Readiness-Level Progression: Certifying Expertise in Lethality as a Subset of the Armor Standardization and Training Strategy 2030

Summer 2022 “Post-Vietnam military attention turned back to the nation’s com mitment to [North Atlantic Trea ty Organization] Europe. We dis covered that the Soviets had been very busy while we were preoccupied with Vietnam. They had revised operational con cepts at the tactical and opera tional levels, increased their fielded force structure and intro duced new equipment featuring one or more generations of new technology. … As U.S. forces in Vietnam redeployed, military thinkers recognized the need for a new objective force for a new era. It was an era characterized by the expanded threat in Eu rope, a growing threat of conflict in the Third World (especially the Middle East), increasing worldwide economic interde pendence, greater difficulty ar ticulating political goals for the planners who design military ac tivities to achieve them, and in trusive media probing into all as pects of military operations.” -From Camp Colt to Desert Storm: The History of U.S. Ar mored Forces, editors George F. Hofmann and Donn A. Starry, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1999 by LTC Dan Cannon and LTC John Nimmons Following 20 years of fighting the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), to day’s Army finds itself at a familiar transition point. Similar to two de cades ago, a trend analysis conducted on our modern Armored Force identi fied a clear lethality gap. Relevancy: the ‘why’ The publication of the “Lethality Readiness-Level Progression: Certifying Expertise in Lethality as a Subset of the Armor Standardization and Training Strategy 2030 Report on the State of the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT)” – or in common parlance, the III Corps Lethal ity Study – identified more than 38 ar eas for improvement due to a distinct decline in crew expertise affecting le thality. Trend lines identified in this study were likewise captured in execu tion of the 2022 Sullivan Cup, increas ing validity of the trend analysis iden tified in the study. Key focus areas for this study ad dressed a disparity in unit master-gun ner proficiency, a decline in platform-leader competency and gaps within operational training. Supporting data for this trend assessment is drawn from recorded lower gunnery scores, a decline in rotational-training-unit performance across the combat-train ing centers (CTC), a decline in unit maintenance as measured by opera tional-readiness (OR) rates and a lack of master-gunner expertise at lower echelons. This is a shared problem set by and for the operating and generating forces alike. Institutionally, our professional military education (PME) evolved over the past 20 years to meet GWOT de mands, and our operational forces’ collective training shifted in parallel. The Center for Army Lessons-Learned superseded application of doctrine in combat when our doctrinal publica tions struggled to keep pace with the ever-evolving asymmetric threat. A generation of company-grade lead ers well remember planning and exe cuting collective-training plans for our units accounting for both deployment and core mission-essential task lists (METLs), and under the same time constraints. The best efforts made in unit-training-plan design often mani fested in deployment mission sets that did not match our unit’s table of orga nization and equipment, much less its

METL.

As our Army shifts focus back to peer threats in the context of the largescale combat operations (LSCO) envi ronment, the Armored Force’s atro phied core competencies regain rele vancy and urgency. In development of our strategy for 2030, the Armor Branch needs a standardized frame work for leader development that di rectly correlates to platform expertise, tactical proficiency in LSCO and fleet readiness. Absence of a standardized system to view the gaps and compe tencies of our Soldiers means leaders cannot make informed decisions on how to best assess, use and manage talent across the branch. The unclear nature of individualized branch pro gression creates an opaque system that impacts job satisfaction and re tention, prevents the branch from building collective expertise and inhib its talent management. Design: the ‘how’ The Armor Standardization and Train ing Strategy does not require a retool ing of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities and policy (DOT MLPF-P), but bold advancement of certain components will play a sup porting role in the strategy’s imple mentation. The threat template has changed; multidomain operations are changing doctrine; our Army equip ment is modernizing. This is all occur ring as we work to improve Soldier and crew proficiency in shooting, mov ing, communicating and maintaining platforms under combat conditions. Our gap in lethality manifested from a decline in execution with systems and processes provided from the last iter ation of DOTMLPF-P. For that reason, the focus of this strategy is on how we train. DOTMLPF-P approach While the primary focus of the

Summer 2022 “The more intense and difficult the battle becomes because of numbers, weapons ranges, all the lessons cited a mo ment ago in regard to the Yom Kippur War, the more Soldiers and their leaders become the critical and deciding ele ment. Which is the better tank? The one with the better crew, of course! And so it is and ever shall be that battles are won by the courage of Soldiers, the excellence of the leaders and the effectiveness of the training in their units before the battle begins. Technical developments in new weapons systems increase range, lethality and precision. Increased also is the intensity of the battle, the effects of fatigue, the destruction of battle, the presence and perva siveness of fear. No amount of technology can be invoked to solve these problems. And so we’re back to the Soldiers, their leaders and the excellence of the training of the units in which they fight.” -GEN Donn A. Starry, American Military Thought: A Perspective, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command histori ans’ conference, Fort Monroe, VA, Jan. 17, 1989 strategy is on training, a holistic ap proach across the breadth and depth of DOTMLPF-P must be considered for the strategy to be viable and sustain able, and to properly address the problems previously mentioned. To address the decline in lethality, the strategy focuses on three areas across DOTMLPF-P: 1) developing assess ments and revising individual and crew certification; 2) standardizing unit-training-plan development and implementation; and 3) adjusting leader-development models to rein force desired lethality outcomes. Ulti mately a framework that unifies unit training and leader development across the Armored Force is needed to produce Soldiers and leaders who are experts on their platform and can em ploy them effectively in combat. Doctrine. Developing the right assess ments and certifications requires a comprehensive look at how these pro cesses will be managed. Standardiza tion for when and how proficiency tests occur will require additions to documentation within existing doc trine. This will have a direct impact on revising the Integrated Weapons Train ing Strategy (IWTS) to account for in dividual certifications such as annual platform-proficiency exams. More training curriculars will be needed to address reporting requirements, unit-training-plan audits and data input into digital systems of record. Further, refined roles for master gunners at company and battalion levels will need to be refined as the strategy progress es. Finally, all additional leader-devel opment requirements must be codi fied for uniformity in execution. Organizations. Part of the strategy ad dresses enhancing the role of the master gunner at company and battal ion levels to ensure adherence to cer tifications and assessments. The strat egy also expands the role of the bat talion master gunner in certifying in coming personnel according to the tank and Bradley commander assess ments, and emphasizes their role as the senior adviser to the battalion commander on individual and crew proficiency for final certification prior to assuming duties as a tank or Brad ley commander. Training. One of the main outcomes of the strategy is to implement a tank and Bradley certification test for bat talion commanders and master gun ners to administer before individuals assume their duties. The test func tions much like the Army’s aviation-commander certification process, where instructor-pilots test incoming personnel to validate their proficiency and expertise levels. For Armor, the test would include a written exam to enforce doctrinal study throughout a career, a physical test of knowledge on respective platforms and a demonstra tion of functional knowledge inside Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) or Bradley Advanced Training System (BATS). Once administered by the battalion master gunner, a report with scores and a recommendation to the commander for retraining or inte gration into duty position. This testing process would be universal across the Armor force whereby incoming per sonnel would have the same require ments regardless of duty station. Materiel. Primarily to make these ideas work, a universal digital system will be needed to maintain records for Soldiers and leaders as they progress through their careers. Ideally, existing systems of record (like Digital Training Management System) are expanded to include gunnery scores, commander-certification-test scores, AGTS/BATS hours and annual examination scores for everyone. For digital test-taking, classrooms, computers and software overhead will be needed to provide tests that are accessible to the entire branch, regardless of duty location. Leader development. As Soldiers and leaders progress through this system, the accumulated data will allow lead ers to assess the needs of each person and tailor training to address deficien cies or atrophied areas of expertise. It will also allow for the identification of top talent and provide career manag ers and leaders the ability to advise and help officers and noncommis sioned officers throughout their ca reers. Personnel. Vital to this strategy is placing an emphasis on ensuring mas ter gunners can fill all positions at the company and battalion levels. This re quires an in-depth approach to man ning to identify unit master-gunner personnel shortcomings and create a revised system that prevents gaps at the unit level. This aspect directly ties to leader development and training subsets and remains foundational to the success of the Armor Standardiza tion and Training Development Strat egy. The model: an aviation leader-development comparison Readiness-level (RL) progression is the decisive component of this strategy in tended to directly address the training subset of the DOTMLPF-P process and,

Summer 2022 Figure 1. Aviation model. more importantly, address our atrophy in lethality. RL progression is designed to give confidence to leaders and Sol diers alike in the competence of the individual crewmember and confi dence in their platform-specific weap on systems. Standardization created in the application of this strategy creates universal accountability for what and how we are already training across PME and the operational force. We must break from the “starting at zero” cycle of certifying crews exclusively through a collective-training cycle and begin to train and certify the individ ual crewmember routinely. RL pro gression is the starting point. Implementation of this new strategy is reliant on an interdependence among training, leadership and education. The model is similar to our Aviation Branch counterparts because, simply put, theirs is a proven system that con sistently achieves technical proficiency and expertise over time and in adverse conditions across the competence continuum. A brief explanation of the aviation model is necessary here for context. RLs track individual readiness based on specific criteria that spans through out a career. Readiness aggregates across individuals throughout an orga nization to assess qualifications for training and to demonstrate proficien cy and expertise. The key factor here is the tracking of individual readiness in addition to collective or crew read iness. These RLs transfer with the in dividual pilot, and rather than being reliant on a stabilized flight crew for certification, an individual’s certifica tion is maintained throughout his/her career with exams and check-rides upon arrival to a new unit. The flight-activity categories (FACs) identify which RL an individual needs based on duty position throughout a career. Standards are clearly defined, coupled with commander evaluations that progress or regress individuals based on their performance. The Armor model replicates these cat egories, accounting for individual pro gression tailored to the needs of the Armor Branch. Progression across the RLs (Figure 2) are facilitated by the company and battalion master gun ners on behalf of commanders at each echelon and in accordance with pre scribed standards and criteria. This system links to iterations of IWTS with in a standardized unit training plan. Strict adherence to individual and col lective tasks up to platoon-level train ing is required to assess competency and expertise of the individual crew member to progress across RLs. The intent is that this program runs in the background of steady-state opera tions. For example, a company may only have a third of its crews in each of the three RL categories at any given time. Flight-activity categories shift to platform-activity categories (PACs) and align across the RLs by duty posi tion. An individual crewmember’s ac cess to resources required to main tain and advance along RL categories is assignment-dependent and ac counted for by the PAC in the Armor model. Each duty position is tied to an RL category. PACs 1 and 2 denoted in Figure 2 focus on battalion and be low, with PAC 3 focused at brigade and PAC 4 above brigade, including broadening assignments. Regardless of what job a 19-series Sol dier holds throughout his career, self-study becomes an individual requirement of professional develop ment and demonstration of expertise over time to counter the loss of per ishable skills. The addition of skill categories is where we depart from the aviation model. These categories represent the skillsets required of a ground-maneu ver crewmember. RL progression tasks for the Armor model are arrayed across the four fundamentals of mounted maneuver: shoot, move, communicate and maintain. Shoot. This category is solely focused on ensuring platform lethality and is predominately focused on the execu tion of the gates to live-fire and on sustained readiness requirements ac cording to Training Circular 3-20.0, In tegrated Weapons Training Strategy (IWTS), dated June 2019. Several pre paratory tasks not specified in the strategy are codified in this category to set conditions for successful execu tion of IWTS. Trend analysis suggests that these tasks are not well practiced, take crews on average longer to com plete than prescribed by doctrine and are perishable skills. Finally, specific technical training is in cluded as a requirement nested with the gates to live-fire that support the proper employment of both the plat form and associated weapon systems. Move. This category is focused on ma neuver tactics and doctrine. Con strained to not exceed section-level employment of platforms, tasks in this category are codified by collective tasks and associated battle drills that are fundamental to the Armored Force at the tactical level of platform em ployment. Collective tasks are cross-walked to associated subtasks and the individual tasks that support them.

Summer 2022 Figure 2. Potential Armor model. Figure 3. Bloom’s taxonomy. The terminal learning objectives for these tasks are focused on the vehicle commander’s and crew’s ability to plan for and employ their platform nested within higher mission and in tent. Focus for assessments in this cat egory shifts away from lethality to troop-leading procedures and demon strated ability to fight one’s assigned platform. Training and assessment can be resourced and executed either vir tually through the Close Combat Tac tical Trainer (CCTT) or hands-on, de pending on resource constraints. Communicate. This category assesses a vehicle commander’s and crew’s ability to communicate from their fighting platform, conduct adjacent unit coordination and employ enablers as part of a combined-arms team. Tasks in this category support collec tive tasks in the Move category and are sequentially trained and assessed to enable the gated strategy inherent in the RL-progression model. Training and assessment can be resourced and executed either virtually through sim ulation or hands-on, depending on re source constraints. Maintain. Tasks in this category en able all other required tasks. Trend analysis demonstrates a lack of opera tor familiarity with both maintenance tasks at requisite skill level(s) and pro cesses, specifically with fire-control-system troubleshooting and fault iden tification. Tasks include application of sustainment systems, tools and pro cesses. Operator/crew field maintenance tasks are assessed to the Apply level while higher field-maintenance tasks are assessed at the Remember and Understand lev els as defined by Bloom’s taxono my (Figure 3). In tent for familiar ization of higher f i e l d - m a i n t e nance tasks is like Move tasks in that understand ing how to main tain one’s as signed platform in the context of higher sustain ment systems en ables crew-level maintenance tasks. Efficiencies gained: Sustainable Readiness Model One of the problems this strategy seeks to solve is the disparity in train ing regimens. While good standards exist in doctrine, they are not univer sally followed. From inadequate mas ter-gunner manning at company and battalion levels, to changing opera tional-tempo requirements and to dif ferences in how units interpret

Summer 2022 Figure 4. SRMs from Army Regulation 525-29, Force Generation – Sustainable Readiness. (Adapted from Figure 4-1) existing training standards, the current system has not produced the expertise needed to maintain high levels of readiness. Also, as opposed to the Army Forces Generation model, the loss of trained personnel and influx of new personnel for permanent-change-of-station cycles during unit rotation al-training progressions creates gaps in knowledge and training, requiring more training for units. Most commonly, this can be seen with sustainment gunneries conducted pri or to CTC or regionally aligned forces missions to account for the change over in personnel. These additional re quirements place an unnecessary bur den on units as they prepare to deploy and often conflict with fleet-mainte nance needs necessary for OR require ments before a deployment. Going forward, this strategy seeks to provide a solution for units that modifies re quirements, enforces existing stan dards and operates in tandem with Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM) manning functions. RL progression is intended to minimize both time and population of individu al crewmembers who require certifi cation on individual tasks and who are immediately prepared to conduct col lective training. In context of the SRM, RL progression will maximize com manders’ situational awareness on the training and readiness level of each Soldier in their unit, enabling prioriti zation of people, resources and train ing time required to meet unit readi ness levels C4 to C2. This manifests in giving collective training time back to the unit. With the RL progression program con stantly operating in the backdrop of day-to-day activities, Soldiers com plete individual certification/training and, most notably, individual certifica tions are codified and tracked for each Soldier via a Digital Job Book. This pro duces flexibility for outside collective training/certification events. Com manders certify training of their units and manage risk. RL progression will assist them in doing both. For example:

• Better informs commanders of individual crewmember certifications across the gates to live-fire according to ITWS. This in turn allows commanders to make informed decisions in managing risk when addressing turbulent crews.

• Will reduce the population of crews requiring sustainment gunnery.

• Supports leader-development programs by ensuring Soldiers are certified on foundational tasks and are prepared to execute collective training.

• Minimizes time and tasks for newly arrived Soldiers to integrate into collective training as they arrive with a codified RL level from their last duty station.

• Sets conditions for a master-gunner mentorship program at the unit level that can assist in identifying candidates who have an aptitude and higher potential for the master-gunner glidepath. The pilot: Maneuver Center of Excellence and III Corps The pilot is underway as of Aug. 1, 2022, with the first written exams re leased to more than 100 Armor Sol diers from across the Maneuver Cen ter of Excellence. Data gathered from this initial pilot will feed refinement of deliverables for the III Corps pilot scheduled for the third quarter of Fis cal Year 2023. Feedback is both war ranted and needed from across the force, so don’t wait for implementa tion to be part of the discussion. LTC Dan Cannon commands 3-16 Cav alry Squadron at Fort Benning, GA. Previous assignments include instruc tor, Joint Combined Warfighting School, National Defense University, Norfolk, VA; executive officer, 3rd Cav alry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX; observ er/coach/trainer (O/C/T), Cobra Team “Best in the Desert,” National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA; commander/ writer/instructor, Armor Basic Officer Leader’s Course, Fort Knox, KY; and combined-arms company commander, Company C, 1-64 Armor Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA. His military education in cludes Joint Combined Warfighting School, Air Command and Staff College and Joint Firepower Control Course. LTC Cannon holds a bachelor’s of arts degree in psychology from The Mili tary College of South Carolina (The Cit adel) and a master’s of arts degree in military operational art and science from Air University. His awards and honors include the Bronze Star Medal with Valor Device, Bronze Star with four oak-leaf clusters (OLCs), Defense Meritorious Service Medal with two OLCs and Meritorious Service Medal with three OLCs. The 3-16 Cavalry Squadron is home to all U.S. Army Armor School functional training courses, including Master Gunner Common Core; all platform master-gunner courses for Abrams, Bradley and Stryker; Maneuver Leader Maintenance Course; Scout Leader’s Course; Cavalry Leader’s Course; op erational new-equipment training for Stryker and Abrams; and field-mainte nance new-equipment training for Bradley and Abrams. LTC John Nimmons is chief of tactics at

Summer 2022 Acronym Quick-Scan the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course (MCCC), Fort Benning, GA. Previous as signments include chief of the Com mandant’s Initiative Group, Headquar ters U.S. Army Armor School, where he worked on initial concept development for the Armor Standardization and Training Development Strategy; bri gade executive officer, 3rd ABCT. 1st Ar mored Division, Fort Bliss, TX; squad ron S-3, 2nd Squadron, 13th U.S. Caval ry, 3rd ABCT, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss; division G-5 Plans officer, 1st Ar mored Division, Fort Bliss; small-group leader, MCCC, Fort Benning; company/ team O/C/T at Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfels, Germany, with the Warthog Team; commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th U.S. Cavalry, 4th ABCT, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX, during Operation Iraqi Free dom (OIF); troop commander, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 4th ABCT, 1st Cav alry Division, Fort Hood (OIF); and tank-platoon leader and troop execu tive officer, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood (OIF). LTC Nimmons’ military schools include Ar mor Basic Officer Course, Airborne School, MCCC, Cavalry Leader’s Course, Command and General Staff College and School of Advanced Mili tary Studies (SAMS). He holds a bach elor’s of arts degree in history from Presbyterian College, a master’s in business administration and project management from Norwich University and a master’s in military operations from SAMS. His awards and honors in clude two Bronze Star Medals, Project Warrior Fellowship, Order of St. George bronze medallion and Order of the Iron Pen. ABCT – armored brigade combat team AGTS – Advanced Gunnery Training System BATS – Bradley Advanced Training System BDE – brigade BN – battalion BP – battle position CCTT – Close Combat Tactical Trainer COFT – Conduct-of-Fire Trainer CTC – combat-training center CV-TESS – Combat Vehicle Tactical Engagement Simulation System DIDEA – detect, identify, decide, engage and assess DIV – division DOTMLPF-P – doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities and policy ESR – equipment-status report FAC – flight-activity category GT – gunnery table GWOT – Global War on Terrorism IWTS – Integrated Weapons Training Strategy LFX – live-fire exercise LSCO – large-scale combat operations MCCC – Maneuver Captain’s Career Course METL – mission-essential task list MG – master gunner PAC – platform activity category PMCS – preventive-maintenance checks and services PME – professional military education O/C/T – observer/coach/trainer OIF – Operation Iraqi Freedom OLC – oak-leaf cluster OR – operational readiness RL – readiness level SAMS – School of Advanced Military Studies SRM – Sustainable Readiness Model STX – situational-training exercise