Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations Study

Transcription

1 .'TO Study Report Training Aids, Devies, Simulators, and Simulations Study Robert H. Sulzen U.S. Army Researh Institute November United States Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes Approved for publi release; distribution is unlimited. DTIC quillt lespecfbb 1

2 U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES A Field Operating Ageny Under the Jurisdition of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel EDGAR M. JOHNSON Diretor Tehnial review by Arigelo Mirabella Theodore M. Shlehter NOTICES DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this reporthasbmmade-by ARI. Pkase^address orrespondene onemingdjsrtbjitieb-ert^rts to: ixs. ArmyResearh Institute forörs^^ Bebaviorafänä Soial SienesTATTN: PERI-STP, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes. NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be onstrued as an offiial Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized douments.

3 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT DATE 1995, November 2. REPORT TYPE Final 3. DATES COVERED Otober 1993-June TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Training Aids, Devies, Simulators, and Simulations Study 6. AUTHOR(S) Robert H. Sulzen 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes ATTN: PERI-DC 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER A 5. PROJECT NUMBER D730 5d. TASK NUMBER e. WORK UNIT NUMBER H07 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 10. MONITOR ACRONYM ARI 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER Study Report Approved for publi release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): The requirements for this study were: to identify how the available Training Aids, Devies, Simulators and Simulations (TADSS) are integrated into training programs, to evaluate user pereptions of TADSS, and to provide reommendations for a proedure to periodially gather this information. The methodology employed strutured interviews given at eight posts seleted for both Fores Command (FORSCOM) and Training and Dotrine Command (TRADOC) installations. Personnel were seleted to represent the providers of TADSS and the users, from individual solder to training administrator. Virtual Simulation was employed by the ombat maneuver arms where available. Construtive Simulation is widely used by ompanies and battalions and not often by platoons. The TADSS most often used at platoon level was the multiple integrated laser engagement system or MILES. MILES was not onsistently employed in a manner that would ensure realism or objetive asualty assessment. Unit Condut of Fire Trainer (UCOFT) and Weaponeer are the simulators most often used The Standard Army Training System (SATS) is used mostly to prepare training shedules, but the software is unfriendly and needs onsiderable revision to reah its full potential. TADSS information should be olleted on a periodi basis by TRADOC using a modified set of these study proedures. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Training Aids, Devies, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) Construtive Simulation Live Simulation Virtual Simulation 16. REPORT Unlassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 17. ABSTRACT Unlassified 18. THIS PAGE Unlassified 19. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Unlassified 20. NUMBER OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON (Name and Telephone Number)

4 Study Report Training Aids, Devies, Simulators, and Simulations Study Robert H. Sulzen U.S. Army Researh Institute Armored Fores Researh Unit Barbara A. Blak, Chief U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia Offie, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Department of the Army November 1995 Army Projet Number Personnel and Training 2O665803D730 Analysis Ativities

5 FOREWORD The study was onduted at the request of Training and Dotrine Command (TRADOC) to find out how training aids, devies, simulators, and simulations (TADSS) are integrated into training, how the users pereive them, and how this information an be gathered periodially. The study found strong ommand emphasis plaed on TADSS training. The TADSS most frequently used was MILES. The study also found diffiulties with TADSS use and problems with the Standard Army Training System (SATS). For example, the SATS is diffiult to use; therefore, its full potential value was not realized. Reommendations are provided to the Army Training Support Command (ATSC), TRADOC, on how to aomplish their goal of periodi data olletion on TADSS. ZITA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR M. JOHNSON Deputy Diretor Diretor (Siene and Tehnology) v

6 TRAINING AIDS, DEVICES, SIMULATORS, AND SIMULATIONS STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Researh Requirement: The requirements for this study were: to identify how the available TADSS are integrated into training programs, to evaluate user pereptions of TADSS, and to provide reommendations for a proedure to periodially gather this information. Proedure: Soldiers and their superiors were interviewed at eight posts in the United States. Interview guides were developed, and interviews were onduted and transribed with both units and students using TADSS and the offies providing the TADSS. A database was developed, and the information in the database was extrated and analyzed. Findings: TADSS are supported by strong ommand emphasis and are entrally ontrolled and managed on all posts. Construtive Simulation is widely used by ompanies and battalions and not often by platoons. Virtual Simulation or the use of the Simulation Network (SIMNET) is employed only by the ombat arms units on the posts where it is available. The TADSS most often used at platoon level was the multiple integrated laser engagement system or MILES, and it was the TADSS most often mentioned by other ehelons. MILES was not onsistently employed in a manner that would ensure realism or objetive asualty assessment. UCOFT and Weaponeer are the simulators most often used. The Standard Army Training System (SATS) is used mostly to prepare training shedules, but the software is unfriendly and needs onsiderable revision to reah its full potential. Utilization of Findings: The nature of MILES ontrol problems should be investigated as to how rules of engagement are enfored at home station and at the Combat Training Centers (CTCs). SATS might be modified and improved as a means of periodially olleting TADSS information; however, extensive software development would be neessary first. TRADOC ould ondut periodi interviews using a modified set of the proedures developed for this study as a means of olleting the TADSS information desired. VI1

7 TRAINING AIDS, DEVICES, SIMULATORS, AND SIMULATIONS STUDY CONTENTS ^ Page REQUIREMENT 1 METHOD 1 Partiipants 2 Analysis 2 FINDINGS 2 Overview 2 Construtive Simulation 4 Virtual Simulation 5 Live Simulation 6 Simulators : 9 Standard Army Training System 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 Conlusions 12 Reommendations 13 REFERENCES 15 APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTION OF TRAINING AIDS, DEVICES, SIMULATORS, AND SIMULATIONS AS GIVEN TO PARTICIPANTS A-l B. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY B-l LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Interview Guide by Loation Matrix With Count of Interviews Transribes 3 2. Perentage of Answers by Ehelon to the Question: Is there a ommand emphasis on TADSS at this installation? 4 3. Perentage of Answers by Ehelon on Simulations Utilized 5 IX

8 CONTENTS (Continued) Page LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 4. Perentage of Answers Aknowledging MILES Equipment Shortages by Soldiers and Their Leaders 7 5. Perentage of Leader and Soldier Answers Related to Zeroing (Aligning) Weapons 7 6. Frequeny of TADSS Mentioned by Platoon Partiipants (N-36) When Asked About TADSS Training in the Past Year 8 7. Perentage of Affirmative Answers by Ehelon to the Question: Do you use UCOFT/Weaponeer in your training? Perentage of Answers to a SATS Use Question Perentage of Answers to a Frequeny of SATS Use Question 11 x

9 TRAINING AIDS, DEVICES, SIMULATORS, AND SIMULATIONS STUDY Requirement The requirements for this study were to identify how the available TADSS are integrated into the installation training programs, to evaluate user pereptions of TADSS, and to provide reommendations for a proedure to periodially gather this information. Method The basi methodology onsisted of onduting strutured interviews at eight posts with: (a) the training resoures offies, and (b) key individuals in TADSS usage hain. The strutured interviews were used to assess pereptions from soldier through ommander and the differenes between them. In the ase of soldier pereptions, they were assessed using group interviews. The data were then analyzed by ompiling responses to interview questions into different ategories. The initial entry into the installation was oordinated through the installation operations diretor. Two researhers onduted taped interviews with seleted individuals or groups. Following eah visit taped interviews were transribed. To ensure that the partiipants and researhers were working on the same definition of TADSS, a desription of TADSS was presented to the partiipants (Appendix A) with speifi examples of eah type of TADSS. The prime TADSS referene was the manual for battle foused training (Headquarters Department of the Army, 1990). There were a number of problems experiened in the methodology (see Appendix B), whih led to a simplifiation or to onentrating on seleted speifi TADSS for this report. Training aids and devies, or the TAD part of TADSS, have not hanged substantially for many years and, although some detailed information was olleted on the use of these TADSS, details on their use are not inluded in this study. Instead the study foused on simulations and simulators, or the SS part of TADSS, and the study inludes the Standard Army Training System (SATS) beause of the role it now plays or ould play in the employment of TADSS. In reent developments simulations have ategorized into three types: Construtive Simulation, Virtual Simulation, and Live Simulation ("This Month's Cover, 1 ' 1995). The term Construtive Simulation relates basially to war games, often assisted with omputer models ("STOW A Fore XXI Building Blok," 1995). Virtual Simulation makes use of simulators

10 linked together and opposed by a ommon omputer-generated opposing fore (OPFOR). The often used example of Virtual Simulation is the SIMulation NETwork or SIMNET ("STOW A Fore XXI Building Blok," 1995). Live Simulations make use of soldiers in a field exerise where the simulated battles they engage in are made possible by the laser devies known as MILES. These exerises take plae both at unit home stations and the Combat Training Centers ("STOW A Fore XXI Building Blok," 1995). For ease of understanding, these simulation ategories will be employed in reporting the findings of this study. Partiipants There were approximately 176 partiipants in the study (see Table 1). The number of partiipants is approximate beause the 22 soldier interviews were group interviews onsisting of between four to ten individuals. The partiipants were from eight Army posts in the United States. Posts were seleted to be generally representative of Army posts in the states, with three TRADOC posts (Forts Benning, Bliss, and Knox) and five FORSCOM (Fores Command) posts (Forts Campbell, Hood, Lewis, Riley, Stewart). FORSCOM partiipants inluded: the Division G-3 (operations offier or his representative), a brigade S-3 (operations offier), three battalion ommanders or their S-3s, three ompany ommanders or their training offiers, three platoon leaders and/or platoon sergeants. Also, these posts inluded: infantry, armor, avalry, field artillery, engineer, military polie, military intelligene, or support branhes from the forward support battalion. On TRADOC posts students and instrutors were seleted from basi enlisted ourses, basi offier ourses, advaned offier ourses. Other installation personnel sought for interviews inluded: Chief, Battle Simulation Center (or equivalent); Foreman, Training Aid Warehouse (or equivalent); and Foreman, MILES Warehouse (or equivalent). Analysis Transripts were organized by type of interview, responses to items, and by installation. In this form they were plaed into a database. Interview guides transribed by post are shown in Table 1. Overview Findings Training aids and devies were most often housed by the post at a entral loation, usually the Training and Audiovisual Support Center (TASC), available on request on a first-ome

11 rh XI CO EH T5 X! rh Ü to 01 ^ -H > +J o p 3 o u JC P X >H P g o P 10 Ü O >i XI a) TJ 3 Ü S <u a) P to 0) T5 O a) a> P H CCS P r rn U M W u TJ rh H IS CO Q) to 3 O 10 a) a) o w o P * E CJ JJ Nln^oy:oo^n^ arate 0E Bat- Sep IDE Bl a\o*j, "fvdcn'3'r^ rininfiniojh CMOCMHHrHrHO f^ohnninin nirimfihonn HHfMNNNHH H^IONlflNNO CMr*-VOVOC0CM<tfrH ^Jlf>^»oo^^^'^l HOiHCMCOOOO (U OCMOOOCMHO C 0 > HOHHHOOO Q CO EH < oovoooooo to ID 0 P «3 Ü 0 BENNING BLISS CAMPBELL HOOD KNOX LEWIS RILEY STEWART.a CM CO O VO CM n CM CM CM VO n if) rh rd P O EH E Q) 4J to >i CO E -P <0 10 om H -rh 3 -P f0 u EH n H E >i-p E o TS 0) CO TJ TJ <0 C OJH ft) -P P TJ W >H 0>-P II 0) P >H CO C tp EH H 0) < P CO «C rh -H o <M (CJ <0 o p > a) M XI X) TJ 3 O 0) a) XI rh S-H P CJ 4J U O fa 3 E O P a} o W rh H s o TJ - 3 o rh H a E W TJ fo IT ^-H 3 >H O CQ C 3 H II O ~ C W H a TJ pa & CJ) (D rj I..H p P O 55 >H TJ rh P O «H CO id'-' )-i u <DTJ ÄH P CO H DQ P U O fa o a H w CQ to P <a +J to TJ 4-> «0 0) p o Ä 4J 10 P O a u to o H P" CT> u U o O a O -p 3 ^ O w H Xl C PH a) re a) 5 -P X! X! M-t EH O C H TS vo +J 3 ^ r> to 3 H II to E XJ <-> TJ to O O C CO to EH < to to + rh CM m p + O vo vo O to 4J ^> I ^ <D <* to r- +J t4 <D CM C M x: -H 10 Cu vo -+ J 3 N4I CO H U CO rh oaoi ^ Ü jj +J E^ -H CO u to D >i S 'S ti-; a 3. CO > E >H to -H p -p W C W r! -H O U >,.C+3 <D TJ 3 4-> X! H 01 TJ rh P TJ O C-H 01 CO 3 au a) Ü > +> t.-h O +J-H >H > <M CO U to rh 3 3 a CO TJ +J +J Ü-H C >H C > 10 H X» -H.Jt-P rh C BO BUJ-H <o E C H a> JJXJ +J TJ 0) o w a) x; rh o O rh-p a+j 0) ex E a M 3 O nj 4-1 -H <w

12 first-served basis. Simulators and simulations (the SS in TADSS) were usually ontrolled at a In the ase of simulators, if there were larger numbers, they were spaed out on post with the prime users and ontrolled by those users. Construtive and Live Simulations were entrally loated and managed in a simulation enter. Live Simulation was onduted in a deentralized manner, but the key devies (MILES) were entrally ontrolled and issued at a MILES Warehouse. A question was asked of the users about ommand emphasis on TADSS (see Table 2). A lear emphasis on TADSS by installation ommanders emerges. Table 2 Perentage of Answers by Ehelon to the Question: Is there a ommand emphasis on TADSS at this installation? No Ehelon Yes No Response Platoon (N=36) Company (N=41) Battalion (N=41) Brigade Plus 3 (N=16) Note. All responses do not add to 100 perent due to rounding errors. a Brigade Plus inludes Brigade, Separate Brigade, and Division. The remainder of the Findings Setion is organized into five parts: the three ategories*of simulation (onstrutive, virtual, and live), simulators, and SATS. Construtive Simulation When respondents in this study were asked if they had partiipated in a simulation, they responded by stating a speifi Construtive Simulation (BBS, First Battle, JANUS, Warfighter, Eagle Talon II, et.), SIMNET (Virtual Simulation), MILES (Live Simulation), or the UCOFT or Weaponeer simulators. The latter two are not tehnially simulations, but at least some of the respondents had diffiulty making the distintion between simulations and simulators.

13 From Table 3, we an see that Construtive Simulation is widely used by ompanies and battalions for training, with the response rate for use by these ehelons at more than half. Sine the nature of the training with Construtive Simulation is foused primarily on ommand and ontrol, it is not surprising that the smaller platoon ehelon rarely reported partiipation in Construtive Simulation. Basially, ompanies and battalions partiipate in Construtive Simulation, while platoons seldom do. The high No or No Response rate for platoons was, in the opinion of the author, related to the low use of onstrutive simulation by platoons. Table 3 Perentage of Answers by Ehelon on Simulations Utilized Ehelon Construtive Simulation SIMNET MILES UCOFT Weaponeer No or No Response 3 Platoon (N=36) Company (N=41) Battalion (N=41) Note. All responses do not add to 100 perent due to rounding errors. a It was not possible to determine "No" and "No Response" from the transripts, and for this reason both are inluded in this ategory. Further, there were methodologial problems that probably led to the high no response rate, see Appendix B. Virtual Simulation The SIMNET or Virtual Simulation partiipation reorded in Table 3 may be a little misleading. SIMNET was available only at three posts visited: Forts Knox, Stewart, and Benning. Soldiers at Fort Riley partiipated in SIMNET by traveling to Fort Knox. The soldiers available for interview at Fort Benning did not inlude any of the FORSCOM tatial units, and as a result no SIMNET use was reported in the sample from Fort Benning.

14 Considering only the three posts making use of SIMNET (Forts Knox, Stewart, and Riley), its use was reported 46 perent of the time by ombat arms maneuver branhes (armor and infantry; N=17) and none by all other branhes (N=27). Availability of speifi TADSS and their branh relevane are apparent variables related to TADSS usage. Live Simulation MILES was entrally loated in a MILES warehouse or warehouses on all posts visited. Eah post had detailed proedures to aount for the MILES, pakage it, issue it, and turn it in. Although the posts were familiar with the MILES Army-wide Training System (MATS), it was used as the primary system on only two posts. MILES needs to be employed in a manner that ensures realism or objetive asualty assessment (Fobes, Roberts-Gray, Ritenour, 1986). Not to do so invites all the problems experiened by youth playing war with no "gotha" (Bangl Bang! You're dead!; No, I'm not!). Soldiers and their leaders differed widely in their views on MILES usage, espeially in the degree to whih realism or objetive asualty assessment was maintained during MILES exerises. The interview answers relating to MILES usage onstituted the greatest pereptual differenes between soldiers and their superior non-ommissioned and ommissioned offiers. By a small majority, the leaders are of the opinion that there is not a problem with MILES availability. Soldiers by a larger majority are onvined that MILES availability is a problem, see Table 4. The authör feels that while leaders believe that suffiient MILES devies are available for training, soldiers know that individual sets of equipment are missing for a speifi exerise and ompromises are made. These ompromises often lead to degraded realism, and with that degradation is a diminished motivation of soldiers. In order to realistially or objetively assess asualties during live simulation on both sides, it is imperative that the MILES devies are aligned (zeroed and test fired). Leaders and soldiers were asked about the alignment of MILES transmitters on individual weapons, tank weapons, traks? Most of the leaders responded that some form of alignment method was aomplished a large proportion of the time (Table 5). However, soldier responses related to zeroing indiated that although it ourred more often than not, it was in a muh lower proportion of the time than pereived by their leaders.

15 Table 4 Perentage of Answers Aknowledging MILES Equipment Shortages by Soldiers and Their Leaders Organizational No or Little Problem Position of Shortage Problem Aknowledged Leader (N=50) Soldier (N=23) Table 5 Perentage of Leader and Soldier Answers Related to Zeroing [Aligning] Weapons Organizational Position Leader (N=43) Soldier (N=14) Weapons Zeroed Weapons NOT Zeroed 9 43 While leader and soldier answers are in agreement that zeroing takes plae, there is still a large differene between them. Further, when soldiers (N = 14) were asked: Have you ever trained in the field with MILES when you didn't zero your [weapon], 80 perent said yes and 20 perent said no. Soldier pereption then is that MILES zeroing generally takes plae, but a large majority of soldiers have experiened a situation when they did not zero. MILES training is, thus, very similar to the way MILES was first employed over a deade ago (Roberts-Gray, Nihols & Gray, 1984). In a review of Interview Guide questions related to TADSS management from Division to individual soldier level, the most frequently mentioned TADSS was MILES. At brigade through division ehelons, MILES was mentioned as often as UCOFT, and more frequently than the onstrutive Simulation of JANUS and BBS. At the platoon level, MILES was mentioned more often than any other TADSS by a wide margin. At the soldier level, MILES was the TADSS most frequently ommented about, but in more than half the ases it was ast in a

16 negative light with soldiers making derogatory omments about MILES. For example, soldiers stated: "MILES is not realisti beause there are so many ways to beat it." "I don't like MILES beause it's too heavy and too awkward...doesn't stay on you right. The helmet piees are always falling off all the time." "Conealment beomes over, you an fire without firing your weapon, not too aurate." The apparent disagreement between the high frequeny of mentioning MILES in the TADSS management questions and the low frequeny refleted in Table 3 relates to the nature of the questions. Reall that the responses in Table 3 were made when the soldiers were asked if they had partiipated in a simulation. Most responded about partiipation in Construtive Simulation and platoon respondents had "No or No Response" a high proportion of the time. In all probability that high platoon no or no response rate is related to low platoon partiipation in Construtive Simulation. A ount of different TADSS mentioned in all platoon responses are shown in Table 6. MILES was the TADSS most often used by platoons, and most often mentioned by other ehelons. Table 6 Frequeny of TADSS Mentioned by Platoon Partiipants (N=36) when Asked about TADSS Training in the Past Year TADSS Mentioned Frequeny MILES 19 Weaponeer 8 Mines 8 UCOFT 4 SIMNET 3 BBS 1 The author, very familiar with MILES, asked additional questions of soldiers related to MILES use. Although there were many praties reported by soldiers that would lead to degraded realism and poor asualty assessment, most of those praties were reported as a part of home station training. When speifially asked about objetive asualty assessment at the Combat Training Centers (CTCs), few soldiers reported any serious problems. In the opinion of this researher, the biggest problem 8

17 is degraded realism at home station through a lak of objetive asualty assessment and enforement of the Rules of Engagement by leaders harged with this responsibility. This problem was first reported in 1984 (Roberts-Gray, Nihols & Gray). The reported disrepany between soldier and leader views of MILES availability and alignment praties points to a ontinuing problem. Simulators Simulators inlude approximations of weapons and rew stations of major systems, suh as airraft and tanks. UCOFT and Weaponeer were the two most frequently reorded responses in the posts visited. The UCOFT represents the gunner and tank ommander positions in a tank and provides a omputer-generated display of terrain and potential enemy targets. Weaponeer is a representation of a rifle and targets. It is an instrutional aid in preliminary rifle marksmanship. Table 7 provides the findings of this study as related to the use of these two high-use simulators by tatial units from platoon to battalion. The Weaponeer has the highest use rate in all units interviewed. However, the UCOFT is peuliar to the maneuver arms, and is available primarily to tank and mehanized infantry units. Review of the UCOFT data verified that FORSCOM units using the UCOFT were armor or mehanized infantry with one exeption (an air defense artillery battery at Fort Stewart, Georgia). The TRADOC use of UCOFT was all at Fort Knox, Kentuky, the home of Armor Branh. The Weaponeer was reported by respondents to be espeially helpful in training those experiening diffiulty in basi rifle marksmanship.' However, it is the author's opinion that training with this simulator is related to the idiosynrasies of the individuals responsible for the training. Only in organizations responsible for basi training does there seem to be any onsisteny in using the Weaponeer for remedial marksmanship training. Standard Army Training System Battalion ommanders and/or their training offiers answered questions related to SATS usage; the results are summarized in Table 8. "No Response" was the most frequent transript answer on the use of SATS, see Appendix B. Planning and Sheduling was at a relatively higher rate of SATS use. During the ourse of the interviews, it beame apparent to the author that SATS is used primarily as a format for training shedules, it is not partiularly user friendly, and users prefer a ommerial system for most training software. It is for this reason, in the author's opinion, SATS was rarely used to develop METL or training assessment.

18 Table 7 Perentage of Affirmative Answers by Ehelon to the Question: you use UCOFT/Weaponeer in your training? Do Ehelon No Weaponeer UCOFT a Unknown 6 Response Platoon (N=27) ll Company (N=31) Battalion (N=29) a UC0FT is peuliar to the maneuver arms, and sine the interview population inluded branhes other than the maneuver arms, the relatively lower use rate is due primarily to this fator. ''With open-ended responses transribed, in some ases neither Weaponeer nor UCOFT were mentioned, so the ategory is unknown. 0ne negative response; Total does not sum to 100 perent. How often SATS was used by battalions is reorded in Table 9. As with SATS usage, the most frequently reorded answer on SATS frequeny of use was No Response. SATS was used both every day and weekly with some frequeny. However, the author believes that this finding is probably refletive of units being direted to have training shedules in the SATS format. 10

19 Table 8 Perentage of Answers to a SATS Use Question Question: How do you SATS in this offie? you use [SATS] in... (N=28) use Do Yes No Other 3 Response 6 No Developing METLs Planning and Sheduling Managing Resoures Exeutin i and trainin« assessment Coordinating Note. All responses do not add to 100 perent due to rounding errors. a Open-ended transript responses that were neither Yes nor No. ''Very high "No Response" is probably due in part to a methodologial problem, see Appendix B. Mission Essential Task Lists. Table 9 Perentage of Answers to a Frequeny of SATS Use Question Question: How often do you use the system? Do you use [SATS] (N=28) Perent Routinely, every day 16 Weekly 20 Less often 14 No Response 50 11

20 Conlusions and Reommendations Conlusions TADSS were entrally ontrolled and managed at all the posts visited. There was strong ommand emphasis on using TADSS at these posts. These findings indiate that TADSS was well integrated into the training program of the post. Construtive Simulation was widely used at battalion and ompany level, while it was seldom used by platoons. Virtual Simulation was employed by the ombat maneuver arms when available. Soldier pereptions are that MILES is the most widely used TADSS, but often fails to meet the minimum reguirements of realism during Live Simulation exerises. Soldiers are partiularly ritial of MILES and its employment at home stations. From additional questions asked by the author, it seems that leaders at home station were willing at times to ompromise realism when eguipment was not available. The leaders also did not onsistently require zeroing of the MILES equipment. These praties led to degraded realism and with it degraded motivation. It is the author's opinion that these problems exist at home station beause leaders are not adequately trained in the duties of Observer/Controllers (O/Cs). The method of MILES ontrol, issue, turn-in, and maintenane varies onsiderably from post to post, but is aomplished onsistently. The main omplaint with the MILES Army-wide Training System (MATS) was the time onsuming bar-ode reading required by the system. Although bar-ode reading would seem to have the potential for reduing the time required, not all passes are read by the bar-ode reader and two passes are required when using the MATS. Next to MILES, the Weaponeer was pereived to be the most widely used TADSS. However,* utilization for remedial marksmanship training varied onsiderably by organizations responsible for training. The SATS omputer software is used on a fairly regular basis, but mostly for planning and sheduling. It is the of the opinion of the author that SATS use for training shedules is primarily ditated required by regulation, but SATS suffers from the fat that it is not user friendly. It is the author's ontention that although the government software ontrator may meet the minimal requirements (the software does what it is required to do), it does so in a onvoluted manner from the user point of view. There is no ompetitor produing a similar produt for the government that is easier to use and presents a 12

21 more pleasing appearane. However, there are ommerial produts that do this, and they are preferred by the government users. This study onduted is of value to FORSCOM units when using Live Simulation. Objetive asualty assessment and realism are degraded by the praties followed by units in onduting MILES exerises. These same problems do not appear to be a problem at the Combat Training Centers (CTCs). If FORSCOM units adopted more ompletely the CTC praties, it seems likely that realism would be enhaned rather than degraded. TRADOC ould benefit from this study by providing further guidane or lessons learned douments on how to ondut effetive objetive asualty assessment at home station. TRADOC ould also support or ondut further studies related to the effet of improving home station training on CTC unit performane. Reommendations There would be onsiderable benefit in reviewing the nature of objetive asualty assessment in Live Simulation as it is onduted at the Combat Training Centers and at home stations. If suh a study were onduted, it ould point to improved O/C training and exerise support as arried out at home station. Sine MILES is the basis of Live Simulation, the most widely used TADSS, and the ornerstone of training at the CTCs, any ation implemented to improve Live Simulation training ould have Army-wide influene on ombat readiness. It is therefore reommended that the proposed study of Live Simulation be arried out and the findings implemented. It is reommended that a more expliit poliy be presribed for simulator use in the Army. Both the UCOFT and Weaponeer are used by units, but the use seems to be highly dependent upon the idiosynrasies of the using organization. Weaponeer appears to be very useful for remedial rifle marksmanship, a speified poliy statement for its use with those failing to qualify in rifle marksmanship seems appropriate. By the same token, UCOFT use at the higher levels of retile aim has been shown to have a positive effet on rew performane at the National Training Center (Keesling, Ford, and Harrison, 1994); it seems reasonable that a poliy on retile aim attainment by gunner-vehile ommander pairs would be a reasonable way to inrease»the effetiveness of this member of the TADSS family. The Standard Army Training System (SATS) has omputer software designed to assist unit trainers in planning and arrying out their training program. As suh, it ould be utilized to doument in the training shedules the TADSS that need to be inluded for training. The portions of SATS that deal 13

22 with resoures and the exeution of training ould inlude guidane about the use of speifi TADSS, suh as those reommendations inluded above. There is a tremendous potential for employing SATS as a training management tool to improve Army training. SATS also has the potential to aid in olleting TADSS information on a periodi basis. In the opinion of the researhers onduting this study, there is no existing mehanism that ould be easily tapped for this objetive. A modified form of SATS might be adapted to assist in this proesses. However, if this approah is taken, there needs to be a proative software revision yle to make sure the produt is user friendly and meets user requirements (ations not typial of government software ontrats). Another potential for periodial olletion of TADSS information would be the proedures developed for this study. The interview guides developed have been pilot tested. Fae-tofae interviews are neessary to gain aurate information on user pereptions, even the modified SATS would be a self-report subjet to protetive results. The proedures developed in this study inluded interview proedures with the reording of responses, preparation of transripts, and development of a database with quires for handling results. The final reommendation of this study is that those having a need for TADSS utilization adopt these proedures. 14

23 Referenes Fobes, J.L., Roberts-Gray, C, & Ritenour, T.J. (1986). Multiple integrated laser engagement system training heklist (ARI Researh Produt 86-19). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes. (ADA ) Headquarters, Department of the Army. training (Field manual ). Government Printing Offie. (1990] Battle foused Washington, DC: U.S. Keesling, J.W., Ford, F.P., & Harrison, K. (1994; Appliation of training in armor and mehanized infantry units. In R.F. Holz, J.H. Hiller & H.H. MFann (Eds.), Determinants of effetive unit performane: Researh on measuring and managing unit training readiness (pp ). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Researh Institute for the Behavioral and Soial Sienes. Roberts-Gray, C., Nihols, J.J., & Gray, T. (1984). MILES integration support analysis, phase II (Final Contrat Report, Contrat MDA C-0656). Monterey, CA: BDM International. STOW A Fore XXI Building Blok. (1995, February) 22. Army, 45(2; This Month's Cover. (1995, February). Army, 45(2), 12, 15

24 APPENDIX A Desription of Training Aids, Devies, Simulators, and Simulations as Given to Partiipants Training Aids, inludes VISMOD sets, Graphi Training Aids (GTAs), models, displays, slides, pitures, Training Films (TFs) Training Devies, inludes pratie mines, suitase Saggers, MILES, pratie grenades Simulators, inludes COFT for Ml Tank and BFV, Flight Simulator, Weaponeer, SIMNET Simulations, inludes Tanker, FB:BC, ARTBASS, BBS A-l

25 APPENDIX B Methodologial Problems in the Study Pilot Test It was not possible, in the time available for the study, to pilot test either the proedures or the interview guides before the study began. In view of these onstraints, it was deided to use the first three sites as a test of proedures and interview guides. After the first three data olletion visits, additional questions were added to interview guides and some were modified. The SATS questions were integrated with other guides. Under these irumstanes, there is some lak of ontinuity between the two periods of data olletion. Similar but different questions may eliit differing responses. Answers to additional questions developed are not available for the entire population of the study. Interview Guide Transription To speed the data reording and analysis proess, it was deided to ontrat for transription of the interview guide tapes. These transripts were reorded in the Word Perfet 5.1 reords for later analysis. However, due to the ontinuing need to ondut additional visits and interviews, the transription task was inadequately supervised. The transribers found many tapes or parts of tapes inaudible. Some tapes were either blank or portions of the tapes were blank [perhaps due to using the play instead of reord button on the'reorder]. From the nature of responses, interviewers may have made the deision to skip portions of the interview guide. Prompt review of tapes may have alleviated problems of this nature, but it did not our in a onsistent manner. Data Redution and Analysis When the visits were omplete, the researh staff was redued and the transription ontrat was omplete. The primary researher suffered a heart attak, and the responsibility for the report was shifted to another researher. Although some lerial assistane was available, it was also redued. The physial interview guides and tapes were in one loation, and the transript database was available at two loations. It was deided to work with the transribed database, even though it was inomplete. Data were redued from the transribed database for analysis. It was deided to fous on Simulations and Simulators B-l

26 and the Standard Army Training System (SATS). Due to inomplete transription, the "No Response" rate was high. The "No Response" ategory was a ase of no transribed response available in the database. The "No Response" may be due to failure of the interviewer to ask the question, inaudible response not reorded, or failure of the partiipant to respond. It may be, in some ases, that the answer was essentially understood by interviewer and interviewee to be "no" or "not appliable," but no suh answer was reorded for the reord. In many ases the taped interviews were inaudible and the interviewer had no notes. These were eliminated from the analysis. Although the database was inomplete and the staff was redued, there was still a need to omplete the report. A strategy was adopted to selet interview guide areas most relevant to the training ommunity needs as pereived and to aept the inomplete database. Methodologial Lessons Learned The author's experienes suggest that interview-based survey researh be postponed or aneled unless some minimal requirements are met. These inlude: o Availability of professional quality reording equipment. Use of suh equipment should be supplemented by note taking. o Well designed interview instrutions and guidelines with follow-up and probe questions, so that hek-list responses an be interpreted and explained. o Training and rehearsal of interviewers in use of equipment and interviewing tehniques. Operational and sound heking should be inluded in the training. Interviewers need espeially to be trained to spot responses that are inaudible, unintelligible, or irrelevant and take orretive ation. o Pilot testing of interviewing, transription, and data analysis. Pilot-test data should be reported separately, if at all. o Prompt review of tapes and transriptions by prinipal investigator (PI) to determine quality of data. With minimal delay, the PI or interviewer should 'srub' transriptions. Consider purhasing professional, experiened interview servie, as an alternative to training in-house personnel. B-2