Closing the Lethality Gap: Trend Analysis from Sullivan Cup 2022 and Application of Integrated Weapons Training Strategy (Part II) SSG Kurt Scapardine

Summer 2022 Closing the Lethality Gap: Trend Analysis from Sullivan Cup 2022 and Application of Integrated Weapons Training Strategy (Part II) by SSG Kurt P. Scapardine Established in 2012, the Sullivan Cup is the Armor Branch’s premier bienni al competition inviting the best crews from units across the Army to Fort Benning, GA. Invitations for this com petition historically went out exclu sively to Abrams crews, but this year, for the first time in the competition’s storied history, the Armor Branch in vited Bradley crews to compete. They did not disappoint. The competition saw seven Abrams and five Bradley crews compete. Crews demonstrated their abilities through execution of individual and crew-level tasks over the course of seven events. Heavily weighted among these events were the live-fire events, Gunnery Tables IV and VI, where crews showcased their skill and proficiency on their respective platforms. Crews competed against each other and according to standards outlined in Training Circular (TC) 3-20.31, Training and Qualification, Crew, dated March

2015. Throughout execution, observed trends specific to the direct-fire en gagement process became apparent and are applied here for the purpose of analysis as representative across the greater Armored Force. Each engagement required members of the crew to use practiced tech niques to acquire, engage and destroy the presented target(s). This process is outlined in TC 3-20.31-4, Direct Fire Engagement Process (DIDEA), and de scribes the steps of this process in depth: detect, identify, decide, engage and assess. This article’s purpose is to examine and juxtapose the common trends identified during the 2022 Sul livan Cup across the framework of the DIDEA process. Detect Target detection was an arduous part of the engagement process for competitors. Crews struggled to de tect most targets in the allotted tar get-exposure time, with troop targets and long-distance vehicle targets be ing among the most difficult for crews to identify. Vehicle-crew evaluators (VCEs) ob served crew members using erratic scanning patterns during engage ments, scanning left-to-right without transitioning to near-to-far, thus fail ing to account for depth and slope of the range. Crews struggled to identify their left and right limits, failed to ef fectively scan the space in between, or were scanning in high magnification. In most instances, the vehicle com mander (VC) depended on the gunner to scan and detect targets rather than using their Commander’s Independent Viewer, inhibiting full use of the optics capability available on their platform(s). When VCs leveraged their primary sight to double the scanning fields, they scanned in the same direc tion as the gunner, limiting observa tion of the engagement area by half. These techniques were addressed by assigned VCEs during the after-action report (AAR) process between phases and tables. VCEs coached crews on proper scanning methods according to TC 3-20.31-4 and advised them to es tablish target-reference points, assign sectors and use overlapping scanning to maximize observation of the range. Several crews quickly implemented the coaching from the VCEs and dis played remarkable improvement dur ing their qualification table. The preceding techniques should be identified before a live-fire event and corrected during simulation(s) train ing. As outlined in doctrine, simula tions give crews ample time and re sources to establish effective scanning methods/techniques and build good habits that eventually become forged in their “muscle memory.” The instructor-operator of the simulator should constantly monitor for incon sistent scanning techniques of the crew(s) through their training and con tinually reinforce the use of proper scanning and search methods. A good baseline to train and evaluate a crew’s ability to effectively scan the breadth of their sector begins with TC 3-20.31-4 and should be emphasized in a detailed brigade and/or battalion standard operating procedure (SOP). Master Gunner Common Core, Tank Commander’s Course and Bradley Commander’s Course thoroughly train students on the direct-fire engage ment process and provide a standard method of engagement for weapons and platforms on the battlefield. Stu dents attending these courses will learn to evaluate direct-fire proce dures to identify procedural errors that violate the principles of direct fire; to integrate procedures, duties and responsibilities; and to advise commanders on assigned weapon and ammunition capabilities. Identify Throughout the duration of the gun nery tables, crews consistently strug gled to understand the prompts that were given to them by the tower and translate those prompts to the type and number of targets presented. Crews also misclassified vehicle tar gets, often mistaking a truck target for a personnel carrier or vice versa. A lack of experience was determined to not be a contributing factor in mis classification. The lack of knowledge in how to manually adjust the image displayed in the thermal sights played a key role in target misclassification. An immediate solution to this problem begins with the scripts used at gun nery and throughout the gates to livefire. Scripting should be tactically based and not administrative unless

Summer 2022 absolutely necessary. Implementing the use of tactical prompts during sim ulations training familiarizes the VC and gunner with similar prompts they will receive while on the range. Also, developing familiarization training that details the capabilities and limita tions of the sights and controls will build crew members’ knowledge of their platforms and enhance proper implementation. Abrams master gunner and Bradley master gunner courses train students at the mastery level. A portion of these courses focuses on the com mander’s and gunner’s primary sight(s), providing in-depth instruction in the operation, components, capa bilities and limitations of each sight. Decide Both Abrams and Bradley crews con sistently struggled to prioritize their targets, oftentimes engaging the first target they acquired. Target prioritiza tion is described in TC 3-20.31-4 and establishes the order of engagement. Crews are advised to engage near be fore far, frontal before flank and sta tionary before moving. While postured in a defensive fighting position, crews had enough time to ac quire both targets and prioritize tar gets accordingly. However, a common trend found crews consistently engag ing moving before stationary or far before near. The assessment is that the absence of target prioritization was a byproduct of the detection pro cess issues described earlier. Engage Prior to executing gunnery tables, crews from both platforms were pro vided a separate day to boresight and conduct live-fire accuracy screening test / zero their gunner’s auxiliary sight (GAS) / auxiliary sights, main gun and coaxial machinegun. Crews on both platforms struggled to effective ly zero their GAS / auxiliary sights and coax, and engagements suffered as a direct result. Crews used poor firing techniques dur ing engagements, specifically with their coaxial machinegun. Crews en gaged with the coax the same way they would engage with their main guns: by lazing and firing center mass, often missing the target. Crews on both platforms received coaching dur ing AARs that encouraged use of a “Z” pattern while engaging troop targets. Crews that did attempt to use a pat tern while engaging troop clusters ap peared timid about applying any ag gressive movement while the coax was firing. Moving targets also proved to be problematic for some crews. Once on target, gunners displayed difficulty in applying a smooth and consistent track while attempting to follow the target. Gunners often jerked the hand station while attempting to transition to high magnification, lasing and fir ing, leading to inconsistent engage ments. Unit master gunners should assess their crews’ performance on basic tasks in advance of a gunnery density. They should provide commanders with sound recommendations on more training that will greatly benefit their formation(s). A proven method con sists of the integration of gunnery-skills-test tasks into battle rhythm events or by selecting two tasks to perform on “Maintenance Mondays” after preventive-maintenance checks and services is complete. The place ment of tracking boards with basic, advanced and advanced with switchol ogy graphics (see Figure 1) in a motor pool or local training area provides crews the opportunity to build funda mental manipulation skills in all their optics. Assess Observed across multiple engage ments, crews lacked the ability and confidence to assess their engaged targets for themselves and were heav ily dependent on the tower to provide an assessment for them. When the crews were able to determine they missed the target, the VC would often fail to provide the gunner with a Figure 1.

Summer 2022 Acronym Quick-Scan correction after observing the round impacting short, over, left or right of the target. If a correction was issued, the VC would instruct to gunner to “go up a little bit” and void any frame of reference for the gunner to make an accurate correction. Standardizing a correction to “a target form” or “half-target form” would pro vide gunners a known distance to bet ter adjust their fires and enable them to accurately re-engage the target. Outlining this method in a gunnery SOP would establish a solid foundation for all gunnery training. Proficiency in the live-fire engagement process is a perishable skill. If not trained consistently or integrated into normal battle rhythm, these skills de grade over time. The responsibility to create this proficiency falls solely on the shoulders of all leaders within the formation. They must build repetition in all aspects of training and steadily advance their crews’ skills in lethality. The disciplined force, willing to con stantly hone their profession and man ufacture lethality, will triumph on the battlefield. SSG Kurt Scapardine serves as a Brad ley master-gunner instructor in 3rd Squadron, 16th Cavalry Regiment, 316th Cavalry Brigade, at Fort Benning, GA. Previous assignments include squad ron master gunner, squad leader and Bradley Fighting Vehicle gunner in 4th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th In fantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. SSG Scapardine’s military education in cludes Advanced Leader’s Course, Bradley Fighting Vehicle Master Gun ner and Basic Leader’s Course. He is pursuing a bachelor’s of science de gree in computer science at American Military University. SSG Scapardine’s awards and honors include the Meri torious Service Medal and the Order of Saint George. AAR – after-action report DIDEA – detect, identify, decide, engage and assess GAS – gunner’s auxiliary sight SOP – standard operating procedure TC – training circular VC – vehicle commander VCE – vehicle-crew evaluator