Soldier Training Publications: Supporting Training in the 1990s

SOLDIER'S MANUALe-,.,, I ---..- a

",1*,., Annor Crawman Soldier Training Pub1 Supporting Training in the 199Os? by Major Albert E. Bailey a I,. ".,",.."n

STANDARDS n a -----. cations: The evolution of AirLand Battle doctrine has resulted in the revision of the doctrinal manuals for all echelons of the Armor force. These manuals form the basis for all ARTEP Mission Training Plans (AMTP), which are currently under revision. We have a tremendous opportunity before us, as we field these manuals for collective training, to steer the course for Soldier Training Publications (STPs) development in away that will establish STPs as a significant factor in the training of soldiers, emphasizing individual tasks that support collective tasks. My objective is to provide a brief overview of STPs and their development, a summary of some problems that have occurred in the past, and away to make STPs a viable product for unit training. Soldier Training Publications serve as the foundation of training support for the training and evaluation of critical individual tasks in both the training base and in units. STPs consist of Soldiers Manuals, which are the cornerstone of standardized individual training and evaluation in units, Trainer's Guides, which provide information for trainers to use in the management and conduct of individual training, and Job Books, which give trainers a means to record the results of training and evaluation for skill level 1 and 2 soldiers. Soldiers Manuals are broken into skill levels that correspond with MOS skill levels specified in AR 611-201. The tasks found in these manuals rcpresent the critical tasks that are essential for accomplishment of the unit mission, successful skill performance, and/or survival in combat. Previous editions of Soldiers Manuals have usually been separated into a skill level 1 book and a combined skill level 2,3,4, Trainer's Guide book. This combination has been the result of a smaller number of tasks for anyone above the skill level 1 soldier. Development of these books has occurred backward, starting at SL 1, instead of SL 4. Soldiers Manuals fall into two general categories, MOS-specific manuals, for which each service school is responsible, and the Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks (SMCT), for which the U. S. Army Training Support Center is proponent. The MOS-specific Soldiers Manual is the basis for the Skill Qualificatioa Test (SQT), while the SMCT is the basis for the Common Task Test (CTT). Both tests are administered ARMOR - 37 annually to the Active Component soldier, biannually to the Reserve Component soldier. Often overlooked as a training management tool is the Trainer's Guide, usually found in a higher skill level Soldier's Manual. The Trainer's Guide provides the trainer with information on the level of training given to a soldier in the institution, recommended training frequency, and the ARTEP tasks that a given individual task supports). The Trainer's Guide has been plagued with several problems in the past: e Hidden in a Soldicr's Manual, it is often overlooked by training managers, reducing its value as a training management tool. e The frequencies established for sustainment training have too often been arbitrarily assigned. e The ARTEP interface has been somewhat weak, negating some of its value in supporting unit training. These proldems are the object of change in forthcoming Traincr's Guides for CMF 19 MOSS. A recent addition to the family of STPs is the Military Uualification Standards (MQS) manual, designed to support officer training and professional development. MUS manuals are broken into MQS I, Precommissioning;

11, Lieutenants; and MQS 111, Captains. Designed as a manual-based professional development system for officers, MQS identifies tasks that arc combat critical and also tasks that are critical in peacetime. MQS addresses duty position tasks, tasks common to all officers, and tasks (or skills/knowledge) necessary to the success of officers in the daily work environment.

manuals are also broken into a common manual and a branch specific manual. The common manuals can serve as a guide for the officer in the daily administration, leading, and training of a unit (see Table 1). The manuals being developed for the Armor Force maintain an exclusive "combat focus," complementing the ARTEP Mission Training Plans with the critical leader tasks that support the critical unit tasks listed in the

ARTEP MTP.

Development of Soldier Training Publications (STP) for the Armor Force has bccn marked by biannual revisions of Soldiers Manuals. These revisions have occurred throughout the 1980s, as a result of the doctrinal, organizational, and equipment changes (see Fig. 1). A large number of tasks have remained virtually intact, varying only editorially. However, the manuals were revised in their entirety. The result has been a tremendous expenditure of time and money producing manuals that have inundated the field. This has had a ripple effect in the dcveloprnent of the SOT for CMF 19, requiring total revision after each Soldier's Manual. (All SQT questions must be validated with samples of soldiers. Any change to a task requires review of the questions and revalida-tion. This not only expands the workload of SQT developers, but also becomes a training distractor. because soldiers have to be pulled from training to validate the SQT questions.) As we look to an era of diminishing resources, especially in the area of training development, a credible alternative must be pursued for developing and fielding STPs. The recent development and approval of ARTEP Mission Training Plans for the heavy brigade, battalionhask force, companyheam, tank platoon, and scout platoon has presented us with an opportunity to create stability in the STP process, and effectively link these publications with ARTEP Mission Training Plans. Previous attempts to link STPs with ARTEPs have focused on higher echelons (Le.

71-2); however, the preponderance of tasks in the CMF 19 and SC 12 inventories fall within the crew, platoon, and companyheam. We must closely link these STPS with ARTEP MTPs for the company/team, tank platoon, and scout platoon. This will enable trainers to utilize standardized individual Irain-ing and evaluation that complement standardized collective training and evaluation. In this way, there will be minimal need to stand down to prepare for the SQT, which is based on the Soldiers Manuals. Individual hip-pocket training will be directly related to ARTEP tasks, and constrained training time will be optimized. This has tremendous implications for the Reserve Components, who utilize the same training products for individuals and units, but with less than 20 percent of the training time available to their Active Component counterparts. Linkage of STPs and ARTEP MTPs must be followed by a reduction in the size of the STPs, especially for the skill level 1 soldier. This can be done by determining only the most critical individual tasks (within the collective context) and developing concise, yet meaningful, task summaries. This would eliminate the reference-based task summaries that exist in current manuals. (Reference-based task summaries provide nothing more than an evaluation guide, conditions, and standards. These normally require the soldier to perform the 38 ARMOR - November-December 7988

Leadership 26 tasks Operationsflactics 15 tasks tasks Training Management 8 tasks Munitions Management 5 tasks Land Navigation 1 task Maintenance Management 5 tasks Supply Administration 7 tasks RadioMre Communication 1 task Unit Administration 15 tasks Health Service Support 2 tasks Military Law and Justice 6 tasks Communication Skills 11 tasks

1979 -Soldiers Manuals revised 1982 -Soldiers Manuals revised upon 1984 upon conversion to CMF 19 elimination of MOS 19 F,G,H, & J -Soldiers Manuals revised to reflect new STP literary category. Incorporates pass/fail format. Updates 19K tasks. -Soldiers Manuals revised to reflect Division 86 doctrinal changes. 19K Soldiers Manuals updated to reflect M1A1 tasks.

1986 task to the standard established in the reference, normally a TM.) These tasks do nothing more than take up space. ignoring the fact that unit leaders will require manuals for such tasks as perform PMCS, troubleshoot. This will lead to the development of Soldiers Manuals that are smaller and similar to the small unit ARTEP MTPs. To link our training publications and create stability, we must slow the pace of revision. STPs should follow a five-year cycle, allowing two years for development and three years for uninterrupted use in the field. The two-year development cycle will ensure subsequent revisions are linked with ARTEP MTPs. During this period, any changes due to errors, new equipment, or other factors can still be accommodated. TRADOC service schools are allowed to create SUT supplements to incorporate tasks omitted from STPs. These supplcments can also provide tasks for training on new equipment, and serve as an interim document, pending an STP revision. The SUT supplements would be forwarded with the SQT notice, minimizing distribution problems. In concert with the slower pace of revision, publishing manuals by skill level will allow service schools to produce STPs that comprise the largest complement of tasks required for a given skill level. As revisions take place in the future, confining these to one skill level will enable training developers to concentrate their efforts, resulting in a more thorough product. This will mean that Soldiers Manuals for higher skill level soldiers may increase in size. As an example, the recent revision of Armor ANCOC has resulted in a significant expansion of the skill level 4 Soldiers Manual. Other options to improve Soldiers Manuals include deleting low-density, system-specific tasks from the basic manual and producing system-specific manuals to be distributed only to units possessing that equipment. For example, the tasks on the M551 vehicle are found in every copy of the current 19E and 19D Soldiers Manual. A separate manual for M551 system-specific tasks can easily be produced and sent only to the one battalion possessing the M551. Not only does this make training sense, but it reduces the page count in all other 19E and 19D manuals, thereby saving money. Similar task supplements can be applied to the units using the HMMWV. As we project the decreasing density of a certain vehicle, we can pull it from the main manuals and only target units that will continue to have that vehicle, and the units designated to receive that equipment. It just makes sense to reduce the size of these manuals where possible. Change is inevitable. given the state of continual equipment transition and evolving doctrine. The effectiveness of our training will hinge on our ability to provide the best possible resources to trainers. The support of individual training must focus on products that support unit training and provide stability in the standardization of training. As we look to the IWs, the question that we must answer now is: "Will we control the changes before us, or will the changes control us?" How we answer that question will shape individual traininE into the 21st Century. Major Albert E. Bailey was commissioned in Armor in 1975 from ROTC at the University of Georgia. He has served as a cavalry platoon leader, cavalry troop commander, and on various staff positions at battalion level. He also was an ROTC instructor at North Carolina State University. He is currently assigned as chief, Training Division, Directorate of Training and Doctrine, U. S. Army Armor School, Fort Knox, KY. ARMOR - 39