Armor Training Simulators Are On The Way

Armor Training Simulators Are On The Way by Lieutenant Colonel J. Michael Weaver and Richard A. Renfrow After several years of red tape, engineering, building, testing, and modifying, a production contract has been signed and assembly lines are being set for the Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer (U-C0FT)-one of several high-technology simulators that are designed to support armor training. The U-COFl' is a training device used to sustain a high level of gunnery proficiency over long periods of time. Unlike the subcaliber devices in current use, the U-COFl' provides the environment, the scenario, and the feedback. It is a simulator that, in many ways, outperforms the real thing (in training), as opposed to subcaliber substitution or miniaturization devices. Every Active Component battalion or squadron equipped with the Ml Abrams tank or M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle

(BFV)

will have a U-COFT. The dust has not yet settled over whether or not we will have an M60A3 model U-COFT and which Reserve Component units will get the U-COFT. The most noticeable characteristic of the U-COFT is ita size. It is not a tabletop trainer. It is housed in three standard military shelters (a type of van without wheels) that are interconnected, placed on a gravel or concrete pad, and hooked up to a power supply (figure 1). Internal Arrangements Operational testing at Fort Hood, TX, using a two-shelter configuration, revealed a need for an environmental buffer-something to keep the air in the main shelters at a constant temperature. The first shelter (figure la) does this while also providing a waiting room, maintenance area, and a briefing/- debriefing area The shelters avoid having to erect special buildings all over the world and make it possible to move the U-COFT, if necessary. However, the U-COFT is not meant to be a portable trainer and moving it is a big operation, not to be done unless absolutely necessary. The instructor station (figure lb) looks somewhat forbidding when viewed close up (figure 2)-Knobs, switches, lights, monitors and, most forbidding of all, a keyboard). But 14 it was designed to be run by armor platoon sergeants L platoon leaders. The operational test proved that these pec can do the job. After the U-COFT is fielded, platoon leadc master gunners, and Advanced Noncommissioned 0% Course and Armor Officer Basic Course students will rece instruction on it and be certified as U-COFT operators. Operating the U-COET The instructor switches the trainer on, checks it out, e correcta minor problems. He may occasionally have change a plug-in module when a faulty one is found dur the beforeoperation check. All maintenance above the opt tor level-organizational, direct support, general supp and depot-will be done by contractor personnel. A contI tor maintenance technician for organizational and dir support maintenance will be at or near each U-COFT sitc The instructor tells the incoming crew what they will doing during their U-COFT training session, sees that tl are properly placed in the crew compartment and followi instructions in the Instrudor’s Utilization Handbook, sele the exercise to be conducted by using the keyboard and mc tors the action. He sees what both the tank commander (I and the gunner see in their sights, hears what is going I and has a monitor that displays the gunner’s progress. If 1 crew has problems, he can talk them through the exercise change them to one that is more appropriate to their level expertise. After the session, the instructor can debrief 1 crew, using a printout showing what they did, or failed to I The magazine’s front cover and figure 3 show a represen tion of a sight picture from the MI U-COFT. The picture i computor-generated image (CGI). It looks like a color ‘ animation, and it could be made with more detail, but only a greater dollar cost. Nevertheless, it does the job. The rea tic action of the simulated engagements makes the cr forget that the scenes are animated. But, even though then a wide variety of scenes, targets, and engagement exercis the clarity of the U-COWS visual presentations limits ability to teach target acquisition and identification. The crew compartment (figure IC) includes only the gun1 and TC stations and is cut down the centerline of the mz gun to save space (figure 4). Nevertheless, the TC and gunr stations are nearly exact replicas of those in a real tank. 0 major difference is in the TC’s hatch. There is only the f ward vision block and the hatch must remain closed. TI was a cost tradeoff. The U-COFI’ enables the gunner and TC to do about eve,, thing they can do in a real tank in the closed-hatch mode. To achieve passing scores for the exercises and to progress to more advanced exercises, they must do everything correctly. Successful U-COFT training will not depend upon the instructor’s mood that day, or what the crew thinks they can get by with. The crew moves through a series of 390 different multien-gagement exercises that are progressively more difficult. However, they do not have to go through each exercise to reach the top, and there are many paths through the system, depending upon the crew’s ability and the selections of the instructor. The exercises range from stationmy-tank to stationary-target engagements to moving-tank to moving-target engagements. Engagement conditions vary from full-up fire controls to a degraded mode, from single to multiple targets, and from day to night and other reduced visibility situations. Gunners use the periscope, telescope, and thermal sight; the laser rangefinder, and both the coaxial and caliber .50 machineguns. On a good day, the TC and gunner may attain a high score and return 2 weeks later to find that they cannot beat it. Users should not be discouraged by this because the device was designed to be as challenging as the tank system. No one is going to get bored from the same old, repetitious stuff. voltage and capacity to run the U-COFI’. The power specifications will come with the site selection criteria, and this is certain-a heavy duty extension cord will not do the job. Without an adequate power source, the installation team may be forced to move on to the next site leaving the unit with a “cold U-COFI”’ until an adequate hookup is installed and the contractors can return to hook it up and train the unit. Unit Usage Units must be prepared to use the U-COFT at its maximum capacity to sustain proficiency at substantial cost savings. An armor battalion at Training Readiness Condition A requires over $2 million in ammunition costs alone for annual gunnery training and qualification. Multiply that by the number of battalions that exist and it is evident that an extremely large amount of money is spent each year for tank gunnery. Even that expenditure doesn’t buy a high level of proficiency between qualiiication periods. Studies indicate a rapid decline in hit probability, coupled with an increase in may-june 1983 15 engagement time, beginning very shortly after the quaMca-tion period. An intensive training program to shore up this sag in proficiency, using standard training methods-a lot of live fire-would cost over $5 million per battalion (to say nothing of time and range space that are usually in short rmPP1Y.) That same high level of proficiency is attainable for a fraction of the cost using a U-COFI’ based training program. Of course, differing training programs and cost computation methods are going to make comparisons difficult However, we are confident that substantial savings over current methods will be realized using the U-COFT program. More importantly, within current or reduced training budgets, units will be able to maintain a high level of gunnery proficiency between periods of intensive livefire gunnery training and aualification. Conversely, if the U-COFI’ is not used, or is used only in a perfunctory manner, neither savings nor proficiency will be realized and the unit will waste its time and money. There fore, as ammunition and fuel costs continue to rise, as range space and time remain in short supply, and the need for sustainment of a high proficiency level exists, U-COFI’ use must not be left to chance or whim-time in the simulator must be made mandatory for tank crews, just as time in a flight simulator is for aviators. New technology in the form of the U-COFT will make training: Efficient in terms of cost and time. Frequent with less scheduling problems and administra-Objective in terms of better scoring and feedback. Interesting and challenging with a variety of progressive exercises. Standardized because units the world over will use the same core training. Hence, U-COFI’ will be more effective in sustaining and, when necessary, gaining gunnery skill and proficiency. The U-COFT can be used for all types of single tank engagements. It can be used regardless of weather, doesn’t require a range, provides proper feedback, and it gives the crews a challenge and a real change of pace. But with only one U-COFT per battalion to go around, each crew has a limited slice of time in it per month. And, it does not give interaction with the driver, loader, and other tanks. More New Training Devices Another high technology initiative is called the Tank Weapons Gunnery Simulation System (TWGSS). This is a precision gunnery trainer hooked into a tank which can be used on the range or in a tactical forceon-force exercise. It will be the product of technological evolution. From 1975 to 1977, REALTRAIN, a low-level tactical engagement system for armor vehicles, was developed and fielded. At the same time, the requirements for a better system using laser technology were approved and engineering 16 may-june 1983 tive time. work begun. As a result, we now have the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) for combined arms tae tical training. The system enables a tank to kill and be killed in a fairly realistic manner. But while MILES permits you to shoot, it does not provide the capability to do precision tank gunnery-and wasn’t intended to. The technology was not then available to put precision gunnery into a tactical trainer at a reasonable cost There was also the safety problem associated with the M60A3 and MI tank laser rangefinders to consider. But the idea of providing precision gunnery simulation on the tank was pursued. The requirement was first expressed as the Marksmanship and Gunnery Laser Device (MAGLAD). After a feasibility study was made to explore possible technological solutions, the requirement for a laser was eliminated since its direct lineof-sight characteristics were not suitable for ballistic trajectory simulation. When the requirement was changed to allow any technological solution, the acronymn was changed to TWGSS. The weapons to be simulated were the main gun and both machineguns. A key feature was that it would not only be a gunnery trainer, for use with target systems on a range, but would also put that gunnery training into a force on-force context, thus integrating tactics and gunnery, as must be done in battle. But in the forceon-force context it was restricted to tank-on-tank unless it could be integrated into MILES, which didn’t seem likely at the time. The TWGSS concept has evolved further. TWGSS was re stricted to main gun use only, with the machineguns employing the MIUS systems. Now, there are indications that technology has evolved to the point where a precision tank gunnery system can be inte grated into the total MILES. There are two ways to do this: Buy or build a system, distinct from the current MILES, which is capable of operating on ranges, and which would replace or be a substitute for the tank-mounted MILES devices for tactical force-on-force training. Obtain a “product improvement” of MILES to allow pre cision tank gunnery during tactical training and permit stand-alone precision gunnery with a target system on a range. In either case, there should be one system in the field to SUPPOrt. The TWGSS operational requirements can be briefly stated. It will be developed for the M1, M60A3, and M60AI tanks (and possibly the BFV) to provide the capability to simulate all engagements within the capability of the actual weapon system. It will provide flash, bang, obscuration, sight displacement during firing, a tracer display as appropriate, and an impact indication-hit or miss. It will simulate firing a round in engagements under the same kind of visibility conditions as could be fired in actual combat. Ranging to a target and leading moving targets will be done exactly as with the simulated weapon system with the same penalties for errors. TWGSS can be used to either engage a target system on a range or for forceon-force exercises at battalion level or below. It will be easily installed and removed and will also permit normal tank system calibration/boresighting to be done. One last, but very important feature, is the crew evaluation subsystem. The subsystem will record information on each engagement, including aim and impact points, true range and crew-determined range, ammunition indexed and fired, and engagement time. To use the TWGSS on the MI and M60A3 tanks, the laser rangefinder safety problem had to be solved. A set of two filters was developed for the M60A3 tank to fit over the laser port. A completely eyesafe green filter is used for forceon-force exercises. But the beam is attenuated so much that reflectors are needed to aid the beam’s return. Consequently there are no multiple returns. So a red filter was developed o provide something less than absolute eyc mitting unaided returns and multiple ret safe for the naked eye beyond 300 meters meters it is safe even when using binocul; M60A3 tanks equipped with TWGSS an be used on a range with full rangefinder c more, the red filter can also be used during firing exercises to permit proper ranging since some ranges that are safe for proje sufficiently safe for lasers. Filters are being produced now to outfi USAREUR with other units to follow. A 6 MI tank presents a more complicated ins Unlike the M60A3, the MI tank design d a application of an external filter, since the the rangefinder is shared by other optics. 1 ne M I W K project manager has taken on the task of building the filter into the rangefinder. A Mixture of Simulators and Other Devices The plan, for these training simulators in general, is to field a swi%cient variety and quantity of them to enable an effective sustainment gunnery training program to be accomp lished economically, regardless of unit location. While that takes in new technology, it does not exclude the old when it serves a useful purpose. Thus, we will have a mixture of old and new devices, of “high” and ‘low” technology, with each filling a definite need in the training spectrum. How much of each need is filled by using a particular device is dependent upon the unit’s training requirements. For instance, for some gunnery skills training, the scaled range with the Brewster subcaliber device is good enough-if a range is available. Even though a complete precision gunnery engagement is not faithfully duplicated, some of the manual and coordination skills and some procedures can be taught. The troops get into the tank environment and they get cold, or hot, or dirty, according to the existing situation. They also get bored if that’s all they ever do. TWGSS will enable the whole crew to train together-the whole platoon, for that matter. (We are still investigating loader interaction.) Now they can tie together the manual and procedural skills derived from the subcaliber training with the engagement skills acquired from the U-COFI’. They can train in an environment that checks out and confirms their skills, builds confidence in past training, provides still more training using a slightly different angle, and keeps their interest up between main gun live firings. Since the U-COFI’ trains only two crewmen at a time, a platoon would probably schedule concurrent training for crew members not occupied with the U-COFI’. There is no single training method that is economical, efficient, and effective and that holds interest week in and week out. Tank crews need to do some of their work together, some as individuals. Sometimes they need to train in close contact with the vehicle and sometimes they need to save wear and tear on the tank. The Armor Center intends to create a series of training devices that are adaptable to the varied training situations of armor units worldwide and will permit those units to gain and maintain gunnery proficiency within the local constraints of time, money, space, and people. A report by the US. Army Training Support Center makes this point, however: “Extensive visits to units in the field. . . revealed almost as many approaches to training as there were units.”’ The training devices under development will permit flexibility in scheduling and allow for differences in unit capabilities, while creating a considerable degree of standardization in training. That is not to say that everyone will use the U- COFI’ for 2 hours on alternate Thursdays. But everyone who propose to aaa to our nst 01 aewces oxuy when a new item ais a gap, and replace an existing or programmed device only when the replacement is clearly superior and affordable. The Tank Gunnery and Missile Tracking System and the MK60 low-cost gunner trainer are such devices under consideration. The MK60 was developed to check out the applica- 7 c tion of video disc technology to army training. The MK60, in its basic form, is a tabletop device that provides stationary M60Al tank gunnery engagements for the gunner only. It can be adapted to simulate the M60A3 and MI tanks, and the addition of a TC position is planned. Engagements are limited to “own tank stationary” using the gunner’s primary sight-there is no compartment with realistically-situated controls as in the larger U-COFI’. It presents realistic targets in a real scene on a TV monitor and permits the gunner to practice difficult engagement procedures with proper fire commands; particularly, it presents realistic moving-target engagements much more frequently than can be done with the U-COFT. The MK60 should be used during the time gaps between U-COFT training and on-tank training sessions to provide effective, interesting, and frequent training that will prevent the rapid deterioration of gunnery skills. As a relatively low-cost device, enough of them can be purchased for each company to have one. The Tank Gunnery and Missile Tracking System (TGMTS) is sometimes called Detras, the name of the British manufacturer, and is also known as the combat training theater. It’s a device that tums the tank into a stationary simulator.2 A rear-projection movie screen is the dominant feature (figure 5). As the gunner tracks the target in his sights, optical d e vices mounted on the tank and projector console track the lineof-sight aiming point. When the gun is fired, a small computer calculates the hit point for the detected aim point, may-june 1983 17 and fires a point of red eyesafe laser light to simulate the trajectory and impact of the indexed round. The instructor controls the engagements and critiques the crew. This training occupies a relatively small space in a darkened building and gives the gunner and TC the ability to fire stationary-tank to moving-target engagements. Its disadvantages are ranging limitations, and no “own-tank-moving” engage ments can be simulated. Ita advantages over scaled-range, subcaliber exercises include more target realism and better engagement procedure duplication, while retaining the environment of the tank. TGMTS is now used by USAREUR units and it appears to have great potential as a gunnery trainer for Reserve Component unita whose Training Readiness Condition levels do not warrant a U-COFT. It represents a good balance between training coverage on the one hand and costltime effectiveness on the other, with the major alternatives being scaled ranges and U-COFT. Scaled ranges with subcaliber devices have a definite place in a full unit training program, but given €he limited amount of training time available to Reserve Components, a training device providing more realism, but less costly than a U-COFT, is desirable. Gunner and TC training devices are important because the cost of gunnery training has grabbed the lion’s share of attention in armor training device development. But, training developers are also looking at training for the driver and the mechanic-for the full crew via a full-crew interaction simulator and, as we mentioned, for the platoon leader, and possibly the full platoon leadership team. Other devices in the works include new targets and target carriers plus new training ammunition and safety devices. The family of tactical engagement simulation devices is growing. A target acquisition training device using video disc technology and a microcomputer is under consideration. The TRADOC Combined Arms Test Activity at Fort Hood, TX has developed a “through-thesight” video system that promises to make dry firing more objective and meaningful. Finally, a trainer has been built for the M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and a contract has been let for M60AI tank prototype devices resembling video arcade games that are to be used to determine their adaptability to military training requirements. Conclusion New technology in and of itself is not a panacea for all the old training ills, just as it is not necessarily the remedy for perceived shortcomings in combat readiness. There is abundant evidence that technology can cause more problems than it is intended to cure, if not applied carefully. One defense analyst concluded: “The acrosstheboard thrust toward ever-increasing technological complexity just is not working. We need to 18 may-june 1983 it down. . . “The evidence presented reveals that: Our strategy of pursuing ever-increasing technical complexity and sophistication has made high technology solutions and combat readiness mutually exclusive.” (emphasis by original a~thor).”~ At first glance, this quotation appears to be a damning indictment of what we are trying to d-apply new technology to training problems that affect combat readiness. But key to his conclusion is his statement that “We need to change the way we do business.. . we should use our superior technology in a positive way. Technology should and can increase readiness . . .” We agree. The fact that a certain technology is available does not mean that is has to be used. We must be selective and careful in its application-careful that, in prescribing a dose of technology to a training problem, we do not incapacitate the patient with pain from supply and maintenance problems-careful that the technology in question is really right for the training requirement-and careful that we do not replace something that works for us with something that works against us. Yes, new technology is coming. We need to be alert, not alarmed. We need to be enthusiastic about the opportunity, not overwhelmed by fascination with gadgetry, or angered by the passing of the older forms of training. If we use new technology wisely, we can train better than we do now-and more cheaply. Footnotes 1 “Weapons Crew Training Study,” Interim I Report, November l!%@February

1982. US. Army Training Support Center. p. 1-5. 2 “Combat Training Theaters.” by Ann Mulligan, MayJune 1978 ARMOR p. 46. “Defense Facts of Life,” by Franklin C. Spiney, December 5, 1980. IyIlC

ADA111544.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL: J.

MICHAEL WEAVER has served as Chief Training Devices Division, DTD. USAARMC. since July 1981. He was commissioned in armor from OCS in 1965 and before that served as a tank driver, loader, gunner, tank commander and platoon sergeant. Since commissioning, he has served in tank and cavalry units as platoon leader, company XO and CO, and, battalion XO. He has served in CONUS, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam. RICHARD A. RENFROW is an equipment specialist at the Training Devices Division of the Armor School Directorate of Training Developments. Before joining the Armor School staff in 1975, he was an electronic technician with the Armor Center Directorate of Industrial Operations.