passed and TTXII Performance

Another purpose of this research was to determine the
relationship between the overall use of and proficiency on PGT
and TTXII performance. The reason for this comparison was to
assist U.S. Army decision makers in determining if there was an
optimal number of exercises to run or successfully complete
between gunneries. This information could provide an alternate
form of “gate” in terms of total use of and proficiency on PGT
required prior to live-firing TTXII, versus performance on a
specific exercise. This alternative was especially relevant
after it was found that platoons will “train the test” if one
limits the “gate” to a specific exercise.

The impetus for this analysis came from some data and
insights provided by PGT I/Os and supervisory personnel. In the
first and second quarters of FY93, PGT personnel began recording
the total number of exercises run and successfully completed
(defined in the method section below) by three battalion sized
units who were frequent users of PGT. Their insight was that
platoons that ran and passed more PGT exercises between gunneries
seemed to display better sustained gunnery performance on TTXII.

This insight is supported by previous research on simulator
performance and crew level gunnery. Hughes et al. (1987) found

10



CONTENTS (continued)

10.

11.

Figure 1.

Page
Means and Standard Deviations of Performance
Measures by Bradley PGT Exercise ........ . 16
Bradley PGT Platoon Exercises Run, Fourth Quarter,
FY93 2. 1. ee ee ee ee rs . 17
Correlations Between PGT Exercise Performance and
BTXII Performance .........-+.++++-+.-+127
Means and Standard Deviations of Performance
Measures by Replication: Bradley Data....... 19
Correlations Between Number of PGT Exercises Run
and Passed and BTXII Performance ......... . 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Defense and
TTXII Performance ...... oe rn)
Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Attack and
TTXII Performance ........ eee eee
First and Second Quarter Performance on PGT
Exercise Day Hasty Defend/Attack and TTXII
Performance .. . : : eee ee
Third and Fourth Quarter Performance on PGT
Exercise Day Hasty Defend/Attack and TTXII
Performance... coe soe oe ee ee 10
PGT Exercises Passed Between Gunneries and Change
in TTXII Performance ...........-.+... 14
Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Attack and
BTXII Performance ...... oe woe ee ee 18
PGT Exercises Run and BTXII Main Gun Performance . 21



Table 7

Means and St. Deviation: rformanc: Br PGT Exercise
Measures Day Hasty Night Hasty Day Hasty
(Percentage PGT Targets Defense (n=21) Defense (n=16) Attack (n=20)
Killed) M SD M sD M sD
All Targets 70.21 8.1 71.5 12.9 67.9 9.7
Vehicle Targets 69.3 9.7 76.7 12.0 74.5 11.1
Troop Targets 73.5 10.6 52.5 21.5 52.2 13.5

(Percentage BTXII Targets Hit)

All Targets Presented 58.1 10.7 62.7 16.9 63.8 12.6
All Targets Represented 76.8 9.7 83.7 10.7 80.9 10.1
Main Gun Targets Presented 62.2 15.6 62.6 18.5 66.3 16.6
Main Gun Targets Represented 88.0 9.1 91.3 8.8 92.0 6.7
Troop Targets Presented 53.6 15.0 62.3 21.2 61.0 16.3
Troop Targets Represented 63.2 18.2 73.9 20.5 66.9 17.8
Procedure

Collection and reduction of measures of PGT and BTXII
performance was performed exactly the same way as described in
the previous section on tank PGT research.

Results

There were only three PGT exercises run by ten or more
platoons. These were day hasty defense, night hasty defense, and
day hasty attack. Table 8 shows all exercises run and the number
of platoons running each exercise. Pearson correlations between
performance on the three frequently run exercises and BTXII are
shown in Table 9. Not all platoons running a particular PGT
exercise in Table 8 live-fired BTXII. Therefore, the number of
platoons running an exercise in Table 8 may not equal the number
of platoons represented in the correlations for that exercise in
Table 9.

16



Sa iS

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

Research Report 1701

Relationship Between Platoon Gunnery
Training and Live-Fire Performance

Bruce S. Sterling
U.S. Army Research Institute

19970106 006

September 1996

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DTic QUALITY INSPECTED



TANK PGT RESEARCH
Performance on Specific PGT Exercises and Tank TXII (TTXII)

The purpose of comparing performance on specific PGT
exercises and TTXII performance was to determine if there were
any individual PGT exercises specifically related to TTXII
performance. The reason for this comparison was to help U.S.
Army decision makers determine potential exercises that they
might use as “gates” for TTXII. That is, if there were certain
exercises that related particularly well to TTXII performance,
the command might require platoons to achieve a certain level of
performance on these exercises prior to live-firing TTXII. The
hypothesis was that performance on the PGT exercise most similar
to TTXII (day hasty defend/attack) would be correlated with TTXII
live-fire performance.

Method

Sample

All data for the following analyses were collected from
Grafenwoehr Training Area (GTA), where U.S. Army, Europe
(USAREUR) tank and BFV platoons conduct live-fire gunnery
biannually. Data used in the following analyses were collected
from October 1992 through September 1993 (FY93). There were 177
four-crew platoons that used the PGT and fired TTXII at GTA in
FY93. Because of the unobtrusive nature of the research, no
surveys were administered. Therefore, demographic data on the
members of the platoons were unavailable.

Measures

Measures of performance for PGT consisted of percentage of
vehicle, troop and total (vehicle plus troop) targets killed in
the exercise. Vehicle targets were mostly tanks and fighting
vehicles (e.g., BMPs) which required use of the main gun in order
to kill them. However, platoons could kill some vehicle targets
(e.g., trucks) with the main gun or coaxial (COAX) machine gun.

Performance measures for TTXII consisted of main gun, troop
and total (main gun plus troop) targets hit. Percentage of
targets hit for targets presented and targets represented were
calculated. Table 1 presents information on PGT and TTXII data
collected, by PGT exercise.

Every platoon had 42 main gun and 18 troop targets
represented (less target failures). However, platoons had
differing numbers of main gun targets presented. Main gun
targets not hit on the first band were presented again on the
second, and if necessary, on some tasks, a third band. Re-
presenting only the number of targets not hit on previous bands
is called a depleting scenario. The TTXII scenario presented
troop targets only once.



The PGT is essentially four linked U-COFTs. Commanders and
gunners can see the vehicles in their own platoons as well as
Other vehicles on the battlefield. The platoon leader must
direct his platoon as in live-fire gunnery or combat. He must
give movement and fire commands and provide reports to the
company commander. Platoons can move only on a predetermined
path, but platoon leaders can give commands to control when and
how fast the platoon moves. Platoons run fixed exercises and
receive printed feedback on gunnery performance. Platoons also
receive verbal (after action review or AAR) feedback on command
and control issues from the senior I/O, or unit personnel, such
as the company commander. Kraemer and Wong (1992) provide a
detailed description of the tank PGT.

Tank and BFV gunnery simulators undoubtedly use less
resources than training with the actual vehicle. They also
provide standardized training and automated feedback. However,
one cannot consider them to be effective training devices unless
there is some evidence suggesting they enhance performance on the
actual vehicle. Research conducted with both the tank U-Coft
(Hughes et al., 1987) and BFV U-COFT (Hughes et al., 1990)
demonstrate that various measures of U-COFT use and proficiency
are related to crew gunnery (Table VIII) performance.
Additionally, Kraemer & Wong (1992) showed that platoon gunnery-
like performance in a tank platoon gunnery simulator improved
over the number of exercises run. Demonstrating improved
performance on the training simulator itself is important.
However, for tank and BFV platoon gunnery simulators, the
critical research question concerns whether degree of use and/or
proficiency on platoon gunnery simulators relates to live-fire
platoon gunnery performance.

The research presented in this report is an attempt to
demonstrate a relationship between tank and BFV PGT training and
platoon live-fire performance. This research is strictly
correlational, as the guidance in performing the research was for
it to be “transparent” (i.e., unobtrusive) to the units. Thus
there was no possibility of using the experimental method to
provide the conclusion that PGT training “causes” improvements in
gunnery skills. We can only establish relationships (or lack
thereof) between PGT training and live-fire performance.

This report presents two types of data for both tank and BFV
platoons. The first is a comparison of performance on certain
individual PGT exercises run shortly before firing live-fire
platoon gunnery to actual platoon live-fire gunnery performance
(Table XII or TXII). The second is the relationship of the
overall number of PGT exercises run and successfully completed to
TXII performance. The report presents the tank PGT research
first, followed by the BFV research.



Given all these deficiencies, the research nonetheless shows
a relationship between PGT use and proficiency, under actual
field conditions reflecting how units use the PGT. Similar
results can reasonably be expected whenever the PGT is used for
training under actual field conditions.

This research also did not determine the extent to which PGT
training is related to live-fire command and control. It is
known that in addition to gunnery training, the PGT is also a
command and control trainer. Kraemer and Wong (1992), using
Armor Officer Basic Course students, found that command and
control measures improve over exercises run in the tank PGT.
Research in the field also found that command and control
measures improved over PGT exercises run for both tank (Sterling,
1993b) and BFV (Sterling, 1994) platoons. An attempt was made to
examine relationships between command and control skills in PGT
and platoon gunnery, but range personnel collected no such data
during live-fire gunnery.

Areas for Future Research

The contribution of the PGT to platoon gunnery should be
explored further. As discussed earlier, the PGT is only part of
a unit’s gunnery program. A unit’s gunnery program generally
includes several types of training. Training may include
individual training, such as Tank or Bradley Crew Gunnery Skills
Test, and crew training, such as U-COFT or Tank or Bradley Crew
Proficiency Test. Perhaps some sort of simulated platoon gunnery
at a local training area, or even command and control training in
Simulation Networking (SIMNET) may be included in the gunnery
program. As suggested above, each of these types of training may
account for a portion of the variance in platoon gunnery.

The limitations of the present research demonstrate the need
to develop a method of routinely capturing data on these other
types of gunnery related training that occur in units. The
Standard Army After Action Review System (STAARS) and Army
Digital Training Library (ADTL), as reflected in the Warfighter
XXI (WFXXI) strategy may assist in the effort to routinely
collect a wide variety of training data.

The WFXXI strategy (Blackwell, 1995) is the plan to train
Army units for the challenges of the next century. The WFXXI
strategy consists of five components. The first is the Standard
Army Training System (SATS). The SATS is an automated tool to
help commanders determine what tasks to train and how to train
these tasks. The second component is the training support
packages (TSPs). These contain all materials necessary to
conduct structured training, such as orders, graphics,
instructions for individuals playing opposing, higher and
adjacent forces, etc. This type of training is designed to
ensure that the tasks the commander has chosen to train are
trained in the given scenario. The third component is the
training aids, devices, simulators and simulations (TADSS) on

23



also as predicted, the more exercises run during the current
gunnery the more main gun targets hit in platoon gunnery on both
replications. Only one significant correlation occurred (in tank
platoons) between PGT use and performance against troop targets
in TTXII.

Limitations of the Research

It may be somewhat surprising that any relationships were
found given the conditions under which the research was
conducted. Although the relationships are not strong (only a few
reached the .50 range) they are fairly consistent.

The PGT is only one component of a unit’s gunnery program.
While limited space in local training areas precludes much
training as a platoon, units conduct varying amounts of home
station crew gunnery training (e.g. U-COFT, crew proficiency
tests) with varying effectiveness.

Also, there was no control over the way units used the PGT.
In certain PGT AARs, leaders emphasized command and control
substantially more than number of targets killed, while others
emphasized gunnery more than command and control. There was no
control over the order that platoons ran PGT exercises during
density, how many other exercises the platoon ran before or after
a given exercise, or the timing of the PGT exercises. For
instance, in measuring the relationship between performance on a
given exercise and platoon gunnery performance, there was no
control over whether that was the last PGT exercise run prior to
gunnery, or whether several other PGT exercises were run prior to
gunnery. In examining the relationship between total exercises
run or passed, no control was exerted over whether platoons ran
or passed three iterations of the same exercise or three
different exercises, and whether the exercises were massed or
spaced.

In addition, there is some variation from one platoon
gunnery run to another. While all platoons have the same number
of targets represented (at least for tank platoons), poor
tactical decision making by a platoon leader may result in firing
more difficult tasks (e.g., some targets may appear only once).

Finally, there was no control over, or even the ability to
quantify, platoon turnover. Range personnel did not collect crew
rosters for platoon gunnery. Range personnel did collect crew
rosters for crew gunnery, but not every crew fired crew gunnery
every time the platoon fired platoon gunnery. Therefore, platoon
battle rosters could not be constructed from crew battle rosters.
Some crew rosters were collected from the PGT. Examination of
changes in these rosters between gunneries suggested that
turnover for crew commander and gunner positions was about 50
percent between gunneries. Thus, about half of each tank platoon
remained the same between gunneries.

22



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLATOON GUNNERY TRAINING AND LIVE-FIRE
PERFORMANCE

CONTENTS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

TANK PGT R

Performance on Specific PGT Exercises and Tank Table XII

(TTXIL

Total PGT Exercises Run and Passed and TTXII Performance

BRADLEY PG

Performance on Specific PGT Exercises and Bradley Table

XII (Bi

Total PGT Exercises Run and Passed and BTXII Performance

ESEARCH

)

'T RESEARCH .

TXII)

DISCUSSION .

Summary of Results ........

Limitations of the Research ...

Areas for Future Research

REFERENCES

Table 1.

LIST OF TABLES

Means and Standard Deviations of Performance
Measures by Tank PGT Exercise oe :

Tank PGT Platoon Exercises Run by Quarter, FY93

Correlations Between PGT Exercise Performance
and TTXII Performance rs

Correlations Between PGT and TTXII Performance
for Day Hasty Defend/Attack Exercise

Means and Standard Deviations of Measures by
Replication: Tank Data ry

Correlations Between Number of PGT Exercises Run
and Passed Between Densities and Change in TTXII
Performance ee

ix

Page

10

14

14
18
. 221
21
22
23
25

12

13



Table 6
Correlations Between Number of PGT Exercises Run and Passed Between Densities and Change
in TTXII Performance

PGT Performance Change in TTXII Performance
(Percentage Kills) (Percentage Hits
All Targets Main Gun Targets Troop Targets
Presented Represented Presented Represented

1st Replication

(n=26)
Run 5147* -4759* 4889+ -3895* -4361*
Passed -4708* -3400 -5133* -4054* <1371

2nd Replication

(n=35)
Run +2051 -4127* +3040 -5101* -.1639
Passed +3403* -6289* -3570* -6532* +1134

*=P<.05,2 Tailed Test

The number of PGT exercises passed was significantly related
to change (improvement) in TTXII total and main gun targets
(presented) hit, in both replications. The number of PGT
exercises run was significantly related to change (improvement)
in all measures of TTXII performance in the first replication and
change (improvement) in total and main gun targets (represented)
hit in the second replication.

Figure 5 demonstrates the relationship between total PGT
exercises passed between gunneries and improvement on TTXII in
terms of percentage of targets presented hit, for data from the
second replication.

PGT measures were about equally related to both measures of
(change in) percentage of TTXII targets hit. There were seven
significant correlations with targets represented and six with
targets presented.

13



Method

Sample

Data were collected at GTA (Vilseck) and, for the second
replication, also Baumholder, FRG. All live-fire data were
collected at GTA. The first sample was 31 platoons that fired
BTXII in the fourth quarter of FY93. This included the 30
platoons in the sample for the research above plus one platoon
that did not use PGT in the fourth quarter. The second sample
consisted of 36 platoons that fired BTXII in the third quarter of
FY94, when the research was replicated at the request of the
CINC, USAREUR.

Measures

PGT performance included all exercises run and successfully
completed (passed) in the current quarter. As with the tank PGT,
platoons had to achieve a score of 70 to pass. Scores were based
on a weighted percentage of vehicle and troop targets killed,
similar to tank PGT scores.

For the first sample, measures of BTXII performance were
identical to those described above in the individual exercise
section. For the second sample, measures were limited to main
gun targets only. The reason for this was that all troop targets
could now be engaged by dismounted troops. Because PGT did not
train dismounted troops, the troop target measure for BTXII were
eliminated.

Table 10 contains data on measures of PGT use and
proficiency as well as BTXII performance.

Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Measures by Replication: Bradley
Data

PGT Measures Replication
First Second
(n=31) (n=36)
M SD M SD
Exercises Run 3.9 1.5 ce} 1.6
Exercises Passed 4 1.5 1.7 1.2

(Percentage TXII Targets Hit)

All Targets Presented 62.2 14.2 77 o>
All Targets Represented 80.8 11.0 -- --
Main Gun Targets Presented 64.5 15.9 50.4 12.3
Main Gun Targets Represented 88.3 10.1 81.5 13.1
Troop Targets Presented 59.7 19.9 -- --
Troop Targets Represented 71.5 20.6 -- --

19



Research Report 1701

Relationship Between Platoon Gunnery Training and
Live-Fire Performance

Bruce S. Sterling
U.S. Army Research Institute

Armored Forces Research Unit
Barbara A. Black, Chief

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

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army
September 1996
ny
Army Project Number Education and Training Technology
20262785A791

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.



defend/attack), there were small but statistically significant
correlations between percentage of vehicle targets killed in PGT
and percentage of main gun targets (presented) killed on TTXII.

Table 2
Tank PGT Platoon Exercises Run_b: uarter, FY93

Number of Platoons

Exercise 10 20 30 40 =
Day Hasty Defense 25 7 19 14 65
Night Hasty Defense 2 1 3 4 10
Day Hasty Attack 17 16 14 7 54
Night Hasty Attack 1 -- -- 1 2
Day Deliberate Attack -- 1 -- 9 10
Night Deliberate Attack -- -- -- 1 1
Rain Deliberate Attack 1 -- -- -- 1
Day Hasty Defend/Attack

(Version 1) -- -- -- 2 2
Night Hasty Defend/Attack

(Version 1) -- 1 -- -- 1
Day Hasty Defend/Attack

(Version 2) 61 57 27 24 169

Night Hasty Defend/Attack

(Version 2) -- 7 2 4 13
Fog Hasty Defend/Attack -- 1 -- -- 1
Haze Hasty Defend/Attack -- 3 -- -- 3
Snow Hasty Defend/Attack 1 2 -- -- 3
Rain Hasty Defend/Attack 1 -- -- -- 1
Day Deliberate Attack/Delay to

Subsequent Battle Position 6 1 -- -- 7
Haze Deliberate Attack/Delay to

Subsequent Battle Position -- 1 -- -- 1
Locally Created Exercise -- -- -- 2 2

None of the correlations between percentage of troop targets
killed on PGT and hit on TTXII were statistically significant.

As previously stated, one of the goals of these analyses was
to find if any particular exercises were sufficiently predictive
of TTXII performance as to be used as a “gate”. Based on
preliminary research on FY92 data (the year the PGT was fielded
in USAREUR) and subject matter expert (SME) opinion, the PGT
staff tentatively chose an exercise as a kind of “gate”.

Platoons were required to run (although not achieve any



Relationships between percentage of total targets killed in
PGT and total targets hit in TTXII for the three PGT exercises
are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. Data for the day hasty
defend/attack exercise are divided into the first and last half
of FY93.

Table 4
Correlations Between PGT and TTXII Performance for Day Hasty Defend/Attack Exercise

PGT Performance TTXII Performance
(Percentage Kills) (Percentage Hits)
All Targets Main Gun Targets Troop Targets
Presented Represented Presented Represented

ist & 2nd Qtrs -1316 -0673 1314 +0494 0068
(n=109)

3rd & 4th Qtrs -3848* 1934 -3955* 1242 0343
(n=47)

*=P<.05,2 Tailed Test

7)
al
s 64
na
~» 62 [7
o
Dn
4
«6 }—
B 60
H
H
m 88 b-
H
Bu
» =
S 56
o
is)
u Pe...
o 54
a

52

< 40 40 < 50 50 < 60 60+
Percent PGT Targets Killed

Figure 1. Performance on PGT Exercise Day Hasty Defense and

TTXII Performance



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1, REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
1996, September Final August 1995-July 1996
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE . Sa. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
Relationships Between Platoon Gunnery and Live-Fire Performance Sb. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
0602785A.
6. AUTHOR(S) Sc. PROJECT NUMBER
AT9L
Bruce S. Sterling Sd. TASK NUMBER
2228
Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER
HO1
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: PERI-RZ
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-5600
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM
US. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARI
5001 Eisenhower Avenué
Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 44. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Research Report 1701

12, DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Reduced training resources require the military to increasingly depend on simulators for routine training. Regardless of
how inexpensive a simulator may be, however, the simulator is useless if it does not enhance performance on the actual
equipment. This research demonstrates a relationship between training on platoon gunnery simulators and live-fire gunnery
performance for U.S. Army tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) platoons. Because these data replicated previous
findings for both simulators, results suggest that both tank and BFV platoons may profit from training on platoon gunnery
simulators.

15. SUBJECT TERMS
Gunnery Platoon Gunnery Trainer (PGT) Tank Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV)
Simulation Training effectiveness

iy ae pera
if iON 19. LIMITATION OF | 20. NUMBER | 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE
Unclassified | Unclassified | Unclassified | Unlimited 34



Table 8
Bradley PGT Platoon Exercises Run, Fourth Quarter FY93

Exercise Number of Platoons

Day Hasty Defense 24
Night Hasty Defense 22
Fog Hasty Defense 1
Rain Hasty Defense

Day Hasty Attack 2
Night Hasty Attack

Fog Hasty Attack

Day Hasty Defense/Delay

Day Deliberate Attack

Night Deliberate Attack

Day Hasty Defend/Attack

Night Hasty Defend/Attack

Day Deliberate Attack/Defend

BR

WPRAPNNEPNO

Table 9
Correlations Between PGT Exercise Performance and BTXII Performance

PGT Performance BIXII Performance
(Percentage Kills) (Percentage Hits)
All Targets Main Gun Targets Troop Targets

Presented Represented Presented Represented Presented Represented

Day Hasty Defense = - .0623 +0845 ~.0722 -.0501 0769 -.1888
(n=21)

Night Hasty Defense .1267 +2877 ~.0196 3269 0057 1685
(n=20)

Day Hasty Attack -5085* «3275 -2731 -4586* +0846 -.1068
(n=20)

*=P<.05,2 Tailed Test

Results indicate that there are statistically significant
relationships between performance on only one of these three
exercises and BTXII performance. The more total and vehicle
targets killed in the day hasty attack PGT exercise, the more
total targets presented and main gun targets represented were hit
on BTXII.

Figure 6 depicts the relationship between percentage of
total targets killed in PGT and percentage of total targets hit
on BTXII for the day hasty attack PGT exercise. Additionally,
performance on the night hasty defense PGT exercise showed a

17



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

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction
of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director

Technical review by

Ronald E. Kraemer
Bob G. Witmer

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence
concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,
ATTN: PERI-STP, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not retum 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.



REFERENCES

Blackwell, P. E. (1995). Warfighter XXI (WFXXI). Proceedings of
the WFXXI Conference 2. Lawrence, KS: TRADOC Analysis Command
(TRAC) .

Burnside, B. L., Quinkert, K. A., Black, B. A. & Maggart, L. E.
(1995). Design of mounted warfare training for Force XXI.
Army RD&A, May-June.

Hughes, C. H., Butler, W. G., Sterling, B. S. & Burglund Jr.
A. V. (1987). Ml Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer post fielding
training effectiveness analysis (TEA 16-87). White Sands
Missile Range, NM: US Army Training Analysis Command-White
Sands Missile Range (TRAC-WSMR) .

Hughes, C. H., Morales-Steigley, M. & Musser, M. L. (1990). M2/3
Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer post fielding training
effectiveness analysis (TEA 90-016). White Sands Missile
Range, NM: US Army Training Analysis Command-White Sands
Missile Range (TRAC-WSMR) .

Kraemer, R. E. & Wong, D. T. (1992). Evaluation of a prototype
Platoon Gunnery Trainer for Armor Officer Basic Course
training. (ARI Research Report 1620). Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences. (AD A254 289

Sterling, B. S. (1993a). Impact of tank PGT training on
successive Tank Table XII scores (Training Note # 7).
Grafenwoehr, Germany: Seventh Army Training Command.

Sterling, B. S. (1993b). Use of the Ml Platoon Gunnery Trainer
to Train Battle Command Skills (Training Note # 11).
Grafenwoehr, Germany: Seventh Army Training Command.

Sterling, B. S. (1994). Use of the Bradley Platoon Gunnery
Trainer to Train Battle Command Skills (Training Note # 17).
Grafenwoehr, Germany: Seventh Army Training Command.

25



Procedure

Collection and reduction of measures of PGT and BTXII
performance was performed exactly the same way as described in
the comparable section on tank PGT research. The PGT data was
collected from Bradley PGT sites at Vilseck (and Baumholder for
the second replication) .

Results

Pearson correlations between number of PGT exercises run and
passed in the current quarter and BTXII performance in the
current quarter are reported in Table 11. For both replications,
there was a relationship between number of exercises run and
BTXII performance.

Table 11
Correlations Between Number of PGT Exercises Run and Passed and BTXII Performance
PGT Exercises BTXII Performance

(Percentage Hits)

All Targets Main Gun Targets Troop Targets
Presented Represented Presented Represented Presented Represented

ist Replication

(n=31)
Run -3742* -2409* -4085* -4068* +1670 -0131
Passed -4420* 444i" -3878* -5072* -3088 -2043

2nd Replication
(n=36)
Run -- -- .3578* -3892* -- --
Passed -- -- -.0155 ~.0843 -- --

*=P<.05,2 Tailed Test

For the first replication, number of PGT exercises passed
was related to all measures of total and main gun BTXII
performance. Number of PGT exercises run was related to
percentage hits of total (presented) targets and main gun
(presented and represented) targets on BTXII.

For the second replication, there was a statistically
significant correlation between number of PGT exercises run and
both measures of BTXII main gun performance. Figure 7
illustrates the relationship between total exercises run in PGT
and percentage of main gun targets represented hit on BTXII, for
the second replication.

20



For example, if the scenario presented 14 main gun targets
in the first band, and the platoon hit 8, the remaining 6 targets
were presented in the second band. Assuming a platoon hit all 6
targets in the second band, the platoon was credited
with 14 targets hit out of 14 represented. However, the platoon
was scored as hitting 14 out of 20 targets (14 + 6) presented.
That is, the platoon had 20 "chances" to hit 14 targets.
Percentage of targets hit divided by targets represented was the
actual score for platoons, for both tank and BFV platoon gunnery.

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Measures by Tank PGT Exercise
Measures Day Hasty Day Hasty Day Hasty

Defense (n=53) Attack (n=53) Defend Attack (n=156)
(Percentage PGT Targets M sp M SD M sD
Killed)

All Targets 47.7 9.6 57.4 11.8 58.9 9.5
Vehicle Targets 42.1 10.3 57.0 12.0 54.8 10.1
Troop Targets 69.3 14.7 58.5 19.4 72.5 13.4

(Percentage TTXII Targets Hit)

All Targets Presented 58.0 9.9 57.7 9.5 56.4 11.1
All Targets Represented 84.2 7.6 85.0 7.2 83.5 8.1
Main Gun Targets Presented 54.5 12.0 55.1 10.5 53.4 12.5
Main Gun Targets Represented 89.5 10.0 92.3 6.9 90.0 9.2
Troop Targets 72.0 11.1 68.3 12.0 68.9 12.1

No latency data on TTXII (e.g., time from target exposure to
first round fired or opening time) were collected. Training
Analysis Division (TAD) personnel experimented with collecting
various latency measures, but several technical complications
(e.g., lack of suitable software for computers on the range)
prevented consistent collection of latency data. Opening times
and kill times (time from exposure of target until it was killed,
only for targets that were killed) were available on PGT, but
because there were no comparable times on TTXII, these measures
were omitted from the analyses.

Procedure

This part of the research used data only for platoons
training on PGT “in density.” That is, tank and BFV battalions
came to the GTA biannually to conduct crew and platoon live-fire.
Crews trained on preliminary gunnery tables, fired crew gunnery
(Table VIII, or TVIII), then trained on advanced tables and fired
platoon gunnery (TTXII). Generally, units used PGT after crew
gunnery and prior to TTXII. Any PGT exercises run after TTXII
were excluded from the analyses.



gunnery skills. Thus, in the third and fourth quarters of FY93,
platoons were no longer required to run the day hasty
defend/attack exercise prior to firing TTXII.

This led to a natural experiment. We compared performance
on the day hasty defend/attack exercise and TTXII for the first
two and last two quarters of FY93. These results, reported in
Table 4, show percentage of PGT total targets killed were
significantly correlated with percentage of TTXII total targets
(presented) hit only in the last two quarters of FY93, when
platoons were no longer required to run the exercise.

Table 3

Correlations Between PGT Exercise Performance and TTXII_ Performance

PGT Performance TTXII Performance

(Percentage Kills) (Percentage Hits)

All Targets Main Gun Targets Troop Targets
Presented Represented Presented Represented

Day Hasty Defense -2707* .1618 +2058 .1153 +0194
(n=53)

Day Hasty Attack ~4379* +2559 ~2772* 1224 2669
(n=53)

Day Hasty Defend/

Attack ~2469* +1446 .2523* 1157 -0262

(n=156)

*=p<.05,2 Tailed Test

Similarly, percentage of PGT vehicle targets killed were
significantly related to percentage of TTXII main gun targets
(presented) hit only in the last two quarters of FY93. These
results imply that using only one exercise as a “gate,”
especially if units can train on that exercise, is not good
practice. Units will “train the test,” and performance on this
exercise will no longer be predictive of TTXII performance.

The PGT performance was more related to TTXII targets
presented than represented. Of the seven statistically
significant correlations reported in Tables 3 and 4, all involved
percentage of TTXII targets presented.

Relationships between percentage of total targets killed in
PGT and total targets hit in TTXII for the three PGT exercises
are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. Data for the day hasty
defend/attack exercise are divided into the first and last half
of FY93.