Training for Low-Visibility Driving

eact to TC command, MISSILE, DUCK Dquired: Terrain allowing 15-20 mph in ea 50 m wide by 200 m deep. At least i e hide position visible to driver during iproach.

Width judgment Required: Three pairs of pylcns straddling road at %-foot intervals along path. Driver must have room to bypass on outside of pylons. Pylon pairs should be set at widths of 157. 169. and 144 inches.

c

'ontrol tank in main gun engagement equired: Terrain allowing 15-20 mph; rea at least 250 m long with some pari ff the road at engagement end; target to cilitate gun lay and driving evaluation iould be 30 degrees off travel axis, bout 500 m from vehicle path, and rithin sight of gunner during entire run. Training Course for Low Visibility Driving Figure 1. Test Course Acceleration and stopping Required: Uneven, uphill terrain, possibly wooded, with hull defilade positions and other concealment available. Tank's path, about 90 m long, should not be a straight line and stop point should be visible to driver.

TU?;r 60 i

Right and left turns Required: Hardstand allowing turn; 20-m approach and exit lanes; turnaround area beyond end point. Align tank for width Required: Hardstand area about 2 rr long; engineer tape or stakes marking lane narrowing from 205 inches to 157 inches; start point not aliqned with lane 60 FT. *-.

+ Follow ground guide signals Required: Hard surface area similar tc course used for right and left turns engineer tape marks one side of path pylon set 18 feet from turn apex mark! outer limit; pylons set 13 feet from tap marks entrance and exit limits of turn.

React to command, HULL DEFllADE Required: area about 200 rn long and 5( m wide; terrain allowing 15-20 mph; a least one hull defilade position visible during approach leg. Training for Low Visibility Driving by Lieutenant Colonel Theodore R. Blasche High-risk training is essential if tank crews are going to build their confidence and experience, but the commander who wants to push his crews to the limit faces a dilemma: how can he balance the need for realistic risk with the equally strong requirement that training be conduded safely? The difEculty of teaching limited-visibility driving is a case in point. While it is imperative that tank commanders and drivers learn to cover ground rapidly at night, training a unit to navigate on a darkened battle field risks unnecessary accidents, with a high probability of needless injury and expensive equipment repairs. 32 By training with Light Attenuating Devices (LAD) during daylight, crewmen transitioning to limited visibility operations can get the feel of night driving without the same degree of risk while trainers can maintain be& ter control and provide better feedback to their soldiers. This article explores the use of to actual night training. Background In 1978, an Army Research Institute (ARI) project at Fort Knox, KY explored possible techniques of simulating night conditions with LADS. The researchers tested soldiers performing two typical tasks, night driving and assembly and disassembly of a machinegun. (See “Night Training Simulators,” MayJune 1979 ARMOR Magazine, Ed.). The results were ‘ambiguous: while the tested soldiers did better on the machinegun task, actual night driving was still judged more effective than LAD-training in developing driving skills. The LADs were not a final solution, having some distinct disadvantages. Of the three devices tested only one, the M17 protective mask, depicted s i m u l a t e d c o m b a t c o n - ditions. (The introduction of ballistic goggles will increase that number. As the driver’s goggle becomes a mandatory item, the use of a driver’s goggle LAD would be more realistic.) The second problem with LADs is that they don’t faithfully represent the true conditions of crosscountry, night tank driving. Drivers use the AN/WS2 (figure 3), while tank commanders use the AN/PVS5 (figure 2) night vision device that pre vide a different type of view to the user than do the LADs. One solution is to use the AN/ W S 2 and the AN/PVS5 during daylight hours. The driver’s night viewer can be covered with apiece of poster board or opaque plastic perforated with a pinhole. Opaque coverings are also placed over the vision blocks. The commander’s AN/PVS-5 does not have to be converted: there are pin-holes in the stock lens caps so that aviators can use them to practice night flying during daylight. Pinhole Problems The pinhole conversion technique poses certain problems that must be overcome. The first is caused by bright sunlight, which creates sharp and distinct shadows not normally seen at night. The second, also caused by bright sunlight, is that the light affects the viewing devices. Bright sunlight will cause an ANIPVS-5 to “white out” or “bloom,” whereas the AN/ W S 2 will automatically cease to function when too much light strikes it. Moreover, the driver’s Vision device will distort his picture on very bright days be cause sunlight passing through the pinhole is *acted. The solution tothese problems is to conduct such training on overcast days when shadows are indistinct. For example, training could begin in early evening with actual night driving conducted later. Preparing to Train Once the trainer obtains the mate rials to adapt the vision devices, the next step is to plan a driving course. This course does not require a great deal of space and should be charader-bed by its diversity and mission necessity rather than its length. One such program developed for the AFU is shown in figure 1. The course can be marked in advance with stakes or engineer tape and “in the cracks” training conducted as light conditions pennit. Training can be conducted at any echelon from individual crew through company leveL The number of vehicles will be restricted by the size of the course. Each vehicle will move through the course several times under simulated night conditions. The purpose of simulating night driving is so that members of the crew can observe what happens. The effects of dust, fog, haze, etc., can be experienced. The training will reduce their surprise when they encounter actual limited visibility operations. When an error or unsafe act takes place, the observer halts the vehicle. An immediate afteraction review is held, with the driver or TC checking both daylight and simulated night conditions to become familiar with both conditions and their implications. When confident that his men are ready for the night run, the commander moves to a holding area to conduct other crew training while awaiting the evening nautical twilight (that period after sunset and before total darkness seta in). This training program is not rigid and can be adapted to meet the spe &c needs of the trainer. Conclusion The simulated limited visibility movement program is m t a replace-

I. * I I Fiaure 3. ment for an actual night training program. Rather, it is away to reduce the risks associated with this type of movement by conducting a transition under more controlled conditions. It can be accomplished “in the cracks,” particularly for the loader and TC, using the AN/PVS-5 and it can be tailored to fit individual crew needs. While it’s still impossible to turn night into day, a limited visibility program can give us more training at a lower risk and, therefore, at a lower cost. References Bauer, R Wand Bleda, Paul R ARI Report 1212,’:‘Night Armor Training in Simulated Darkness,” July 1979. Based on material developed in HumRRO Driver Tests.” (ARI report by Dr. Susan Burroughs is now in publication.) Report, FX-TRD#KY-82-8, DW 1982. “MI Tank was commissioned in Armor from OCS in 1967 and has commanded infantry, AG, medical, and armor units. He has served as an ROTC instructor, operations officer, organizational effectiveness officer and as a branch and division chief in the USAARMS Command and Staff Department. He is a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College and holds mas-tes degrees in both Communications and Human Relations. He is currently assigned as research and development coordinator at the Army Research Institute Unit, Fort Knox. KY. 33