Research Pays Off For the Guard: A Device-Based Strategy For Training Tank Gunnery

As a National Guard armor unit trainer, how often have you faced the question of how best to use training devices in preparing tank crews for successful first-run qualification on Tank Table VIII (TTVIII)? Sure, guidance is out there,1,2 but time constraints always seem to force compromises. Well, would you be interested if we were to show you how to complete the device-based portion of your tank gunnery training program in just three drill weekends, and afterwards be able to predict how many of your crews would be first-run TTVIII qualifiers? The Army Research Institute at Boise, Idaho, has developed a device-based tank gunnery training strategy that will allow you to do just that. In addition, this strategy will eliminate any guesswork in determining the crews to be trained, the devices to be used, the training and evaluation exercises to be conducted, and which device to use in order to maximize the payoff from your training time investment.

Pretesting The strategy, as shown in Figure 1, begins with a 60-75 minute pretest on the Conduct-of-Fire Trainer (COFT) to determine each crew’s gunnery proficiency.3 The pretest involves the firing of four “gate” exercises (131-134) from the COFT’s advanced matrix. You simply add up the scores from each (after subtracting “crew cuts”) and divide by 4 to arrive at a total pretest score. This score is then plugged into Column 1 of Table 1 to find a crew’s predicted average TTVIII score (Column 2) and associated probability of first-run qualification (Column 3). A crew firing 765 on the pretest, for example, would be predicted to fire an average score of 700 on TTVIII (if fired multiple times) and have a 50-50 chance of actual first-run qualification. Depending on the commander’s standard for his unit’s first-run TTVIII qualification rate (from Column 3 of Table 1), some crews will pass the pretest (device-qualified crews) while others will not (device-unqualified crews). According to the strategy, you will only need to train the latter on devices. Thus, valuable time is not taken up training crews that are already device-proficient. Training Having identified which crews need to be trained, the next step is to determine which training device(s) to use, and which training exercises to conduct. According to the strategy, training can be conducted on either the COFT or the Abrams Full-Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer (AFIST),5 and should focus on only the simulated TTVIII engagements not performed to pretest standard. This standard is determined by dividing the pretest score (for example, 765) by 10 (the number of engagements fired per exercise). Any engagements not fired to this standard (for example, 76.5) must be trained. To help you do this, Table 2 shows the training exercises on each device that simulate each TTVIII engagement. Except for Engagement A2, the simultaneous engagement, which requires use of the Caliber.50 machine gun not simulated by AFIST, we recommend using AFIST whenever possible because it supports full-crew training. If AFIST is not available, we recommend alternating between or among the training exercises shown in Table 2 for the COFT. This will add variety and promote device-to-tank transfer. COFT Pretest

Predicted Average TTVIII Score Probability of Scoring ≥ 700 on TTVIII 620 562 10% 669 609 20% 706 644 30% 737 673 40% 765 700 50% 793 727 60% 824 756 70% 861 791 80% 910 838 90% Table 1. Predicted Tank Crew TTVIII Score and Probability of First-Run Qualification for Selected COFT Pretest Scores4 48 ARMOR — Research Pays Off For the Guard: A Device-Based Strategy For Training Tank Gunnery by Dr. Joseph D. Hagman and Dr. John E. Morrison Figure 1

Regardless of which device is used, we suggest that an easy-to-difficult progression be followed when pretesting reveals that some crews need training on more than one simulated TTVIII engagement. Table 3 shows the difficulty rankings that we’ve found recently for live-fire Table VIII engagements.6 So engagement B5, for example, would be trained before B2, A1 before A3, and so forth. To make sure that tank crews become device-proficient and, at the same time, don’t pass a training exercise by luck, we recommend that the proficiency standard for training exercises be set at two successful, but not necessarily consecutive, criterion performances. On COFT, a criterion performance is reached when the crew receives an “advance” recommendation from the device in the areas of target acquisition, reticle aim, and system management. On AFIST, criterion performance is reached upon crew receipt of a “pass” recommendation from the device for the exercise(s) being trained. Post-testing Just because a crew passes the training exercises doesn’t necessarily mean that it is device-qualified. So, the last step in the strategy is to post-test your crews by having them retake the pretest. Those that pass the post-test are now device-qualified; those that fail the post-test must return for further training on devices, as outlined above. We’ve designed this strategy to be used by units over three (preferably consecutive) drill weekends once pretesting is completed. The hour or so needed for pretesting should be included as part of the Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test, with Readiness Management Assemblies used if drill time runs out. Before the first scheduled drill after pretesting, pretest scores should be compared against the performance standard for first-run TTVIII qualification set by your unit commander (from Column 3 of Table 1). This will allow you to determine which crews are device-unqualified and which engagements they need to fire during training. Similarly, the training results of this and the next two drills should be reviewed to select the right training exercises for those crews not ready for post-testing and to post-test those that have completed training. Once your crews are all device-qualified, by virtue of passing either the pre- or post-test, on-tank training should begin, probably with TTV2,7 or with Combat Table I.8 Regardless of where you start, on-tank training is important because it allows crews to experience the different aspects of gunnery not practiced or simulated on devices (for example, open-hatch target acquisition, tank movement, and weapon recoil effects) but important for successful TTVIII qualification. Conclusions What will this strategy allow you to do in the future that you can’t do now? For starters, you will be able to schedule your device-based training time more efficiently by targeting only crews in need of remediation. You will also know which devices to use and which exercises to conduct when training is needed. And lastly, because device performance standards are keyed to expected live-fire outcomes, you will know when crews have received enough device training to warrant transition to the tank, and what the expected result will be on your unit’s first-run TTVIII qualification rate. After all, tank gunnery training on devices takes time. Although this time is scarce, we think that the strategy just described provides the tools you need to use it wisely. Let us know what you think. U. S. Army Research Institute 1910 University Drive Boise, Idaho 83725 PH: (208) 334-9390

E-mail: hagman@ari.fed.us Notes 1U. S. Army Armor School. (1990). Armor Training Strategy (ST 17-12-7). Fort Knox, Ky.: Author. 2Department of the Army (1993). Tank Gunnery Training (Abrams) (FM 17-12-1-2). Washington, D. C.: Author. 3Use of AFIST for pretesting must await development of validated performance standards similar to those now available for COFT (see Note 4).

Exercises COFT Training Exercises AFIST Training Engagements A1 113, 117 6AT1 A2 101, 111 — A3 102, 106 6AT2 A4 102, 106, 110 6AT3 A5S 102, 106, 110 6AT4 A5A 102, 106, 110 6AT5 B1S 103, 107, 119 6BT1 B2 105 6BT2 B3 110 6BT3 B4 102, 106, 110 6BT4 B5 113, 117 6AT1 B5A 105 6BT5 Table 2. COFT and AFIST Training Exercises for TTVIII Engagements Engagement A3 B3 A2 A1 B2 A4 B4 B5 A5S A5A B5A B1S Most Least Difficulty Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6.5 6.5 8 9 10 11 12 Table 3. Difficulty Rankings of TTVIII Engagements ARMOR — 49

THE HYBRID TANK, Continued from Page 25 4From “Device-Based Prediction of Tank Gunnery Performance,” by J. D. Hagman and M. D. Smith, Military Psychology, 8, 59-68. Copyright 1996 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Reprinted with permission. 5Snyder, S. J., “The Guard Unit Armory Device Full Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer

March-April 1996, pp. 40-43. 6Hagman, J. D. (1994). Performance analysis of Table VIII tank gunnery engagements (Res. Rep. 1669). Alexandria, Va.: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 7Shaler, M. D. (1995). Compressed gunnery program for Abrams Tank battalions: Trainer’s handbook. Project SIMITAR. 8U. S. Army Armor Center (1995). Enhanced mounted brigade training strategy. Fort Knox, Ky.: Author. Dr. Joseph D. Hagman is a senior research psychologist at the U. S. Army Research Institute’s field office at Gowen Field, Idaho (208- 334-9390). He received a Ph. D. in engineering psychology from New Mexico State University. His research interests are in human learning and memory, and more recently, in soldier performance on armor-related simulation and training devices. Dr. John E. Morrison is a research staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) (502-366- 5836). He received a Ph. D. in experimental psychology from Tulane University. Before joining IDA, he worked for 11 years at HumRRO’s Radcliff office and before that for 5 years at ARI’s Fort Knox field office. His current research interests are in the application of cognitive psychology principles to applied training problems.