97
""Techlcel Paper 3SO AD THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE NemilK. Eaton Q C 0 Janet F. Neff ARI FIELD UNITat FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Septembe r 978 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Best Available Copy

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY … · 2011-05-14 · ""Techlcel Paper 3SO AD THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE NemilK. Eaton Q C

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    6

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

""Techlcel Paper 3SO AD

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE

ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

NemilK. Eaton Q C0 Janet F. Neff

ARI FIELD UNITat FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Septembe r 978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Best Available Copy

- ~ ~ ¶T7T'F

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSERJOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, U S ArmyTechnical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION. Primary distribution of this report has been rmaed by ARI. Pleawse ddres cone mpon'Jen.concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Insti*,.te for the Belsav111ors, and Social Scoences.ATTN PERIIP. 5001 Elsenhodiir Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

FINA OIPOSIIONThis report May be destroyed when stis no longer needed. Pleag" do not returrns tothe U. S. Army Research Institute for this Behavioral arid Social Sciences.

ILT The findings in this report ore not to be construed as on official Depowtm efit Of the Armyv position,~unlts% so designated by other authorized documnents.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Mon, Does Ent~ed

REPORT DOCMENTATION PAGE 1 BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

RE. R " N111601 m/ j2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMB8ER

Technical Paper 350 /7 S . TYP Of REPORT & PERIOD CoV9ERo4.TITLE (Eowl Iifiritej( H G FFNCRY OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANKý -

GNEYPERFORMANCE S-- . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NMummR

7. AUJTHOR(@) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT MUM11CR(e)

ýNewell K. /aton and Janet F.lNeff

B.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS WO PROGRAM ELEMENT.PROJECT. TASKA*AWRK UNIT NUMBERS,

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and b - w. .Social Sciences (PERI-IK) 2Q76217A7675001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333.......

I I. CONTR4OLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel September 1978 j,1Washington, DC 20310

______________________________________104

14- MONITORING AGENCY NAME A AOORESS(JI diff~erenft hControlling Olicef) IS- SECURITY CLASS. (of Whe report)

Unclassified

IS& OECLASSIPICATION/DOWNGRAOINGr -SC H COU LE 9

I STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN.T (.f the stbotoect entered In Ifock 20. ii dIff-ent, froin RoPo.I)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It, KEY WORDS (Contirnue on .... se side it necessay wd id,,,ttv. by block n,~mb.,)

Personnel turbulenceTank crew performanceArmor training

20. ABISTRACT (Con.h,.e on re-mie -1lA. it necessary -it identitr by btok nia-be,)

SThis research, by the Army Research Institute Field Unit at Fort Knox, Ky.,sought specific data on the relationship of tank crew turbulence to performance.

-In Phase I, a questionnaire developed to saasure and evaluate existingcrew turbulence was adninistered to crews of five armor battalions during tankgunnery training. Responses from 211 crews were correlated with gunnery quali-fication Table VIII scores to determine the relationship between various crewturbulence variables and gunnery performance..

DDO F 1473 EDITION OF I NOV GS IS OBSOLETE Ucasfe

SECUR4ITY CLASSIFICATION OF TWIS PAGE (11bo Del.o Enter**.

/0^

- ÷A

Unclassified$SCUmTY GC.ASSIFCATION OF THoI PAG5VM( D" )

20O2 Phase II investigated, with four groups of 11 crews each, the effects ofartificially created crew turbulence on Table VIII performance. Complete crewswho had just completed Table VIII for record couprisad the Control Group. Inthe second group (Unfamiliar Crews), crewmen were assigned to different crewsand different H60AI tanks. In the third group (Unfamiliar Crew* and Positions),gunners acted as tank commanders and loaders acted as gunners, assigned todifferent crews and tanks as in Group 2. In the fourth group (Non-Armor.Re-placements), non-armor personnel who had received 3 days of special trainingacted as gunners and loaders. ,

"•Results showed considerable turbulence existed. Complete crews had beentogether typically 1-2 months, tank commander/gunner pairs 1-3 months. Typicaltank commanders had held their positions 12-42 months, gunner. 5-12 months,drivers 5-9 months, and loaders 2-6 months. Great variation in times existed.

In Phase I, r perience of both tank commander and gunner in their positionswas significantly related to gunnery performance. More experienced tank com-manders had shorter opening times, and more experienced gunners had more maingun hits; the longer the two had trained together, the shorter their openingtimes. In Phase II, Groups 1 and 2 performed equally well, indicating thatunfamiliar crews and tanks did not make a difference. Group 3 did much morepoorly than Groups 1 and 2, indicating the importance of the tank commander andgunnur being familiar with their duties. Groups I and 4 also performed aboutequally well, indicating chat non-armor combac support personnel with briefintensive training can be integrated into crews with trained tank comandersand drivers and yield Table VIII performance comparable to thalt of armor crew.

.I'

UnclassifiedSECURlTY CLASSiFICA¶:ON OF TNISPAGEWUSDahft a.m.e)

Technicel Piper 350

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCEON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

Newell K. EatonJanet F. Neff

Submitted by:

Donald F. Haggard, ChiefARI FIELD UNIT at FORT KNOX KENTUCKY

Approved By:

E. Ralph Ousek, DirectorPersonnel and TrainingResearch Laboratory

Joseph Zeidner. Technical DirectorUS Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Number Technology for Increasing20762717A767 Soldier Productivity

Approwd for public rdften; dilttibution unlimited.

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready forimplementation at the time of publication are presented In the latter part ofthe Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen-dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

FOREWORD

An area of major importance in the Army Research Institue for theBehavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is improvement of the individualsoldier's training and performance. The ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox,Kentucky, in its work unit area "Technology for Increasing SoldierProductivity" (Army Project 2Q762717A767), is concerned with researchand development of technology for improving individual performanceamong armor crewmen through more efficient individual training. Oneof the persistent problems in armor training is personnel turbulence.This Technical Paper describes research undertaken to determine thedegree of tank crew turbulence in armor units and to evaluate theeffects of turbulence on M6OAI gunnery performance. ARI ResearchMemorandum 78-15 presented Phase I of this research.

J JOEPHW IDNERhnical Director

"T1HE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

BRIEF

REQUI REMLNTS:

To determine the degree of tarik c-rew turbulence in armor units andto evaluate the etfects of turbulence cn M6OAI gunnery performance onTank Table VIII.

PROCEDURE:

In the fiist ph:tsc of this research a questionnaire was developedto evaluate existing crew turbulence. It was administered to cre..enin 5 battalions of the 1st Armor Division - USAREUR. Those crewmen wereundergoing tank gunnery training, including the Table VIII qualificationcourse, at the 7th Army Training Center, Grafenwoehr, FRG. Questionnaireresponses were correlated with Table VIII scores to determine the rela-tionship between various crew turbulence variables and gunnery performance.

In the second phase of the researeh personnel from the 4th InfantryDivision (MECH) particip.ated in a four-group experiment to determinethe effects of artificially created crew turbulence on Table VIII gunneryperformance. A control group was comprised of armor crewmen firing intheir normal positions with their normal crews on their assigned tanks.A second group (Unfamiliar Crews) included armor crewmen working intheir normal positions but az;;igned to different crews and differentM60AI tanks. A third group (Unfamiliar Crew, and Positions) of armorcrewmen included tank commanders who were normally gunners and gunnerswho were normally loaders. They were assigned to different crews and tanksas in Group 2. A fourth group (Non-Armor Replacements) included armortank commanders and drivers, and non-armor gunners and loaders assignedfrom combat support units. Non-armor personnel underwent three days oftraining specifically designed to permit them to perform gunner andloader duties.

FINDINGS:

1here was ,'i hderalut, turbulence in the battalions evaiuated.Complete crews had nonnally been together 1-2 months, while typical tankcommander/gunner pairs had been together 1-3 months. Typical tankcommanders, gunners, drivers, and loadcrs had held their position: 12-42,5-12, 5-9, and 2-6 month,;, respectively. Variation was great on bothvariables: length of time crewmen hlid worked together, and had beenassigned to their positions.

In Phase I both the experience of the tank commander in his positionand the experience of the gunner in his position were related to gunneryperfor-,ance. More experienced tank commanders had shorter opening times, andmore experienced gunners had more main gun hits. Neither the time thewhole crew had been together nor the experience of the driver or loaderwas related to Table VIII performance. The longer the tank commander andhis gunner had trained together, however, the shorter were their openingtimes.

In Phase II the Control Group and the Unfamiliar Crews Group per-formed cqiually well, indicating minimal effects of fa-iliarity with speci-fic crewmembers or specific tanks. The Unfamiliar Crews and PositionsGroup performed much more poorly than the Control or Unfamiliar CrewsGrour. indicating a need for the tank commander and gunner to be familiarwith their duties to insure satisfactory gunnery performance. The per-formance of the Non-Armor Replacements Group was about equal to that ofthe (entrol Group. This indicated that non-armor combat support personnelwith brief intensive training can be integrated into crews with trainedarmor tank commanders and drivers and yield Table VIII performancecomparable to that of armor crewmen.

IFT1LIZATIN Or Ff.DINGS:

These findings suggest that emphasis be placed on the training andretention nf tank commanders and gunners in their respective positions.

The research also indicated the need for emphasis on cross-traininggunner and loader personnel to permit them to assume tank commander andgunner positions as required. A brief intensive hands-on training pro-gram like that used with the non-armor personnel could be developed forthat purpose.

Finally, the research suggested that with the 3 day training program,non-armor personnel could perform as well as gunners and loaders in tankcrews with experienced tan], commoanders and drivers. Thus, such personnelcould serve as a readily available source of replacement personnel inthe event of combat.

T1E EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 3

PHASE I 3

Method 3

Research Participants 3Questionnaire 3Tank Gunnery Measures S

Results S

Data Handling STank Crew Stability Questionnaire STank Gunnery Measures S

Descriptive Statistics 6Turbulence - Gunnery Relationships 8

Discussion 8

PHASE II 11

Method 13

Research Participants 13Procedure 14

Results 17

Data Handling 17Equipment Familiarity 18Between Group Differences 19Unfamiliar Crews 23

Comparison of Group 1 with Group 2 23

Unfamiliar Position 23

Comparison of Group 2 with Group 3 23

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Unfamiliar Crews and Positions 23

Comparisons of Group 1 and Group 3 23

Non-Armor Replacements 24

Comparisons of Grou and 4 24Comparison of Groups 2 and 4 24Comparison of Groups 3 and 4 24

Table VIII Reliability 24Questionnaire Results 24

DISCUSSION 26

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 28

REFERENCES 30

APPENDIXES 31

TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics - Phase I 7

2. Turbulence - Gunnery Relationships 9

3. Turbulence Table VIII is

4. Group Means on Tank Gunnery Performance Variables 21

S. Results of Between Group Comparisons of Tank Gunnery 22Performance

6. Descriptive Statistics - Phase II 25

FIGURES

Figure 1. Tank Gunnery Performance as a Function of Group 20Assignment

THE EFFECTS OF TANK CREW TURBULENCE ON TANK (UNNERY PERFORMANCE

INTRODUCTION

Tank crew turbulence, i.e. movement of crewmen to unfamiliar sur-roundings, occurs frequently in both training and combat situations.Loss of personnel resulting in crew turbulence has long been a concern ofarmor commanders in terms of the possible effects on training efficiencyand gunnery performance. Ci'ew turbulence is particularly important incombat units where personn,1 must be reassigned to replace combat losses.While it is generally accepted in the armor community that turbulence hasa degrading effect on tank crew performance, the specific effects ofdifferent types of crew turbulence have not yet been determinedempirically.

In assessing the potential effects of crew turbulence, three variablesshould be considered. These are position familiarity, personnel familiar-ity, and equipment familiarity. Position familiarity is related to the timcan individual has to learn the duties associated with his duty positionin the tank crew. Position turbulence can occur due to attrition ofcrewmen in combat situatior.s, as well as to reassignment of personnel tonew duty positions for periodic training during noncombat situations.Personnel familiarity is related to the time individuals trained in theirspecific duties are assigned to a particular crew. Personnel turbulenceoften results in crews who are together for only short periods of timeprior to training exercises or combat missions. Finally, eq•ipment famil-iarity is related to the time crewmen are assigned to their particulartanks. Of course, these variables are not independent. They can, andin the field usually do, occur in combination.

A review of the literature on tank crew turbulence revealed a studywhich investigated both the degree of crew turbulence in armcr unitsand the effects of position familiarity on crew performance. Data onthe degree of turbulence in 6 armor battalions (4 CONUS, 2 USAREUR)were presented by Larson, Earl, and Henson (1976). They found highlevels of turbulence in terms of changes in duty position, and changesin personnel assigned to particular tank crews. Tank commanders typicallychanged duty position least (0-20% over 4-6 months), while drivers,gunners, and loaders changed duty positions quite often (33-88% over 4-6months). Changes in personnel assigned to positions in specific tank crewswas high for all positions (53-95% over 4-6 months). These findings areconsistent with those from the Report of the Task Forces on TrainingTechnology (1975) as given in Wagner, Hibbits, Rosenblatt, and Schulz(1977). The report indicated a 40% turnover in tank crews every 90days. Larson et al. also reported a positive relation between Tank CrewQualification Course (Table VIII) scores and time in position for tankcommanders, gunners, and drivers.

The Tank Forces Management Group (1977) has identified turbulenceas a consistent problem in armor training and suggested that tank crewturbulence "degrades armor unit combat readiness." The individualreplacement system, centralized promotions, and position changes withinthe battalion were identified as the primary sources of turbulence.

Speculation about the effects of tank crew turbulence on gunneryperformance to some extent depends on whether one conceptualizes a crewas consisting of a collection of individuals performing specificindividual duties, or as a team of people whose performance dependsmore heavily on crew interaction. Wagner et al. (1977) indicated thatstructured team performance depended primarily on the skill levels ofindividual team members, and the effects of personnel turbulence wereminimal. A series of studies by Egerman (Egerman, 1966, Egerman, Klaus,and Glaser, 1962; Egerman, Glaser, and Klaus, 1963; and Glaser, Klaus,and Egerman, 1962) supports this position. Wagner et al. suggest, how-ever, that performance of tank crews in operational (low structure)settings may be affected by personnel turbulence.

The most widely utilized measure of tank gunnery is performance ona Tank Crew Qualification Course, Table VIII. Because a moderate degreeof structure is involved on Table VIII, one would expect personnel tur-bulence to have a modest effect on gunnery performance. A Table VIIIwhich requires movement of a firing tank from station to station toengage single and multiple targets would seem to be about midway instructure between a highly-structured, static range situation, such asTable VI, and a more freely structured unit training exercise, such asTable IX or an ARTEP.

The degree of formal job structure varies with duty position ona Table VIII. The loader and driver have highly structured duties;loading and maintaining the tank main gun and coax machine gun, andmoving the tank from location to location. The gunner and tank commanderhave a greater variety of stimuli to which they must respond on Table VIII,and a greater degree of interaction is required. The tank commander, forexample, must identify targets in a way the gunner can understand, andprovide subsequent fire commands which lead to the desired gunnerbehavior.

Based on the premise that the effect of personnel turbulence isrelated to the degree of structure associated with the overall taskrequirements and with the degree of required crew member interaction,one might predict a moderate effect of crew turbulence on Table VIIIperformance. Also, tank commander/gunner turbulence would be expectedto have a greater effect than driver/loader turbulence.

2

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

To determine current levels of tank crew turbulence, and to identifyrelationships between the various aspects of crew turbulence and gunneryperformance, two research projects were executed. The first phase wasconducted with a relatively large sample and utilized a correlationaldesign. Its primary purpose was to determine current turbulence levelsand explore a wide variety of potential turbulence-performance relation-ships. The second phase included a smaller sample under much more controlledconditions and utilized an experimental design. Its primary purpose wasto explore the causal relationships between the three aspects of crewturbulence and tank gunnery performance.

PHASE I

The primary source of turbulence data presently available is thatprovided by Larson et al. In that report, a fairly comprehensive viewof the degree of crew turbulence is presented, but the data was collectedseveral years ago and may not represent today's armor forces. Also, therelationship of crew turbulence to gunnery performance was not fullyexplored.

Concern over the magnitude and effects of crew turbulence on tankgunnery training were expressed to ARI by numerous individuals in 1977,and research involving experimental manipulation of several degrees ofturbulence (Phase II) was planned. In the interim this correlationalresearch was designed and co'ducted in conjunction with tank crew assign-ment research ongoing with five armor battalions in LISAREUR.

METHOD

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

Research participants were crewmen in the 255 tank crews from fivearmor battalions in a USAREUR armor division. Crewman irr 211 crewscompleted a tank crew stability questionnaire and were included in thesample.

QUESTIONNAIRE

A Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire (PT 5188) was constructed toprovide various measures of crew and crewman stability. The question-naire included 22 questions. The tank commander was asked to answerthe following questions about the crew:

3

1. \iiow many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together,with you as TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your currentdriver assigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned asyour !wader?

2. How'many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together,with you \s TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your currentdriver assigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned as yourloader, on !he tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII?

3. Hlow many mnths have you and your complete crew actually been able totrain together,\with you as TC, your current gunner as gunner, yourcurrent driver a•,driver, and your current loader as loader?

He was also asked to answer the following questions about himself and hisgunner:

1. How many months have you and your current gunner been assignedtogether, with you as TC and your current gunner as gunner?

2. How many months have you and your current gunner been assignedtogether, with you as TC and your current gunner assigned as yourgunner, on the tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII?

3. How many months have you and your current gunner actually been ableto train together, with you as TC, and your current gunner as gunner?

Each tank commander was then asked to answer the following questionsabout himself:

1. How many months have you been assigned as the TC on the tank you used,or will use, to fire Table VIII?

2. How long have you been assigned the duties of TC, regardless of thetank, crew, or company you may have been in?

3. How long have you actually had to train in the duties of TC, regard-less of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

4. How long have you served in M60 tanks, regardless of the duty posi-tion you held?

Then each gunner, driver, and loader were asked to answer the same fourquestions (which were rephrased to make them appropriate for the position).Mhe Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

4

TANK GUNNERY MEASURES

Criterion data collected on Table VIII were opening time on eachengagement and hit/miss data for each maln gun round. Opening time wasoperationally defined as the ti;.ie which elapscd from the beginning ofthe fire command by the tank commander until the first round was fired.7o help insure completeness and accuracy of Table VIII hit and time datathree sources were used. First was data taken from the records maintainedby each battalion. These were collected at Grafenwoehr as each battalionAfired the Table VIi. Second was data collected by a member of a datacollection team during the tank crew's debriefing conducted after Table VIII.Data collection team rienbers were enlisted men detailed by the battalionto assist ART representatives in data collection. A data collection teammember was present during each debriefing to acquire immediate hit/tinedata from the scorer (usually a platoon leader) and obtain answers toany questions about the conduct of the Table (misfires, targets which didnot "pop-up", etc.). The third source was a tape-recording of each TableVIII run. The tape recordings included crew intercom communication,firing tank-to-control tank communication, and tower-to-tank communication.To make the recordings a data collection team member connected a cassetterecorder to the firing tank's audio-frequency amplifier (AM 1780/VRC).Recordings were used to verify time measurements, answer questions aboutany unusual circumstances such as misfires, nonappearance of targets,etc., and to resolve any discrepancies between data collected in de-briefings and data taken from battalion score sheets.

RESULTS

DATA HANDLING

Tank Crew Stability Q•cstionnaire. Each questionnaire was checkedfor completeness u'ion receipt. Incomplete questionnaires were returnedto the crew's company for completion. Using this procedure 211 question-naires (83% of the questionnaires possible from the sample) were availablefor analysis. Of tLkese 198 (78%) were complete. Crewmen's responseswere converted to mouths for all itqms and tabulated for analysis.Because data was tabulated to two digits a maximum of 99 menths (8 years3 months) was permissible on an\, item. Any respondent answering withmore than 8 years 3 months was assigned a score of 99 months.

Tank Gunnery hit/miss and opening time raw scoreswere tabulated for c;ch In:ank ;ind cross-checked to insure accuracy by usingbattalion scoresheets, dlebriefing scoresheets, and the tape recordings.From these the following summary variables were comnuted for each tank:

Summary Variables

1. Mean main gun opening time - day.2. Mean mair gun opening time - night.

3. Mean main gun opening time - day and night.4. Total first round main gun hits - day.S. Total first round main gun hits - night.6. Total first round main gun hits - day and night.7. Total main gun targets hit - day.8. Total main gun targets hit - night.9. Total main gun targets hit - day and night.

Because Table VIII gunnery was corO•ictT'! by each of the five battalionsaccording to slightly different procedures the possibility existed thatbattalions would exhibit significant differences on the summary gunneryvariables above, necessitating use of standardized rather than summarygunnery variables in ensuing analyses. Accordingly, nine ANOVAs wLreconducted to determine whether significant between-battalion differencesexisted. An alpha-level of .01 was chosen. Six of the nine analyses(variables 1-4, 6, and 7) yielded significant results. Because of thebetween-battalion differences, intercorrelation matrices for the ninesummary variables were computed overall, and separately by battalionfor use in choosing final gunnery criteria. These are provided inAppendix B.

Inspection of thesematrices indicated a high correlation betweenmain gun hit measures (variables 4-9), and between opening time measures(variables 1-3), and low correlation between the various hit and timemeasures. Because of these relationships, and because of their signifi-cance to tank gunnery, day and night mean opening time (variable 3) andtotal main gun targets hit (variable 9) were chosen as the bases for thegunnery criterion measures. To eliminate between-battalion differencesindicated by the ANOVAs, standardized time and hit scores were computedfor each tank in each battalion. These were used as criteria for allsubsequent analyses.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive statistics, including frequency distribution, mean,median, mode, standard deviation, standard error, and semi-interquartilerange were computed for all items on the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire.A summary of these descriptive statistics, ihcluding abbreviated itemdesignation, mean, median, standard deviation and semi-interquartilerange, is provided in Table 1. Note that due to the two-digit datatabulation, mean and standard deviation statistics are somewhat conserva-tive for items 8, 9, and 10. There were 14-1S% of the TCs who answeredthese items with more than 8 years 3 months and were arbitrarily assigneda maximum score of 99. The median and semi-interquartile range, ofcourse, were unaffected by this procedure. Due to the fact that the dis-tributions for all items were positively skewed, rather than normallydistributed, the median.and semi-interquartile range may be the moreappropriate measures of central tendency and variability. Completedescriptive statistics and frequency distributions are provided inAppendix C.

6

C4 C4 C4 ~ a 4 4.4

U0

czC,, *

>- S.4.. -4

JC UI . . .. . . * ... .. .U, f4 v~ v A t ý0 n ,r ;4 ;

C4

L - eq M

U r-4

CU N 1- -wb 4 A)4. -as

0~> 4JJ~e e qC_ ~ 0)0 c

0- 0~-. a Wa 0 e 0. m.e 4. -W 0a 0C C) C) ) CD 00 r- " 0C=)4" )0 VCO I-'I J0 c CCC o c c: 0- .w "- cd In

414. 0) 0. W~ 00at

. t .O4 1 .4 4 4 -4.4 tn WOaj "0C~ . ol .opC .1~~~I ccb~t ca0~ CISr~ ua~cC

00 ca4 1*jC O0 C

tnk -- m 4 f-.,4 2 1 .44 - Nee1 12 1 *-47

M c Ai Iz a A M(A n c tt ti 0 C7

TURBULENCE - GUNNERY RELbTIONSIiIPS

In order to. assess the relationship between crewmen's responseson the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire and Table VIII performance,correlations were computed between crewacn's responses, in. months, andthe Table VIII opening time and targets hit criteria described above,The results of these correlations are shown in Table 2. Because ofthe large number of correlations computed, and the relatively largesample, an alpha level of .01 was chosen for significance.

Responses on many of the turbulence questionnaire items were posi-tively skewed. In addition, a linear relation may not be expected be-tween performance and crew/crewman experience. One might expect greaterperformance increments associated with experience increments for rela-tively inexperienced crews/crewmen than with equal experience incrementsfor more experienced crews/crewmen. Therefore, a log transformationwas computed for questionnaire responses wherein the transformed scoreequaled Log10 (raw score + c). The constant (c) was determined by exam-ination of frequency distributions of transformed scores. Various con-stants from 0.2 to 3.0 were evaluated, and the c which best provideda median transformed score equidistant from the ends of the distributionwas chosen. By this procedure more symmetrical distributions were obtainedfor all variables. Correlations were then computed between the trans-formed questionnaire responses and the opening time and targets hitcriteria. Response-criterion correlations and constants chosen are shownin Table 2. Again an alpha level of .01 was chosen for significance.

Three kinds of relationships proved to be significant. First,the more time a TC and his gunner had trained together the more quicklythe crew opened fire. Second, the more experience the TC had, in termsof his assignment as TC on his Table VIII tank, his assignment as TC,and his training as TC, the more quickly the crew opened fire. Third,the more training a gunner received the more targets his tank hit.

DISCUSSION

There were two objectives of this research. First was to determinethe degree of tank crew stability i7 five armor battalions in USAREUR.The second was to determine the relation between tank crew stabilityand tank gunnery pE formance on zhe Tank Crew Qualification Course,Table VIII, at Grafenwoehr, FRG.

The data presented above und- Descriptive Statistics indicatedthat there was considerable turbulence in the battalions observed.While complete crews normally had been together 1-2 months, as shownby mean and median statistics, there was considerable variation. Manyhad been together more than 2 months while others had been together lessthan 1 month. The same pattern existed for tank commander/gunner

8

Ne~f4 ~ N U~Lf .fl 'i Lf0 0 £ l 0 ' f

41

CflI#j 000 000 0000 0-4. 00 0000

0

144

-We 4 L r( otqm ( nf-P o

--4.4ý P4~ Nf4.C 4 r400 4C0- - 00

z .. 4 4 I e( n"V 0L r 0% -a Aqo PC4) 4. 000 000 0000 0-4.-..q 0000 0 0

44..4 =)

ok .q O00 eq 0u)-P4 0 I'1M (%.-4 t. -V1 ~ GoW)ez ~~ 32U 000 .-EPi4-4 -4 - 0 0 04.4.. 0 0

4.*

$4 4

4$1 to

.0 4 ) CU41 0 0~ r. r_ 4 0~ .

W 0 In 4)C U C1o0' C Ou 02I= C

.4j0 04 00 04l a (4 F lU im n " 3(

4)0 c IUUC 0 410 004. 0010 -4aI 0 -041

4.1 0 0 4)

04. 4-) 4-1 4.5 4. 4.1 4J 4.J +J J 41 411 0 4 4.41 +A .1 *j4.1 41 4.14.

R =0

9

turbulence. Typically, tank commanders and gunners had been together1-3 months, but variation was great, with maniy together less than onemonth and many others together 4 months or more.

The data indicated that most tank commanders had a moderate levelof experience as tank commanders, typically 12-42 months. Again, therewas great variation in experience. Tank commanders typically had beenassigned to their Table VIII tank 3-6 months, but wide variation wasevident on this variable also.

Data for remaining crewmembers, gunners, drivers, and loaders,followed the same pattern, but with progressively less experience ateach position. Results indicated gunners, drivers, and loaders typicallyhad 5-11, 5-9, and 2-6 months experience, respectively. These crewmenhad typically been assigned to their position on their Table VIII tank1-5,months, depending on position. As with tank commanders, variationwas great, with many gunners, drivers, and loaders assigned more than6 months, and many others less than one month.

Observation of the relation between crew stability measures andgunnery performance was quite instructive. The results indicated nosignificant relation between gunnery performance and the time the entirecrew had been together, but did indicate that the longer the'tank commanderand gunner had trained together the more rapidly they opened fire on

•Leir targets. Thus, while unit commanders may not need to stress whole-crew stability, some emphasis placed on tank commander-gunner stabilitymay yield tank crews which can service targets more rapidly. Of course,these findings are limited by the degree of turbulence observed withinthe battalions, and would not necessarily generalize to situations wherethere might be considerably less turbulence. In these battalions,however, the range of crew and tank commander-gunner turbulence wasin keeping with the findings of Larson et al. The battalions seemedto fairly represent current US armor battalions. While whole-crews havinga significantly greater amount of experience together may indeed performbetter than those in this research, such crews do not seem to exist inany sizable numbers.

Tank commanders experience, in that position, was related to gunneryperformance. The longer a tank commander had been assigned to histank, the longer he had been assigned as a tank commander, and the

"longer he had trained as tank commander, the faster his opening timeon Table VIII. These relationships can best be explained in terms ofthe development of the tank commander's skills. It would seem logicalthat such relations arise. The tank commander has more control overtime-to-fire, in terms of his target acquisition, gun-laying, ranging,and fire command, than any other crewmember.

10

While no relation was observed between tank commanders variablesand number of targets hit, that can probably be explained by the factthat it is thp gunner who normally engages targets. fie must lay ontargets and mike adjusted lays based on the various fire adjustmentmethods. In addition, because the ranges to targets were fairly wellknown by the tank crews, any effects of differences in tank commandersranging skills would have been attenuated.

From the discussion one might expect to observe a relation betweengunner training and number of targets hit. Such a relation was revealedby the analysis. The longer a gunner had trained as gunner the moretargets his tank hit on Table VIII. Although no relation was observedbetween gunner variables and opening time such a finding may be explainedin terms of the tank commanders greater control on that variable.

No significant relationships were observed between driver or loadervariables and either time or targets hit in Table VIII. These resultsmay also be readily explained. In most cases the amaunition to be usedwas announced and loaded prior to the beginning of an engagement, thuslimiting the effect a loader could have on opening times. And loadersappeared to be consistent in identifying and loading the ammunitioncorrectly, thus limiting the effect Of loader variables on the targetshit criterion. Because engagements did not begin until the tank was inposition, the driver's contribution to hits and time was limited.

Overall, the findings for individual crewinembers indicate thatposition familiarity of tank commanders and gunners plays a small, butsignificant, part in reducing opening time on Table VIII, and increasingthe number of targets hit. Such a finding is, of course, in concurrencewith the beliefs of the majority of the armor community. It wouldseem to underscore the need for emphasizing the training, and retention,of tank commanders and gunners in their respective positions.

PHASE II

The results reported in the Phase I research indicated a relationbetween tank commander's position familiarity and gunnery performance;and a relation between tank commander/gunner personnel familiarity andgunnery performance. Because of the correlational nature of the research,however, causal relations between these variables were not clearlydemorstrated. And the many uncontrolled variables in the correlationalresearch, such as weather, equipment, unit training, unit policies,scoring standards, etc., may have overshadowed smaller effects due tomore modest levels of crew turbulence.

11

The purpose of this research was to delineate causal relationshipsbetween gunnery performance and various types of crew turbulence whichcan occur in operational units. Maximum turbulence conditions werecreated, thus facilitating the evaluation of the effects of turbulenceon gunnery performance.

It was hypothesized that reduced personnel and equipment familiar-ity would rcsult in reduced gunnery performance. Personnel and equipmentfamiliarity usually change concurrently in operational armor units.Wh•en an armor crewman is reassigned it is usually to a different crewand tank, which should lead to immediate reductions in personnel andequipment familiafity for the reassigned crewman. Reassignment ofall crewmembers to crews and tanks with which they are unfamiliarshould lead to maximal reductions in personnel and equipment familiarity,and show maximal effects of those variables on gunnery performance.

It was also hypothesized that reductions in position familiarity,resulting from changing an individual's position assignment, should leadto reduced gunnery performance. In typical units tank commander replace-ments are chosen from available gunners, while gunner replacements arechosen from available loaders or drivers. (With the implementation ofCNIF 19 gunners will be chosen from available loaders). Reduced positionfamiliarity attendent to change in duty position from gunner to tankcommander, and loader to gunner, s;,ould lead to reduced gunnery per-formance. The degree of such performance decrements should be afunction of the level of cross traioing provided to gunners and loaders.Reductions in position familiarity, in combination with reduced positionand equipment familiarity attendent to reassignment to new crews/tanksshould lead to greater reductions in gunnery performance.

I Position turbulence could also occur should there be an outbreakof ostilities requiring that replacements for tank cre'vmen be takenfrom combat support battalions and include non-armor personnel. .Aongthe personnel selected for these positions may be cooks, clerks, militarypolicemen, etc. Individuals in these occupations exist in most combatdivisions world-wide, and could provide a source of personnel to servein tanks should replacements for tank crews be required before timepermits armor crewmen to be provided through normal channels. Prepara-tion for combat would probably consist of a brief training program forcrewmen and not more than a day to train with the crews to which theywould be assigned. Such replacement personnel would initially experiencereduced levels of position, equipment, and personnel familiarity, andprobably reduced gunnery performance. The degree to which such reduc.-tions in familiarity lead to reduced gunnery performance would dependupon the efficacy of the training given and the time crewmen have towork together.

12

To evaluate these hypotheses a four-group experiment was designed.One group was a control group while three were experimental groupsrepresenting the different turbulence variables. All personnel in Groups1, 2, and 3 were armor crewmen while non-armor crewmen were included inthe 4th Group. Group 2 was comparable to the Control Group in positionfamiliarity, but represented a low degre- of personnel and equipmcntfamiliarity. Group 3 represented a low degree of position, personnel,and equipment familiarity. Group 4 was a group consisting of armor tankcommanders and drivers, and non-armor gunners and loaders who had beengiven three days training. All were assigned unfamiliar equipment andpersonnel.

Comparisons of the Control Group and Group 2 permit an evaluationof personnel and equipment familiarity for armor personnel. Comparisonof the Control Group with Group 3 was designed to illuminate the combinedeffects of position, personnel and equipment familiarity for armorpersonnel, while comparison of Group 3 with Group 2 would permit evalua-tion of the effects of position familiarity alone. Finally, comparisonof the Control Group with Group 4 was designed to evaluate the combinedeffects of position, personnel, and equipment familiarity for non-armorpersonnel, while comparisons of Groups 2 and 4 could provide an evalua-tion of the effects of position familiarity alone.

The primary objectives were to determine the effects of crewturbulence on tank crew gunnery performance and to study the effects ofreplacing crewmembers with non-armor personnel including the developmentand evaluation of a training program for non-armor replacements. Thesecondary objective was to test the relationships between gunnery per-formance and selected turbulence variables using the Tank Crew StabilityQuestionnaire.

METHOD

RESEARCH PARTICIP.ANTS

The research participants were primarily tank crewmen from anoperational armor battalion at Ft Carson. Tank crewmen from 44 crewscompleted the Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire for use in the correla-tional phase of the research. An additional 22 non-armor personnelwere selected from the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) to participate inthe experimental phase. These men were excused from their duties toparticipate in the research. Thic sample consisted of a Unit Organi-zational Supplyman, and Administrative Specialist, three Food ServiceSpecialists, a Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic, two Infantrymen, a Telecom-munications Center Specialist, six Military Policemen, one CorrectionalSpecialist, one Race-Relations Equal-Opportunity Specialist, a TrackedVehicle Mechanic, two Tactical Wire Operations Specialists, a RadioOperator, and a Voice Radio Operator.

13

PROCEDURE

The battalion participating in the research had just completed itsannual gunnery season culminating in the Tank Table VIII for crew quali-fication. Following the Qualification Table VIII, tank crewmen were assignedto one of the four groups included in the research, and fired a secondTable VIII. This second, or "turbulence", Table VTII provided scoreswith which to evaluate the effects of turbulence in the experimentalgroups.

Gunnery performance measures for both Qualification and TurbulenceTable VIII were collected with the cooperation of the 4th InfantryDivision (Mech) Tank Gunnery Assistance Team and included Table VIIIpoint scores and time/hit data on individual engagements. A descriptionof the Turbulence Table VIII engagements is provided in Table 3.

Tank Crew Stability Questionnaires (described in Phase I) werecompleted by tank crewmembers following the first Table VIII and returnedto ART personn~l for use in the assignment of crewmen to experimentalconditions for the Turbulence Table VIII. This data was also used inthe correlational phase of the research.

Qualification Table VIII rosters and Tank Crew Stability Question-naires were the bases for selecting research participants and assigningcrews to experimental groups. Only crews that had remained stable throughTables VII and VIII were considered. The assignments were made foreach company immediately following their completion of Table VIII.Fifteen crews from two companies and fourteen crews from a third companywere selected. These crews were randomly assigned to experimentalconditions to create four groups of 11 crews each, and fired the tur-bulence Table VIII under the conditions specified by the group to whichthey were assigned.

The experimental groups were created in the following manner: Group1 (Control) crews were selected from the sample of complete crews whichwere available for the study. Each crewman assigned to this group waswith his Table VIII crew and maintained his normal duty position. Thesecrews were assigned to their Table VIII tanks. The first group was thecontrol against which the remaining groups were compared.

Tne men assigned to Group 2 (Unfamiliar Crews) maintained the dutypositions in which they had been trained and evaluated during the gunneryseason. However, they were assigned to work with personnel with whichthey had not served during the Qualification Table VIII and were assignedto a tank to which they had not been previ~usly assigned.

The Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crews and Positions) crews also consistedof crewmen who had not been together on Qualification Table VIII, andwho were assigned to unfamiliar tanks. The Group 3 tank commanderswere excused and replaced by their gunners, and the gunner positions

14

Table 3

TURBULENCE TABLE VIII

DAYTarget Engagement Range (Meters)

I. Anti-tank (steel) Precision, HEP-T 19502. Moving tank (panel) Precision, APDS-T 17503. Troops Coax 3004. Troops Cal .50 1400S. Troops Coax 4506. Tank (panel) Battlesight, HEAT-T 10007. Moving truck (panel) Coax 6008. Truck (panel) Cal .50 16009. Tank (steel) Precision, IIEAT-T 1750

10. Tank (steel) Battlesight, APDS-T 900

NIGHTTarget Engagement Range (Meters)

1. Tank (panel) Precision, APDS-T 20002. Truck (panel) Cal .50 7503. Troops Cal .50 1400A. Moving tank (panel) Battlesight, APDS-T 12005. Anti-tank (steel) Battlesight, HEAT-T 9006. Anti-tank (panel) Precision, HEAT-T 15007. Troops Coax 2008. Moving truck (panel) Coax 5009. Troops Coax 45010. Anti-tank (steel) Battlesight, HEP-T 700

15

were filled by the loaders. The driver and loader positions were filledwith men who had held those positions during the gunnery season. Aswith Group 2, the crewmen in Group 3 had not been trained together orworked on the tank to which they were assigned.

In Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) tank commanderr and drivers werearmor crewmen who had served in those positions, but not together,during the gunnery season. They were assigned to a tank they had notused during the Qualification Table VIII. The gunners and loaders werenon-armor personnel who were randomly assigned to crews.

The assignment of personnel to experimental groups was random withthe restrictions that Group I (Control) crews had to work with the samecrewmembers and on the same tank they had used on the first Table VIIIwhile crewmen in Experimental Groups 2, 3, and 4 were assigned tocompletely different crews and tanks. No crewman served in more thanone duty position. Due to inoperative equipment it'was impossible fora limited number of crews to fire on the tanks to which they had beenassigned (familiar tanks for Group 1, and unfamiliar tanks for Groups2-4). There were 4 such crews from Group 1; 3 from Group 2; 2 from Group3; and I from Group 4. in order to retain these crews in the study, theywere reassigned to other (and inappropriate) tanks. Due to movement ofpersonnel within the battalion, drivers and loaders occasionally had towork with more than one crew, but maintained their normal duty positions.

The tank commanders in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were informed of theircrews and group assignments one day prior to their firing the secondlable VIII. No formal training program was permitted, but the tankcommanders were encouraged to meet with their crews for several hoursin order to familiarize themselves with each other, their tanks, andtheir specific crew duties.

The Group 4 tank commanders, drivers, and non-armor men reportedto the Ft Carson Table VII where they remained until they fired theturbulence Table VIII. The non-armor personnel were arbitrarilydesignated as either gunners or loaders, and were assigned to a tankcommander/driver pair. A three-day training program was conducted forthe non-armor personnel under the supervision of ARI and battalionrepresentatives with the tank commanders and drivers functioning ascadre. The three-day training program was designed to prepare gunnersand loaders to fire Table VIII only and did not include training onnormal mnaintenance, tactics, etc. The gunners* program involved safety,preparation for operations, fire cormands, identification of targets,adjustnent of fire, and tracking. The leaders' program included TEClessons and hands-on practice. Loader's training emphasized safety,ammunition identification and loading procedures, preparation foroperations, M219 disassembly and assembly, replenisher tape reading,preoperation checks and services, and combat loading. The gunners andloaders completed each exercise (day and 'ight) using sub-caliberammunition on Days 1 and 2, and 10 main gun rounds on Day 3.

16

On Day 3 the non-armor gunners and loaders were reassigned to atank coumander/drivcr pair other than the ones with which they trained.This was done to meet the requirements of the combat replacement scenariodescribed above. This also made the familiarity of Group 4 crewmemberscomparable to that of Group 2 and 3 crews. The crews fircd Table VIIIwithin a day or two follcwing completion of their training.

An outline of the three-day training program is provided inAppendix D. A complete description of the training is given in O'Brien,Crum, and Healy, 1978.

RESULTS

Of the 44 crews identified for participation in the research 40completed the turbulence Table VIII and were included in the dataanalysis. These included 11 crews in Group I (Control), 10 in Group 2(Unfamiliar Crews), 9 in Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crews and Duty Positions),and 10 in Group 4 (Non-armor Replacements). The Group 2 tank wasdisqualified on Table VIII for disciplinary (not gunnery) reasons. OneGroup 3 tank was disqualified due to a gross (gunnery) safety violationand one failed to complete the night course due to a minor injurysustained during the day course. The Group 4 tank was disqualifieddue to equipment malfunctions.

DATA HANDLING

Table VIII data was tabulated for each crew for both the qualificationTable VIII and the turbulence Table VIII. Variables considered areshown below:

Primary Variables

Table VIII pointsMain gun targets hitMain gun ol.ening timeMachine gun points

Secondary Variables

Main gun pointsStationary battlesight targets hitStationary precision targets hitMoving targets hitNumber of main gun targets hit within time standard (S sec.

battlesight or 10 sec precision)Stationary battlesight opening timeStationary precision opening timeMoving target opening time

17

Means wege computed for each crew on each variable for Table VIIIDay (D), Night( (N) and Day and Night (D + N) combined. Point scoreswere computed using the standard Ft Carson Tank Gunnery AssistanceTeam (TGAT) procedures. On main gun engagements 75 points were awardedon each engagement where a target was hit within the allotted time(20 seconds on battlesight engagements or 30 seconds on precisionengagements). In addition, between 0 and 75 points were awarded foropening time on any engagement wherein a target was hit. Maximumopening time points were awarded when opening times were less than5 seconds on battlesight engagements, or less than 10 seconds onprecision engagements. Longer opening times were awarded fewer pointsin accordance with the sliding scales for opening time points providedin Appendix E.

Machine gun points were computed on each engagement as follows:When the opening rounds were within the target area 20 points wereawarded for opening times of 5 seconds or less. Opening times oflonger than 5 seconds were awarded fewer points according to a slidingscale provided in Appendix F. In addition, up to a maximum of 20 pointswere awarded for target effect (4 points/hit for vehicle engagementsor 4 points/each 5th of troop coverage on troop engagements). Finally,up to 10 points were awarded for "technique" based on the judgment ofthe TGAT NCO who scored the firing tank.

Stability questionnaire data was tabulated and handled just asin the first portion of the research.

EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY

The unplanned assignment of a few Group 1 crews to unfamiliar tanks,and some Group 2, 3, and 4 crews to tanks on which one or more crew-members had fired during annual gunnery permitted an evaluation ofequipment familiarity which otherwise could not have-been made. Theplanned evaluation of equipment familiarity was to be made in conjunc-tion with an evaluation of personnel familiarity (comparison of Group 1with Group 2); however, a separate analysis of eeuipment familiaritywas possible.

To evaluate the effects of equipment familiarity crews were desig-nated as "unfamiliar" with equipment if no crewmembers were assignedto the tank during the annual gunnery season, and "familiar" if the tankcommander and/or gunner were assigned to the t•ik during annual gunnery.For each variable (D + N, D, and N), a 3 x 2 unweighted means Analysisof Variance (Winer, 1971, pp. 447) was cowputed. One factor wasequipment familiarity, as defined above, while the second was Groupassignment; 1, 2, or 3. There were too few unplanned tank assignmentsin Group 4 to enter into the analysis.

18

The results of the 36 Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) indicated4 main effects of familiarity: statlonary battlesight targets hit (N),total main gun targets hit (N), total main gun points (N), and movingtarget opening time (D). In the first three cases crews on unfamiliartanks performed better than those on familiar tanks. Familiarityinteracted with Group assignment in only three cases: moving targetopening time (D + N), stationary precision targets hit (N), andmoving targetdopening time (D). The first interaction occurred becausethe three Grodp 2 crews on familiar tanks performed more slowly thantheir counterparts on unfamiliar tanks, while the second was due tothe two group 3 crews on familiar tanks performing more poorly thantheir counterparts. Only the relationships with the opening timeon the moving target (N) made sense; equipment-familiar crews openedfire more quickly than unfamiliar crews. This was interpreted as achance occurrence. Consequently, all crews' results were treatedaccording to their nominal group assignments in all further analyses,and equipment familiarity as a variable was given no further consideration.All summary data for analyses are provided in Appendixes G, H, and I.

BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES

In order to determine whether significant group by companyinteractions existed, two-way unweighted means ANOVAs were computedon each variable. Significant group by company interactions wouldindicate that the treatment (group assignment) effects observed dependedupon the companies from which the crews were drawn. Such a findingwould limit the generalizability of the results. The ANOVAs, however,revealed no significant interactions (all F < 2.40, p >.05, df = 3,36).Accordingly, all further analyses were based on one-way ANOVA computa-tions.

In order to evaluate between group differences, Dunnett tests(Winer, 1971, pp. 201) were computed for comparisons of the controlgroup (Group I) with the three experimental groups. Tukey tests (Steeleand Torrie 1960, pp. 109) were computed for differences between experi-mental groups. Alpha levels were set at p <.05, 2 tailed, for all com-parisons. The Dunnett and Tukey procedures were chosen as more conser-vative analyses than the Newman-Keuls.

An overview of the results indicated that numerically, Groups 1,2, and 4 were comparable, while Group 3 performed more poorly. Typicalresults are shown in Figure I for Table VIII total points (D * N),main gun targets hit (D + N), main gun opening time (D + N), andmachine gun points (D + N). Statistically significant between groupdifferences were found for total points and opening time. A detaileddescription of the results is given in the following pages. Means andbetween-group comparison significance levels are provided in Tables4 and S.

19

1300 1236-- • 'ISO

TOTAL. TABLE. VIII 1100PO INTS

900 786

700

Gp I Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

1. _S 13.9

W.`lAN MAIN GUN OPENING 13.0 -

TIME

11. S o.. 11.1

10.0 9.6

Gp Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp4

6 |5.9 S.-S

MEAN MAIN GUN TARGETS 5.4HIT 5 .]iS.

42 .

Gt) 1 Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

350 -!343

325 i 321 31'MPýA.\ MACHINE GUN I -"

POINTS

275 -•

61-1 1 Control 250 25

;p 2 = Unfamiliar CrewsGp 3 - Unfamiliar Crews - -

and Positions Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4

Gj 4 = Non-armor Replaccm1cn.

Figure 1. Tank Gunnery Perfor'a-, rc, a-' n Function of Grcup Assignment23

'0~~ C>c C ~ 0 0

in co '

00 co Il " P -4 f %0. . i . -'r4 N 0 Lob00 m O0 -C4N p P4 4 inl

od sn i N 0 0 00 000 A -4 C404 44 t N

* .

tNt C.) u4 -n M o 8 I-

,I .! 1, -. L41 ! 1

-'CO W) 1--4 -. %0

C) (n C)a00 0 CD00

el 0!inZ 00 t'ý?. -4 -C OO 00 N lf% &-4-4 P-4 on - an

Cý~~.q ITc vftr Ir o

>~~~- -4 0 P-u. '

Cý 1 0' 0 t i ninf

1.1 cr C)i DcCN4. - ION -ý1 7

O0 -t Cl Iin c o 0

-m i-n- 10co c

Itt i-t-4

CI.'O as00 00 oýr;0 Loll "O~0 Ln NO

ID-u in t.ul-.u Ln '0u -aL

II ~-N ~ ' O i *'l t 21l 01

-- r, .. 0

-4 .1 in--

o. "-4 C40 C: 2

Ii ~ ~ . 04 )I 4 ~ *4

0 ctd. P "4 4.1

C -- ; . 4.-1 Cr-4 ýý; M.- .

21

V) ?Aa a

X ak3* 4. t# iia

'44a' C4a

a 0 U7

0 0. 0 .a o0to 1a * a0

z0 u

a 4aJa a a .

0 41 L

1^ a ah ar- a- v4a s a= 0

to) (

LU l l f ~ ~ a a am

aZ wn tn... m P4 4

r- 0 t

., 55 'E ma as a

;.4 414 J -0 +065 a a a a - aaq a

(a a ao aý as a, a a2 aA a4J~ cca a ma a *4

C4s 0 a a2 5 eC0 0 t4 cL

4441-0=m0.0

41h 04 U *' 41 0 us4a0.4. W Rs an " +

22 z4

UNFAMILIAR CREWS

Comparisom of Group 1 with Group 2. Group 1 and Group 2 differedin degree of personnel familiarity. Group 1 personnel fired the tur-bulence Table VIII with the same crewmen and in the same positionsas on the qualification Table VIII two weeks previously. Group 2,on the other hand, was composed of crewmen who held the same positionsas they held on the qualification Table VIII, but who were workingwith different crewmen. Thus, any differences between the groups couldbe attributed to differences in familiarity of crewmembers. Computation ofDunnett's t for comparisons of Group 1 with Group 2 on each of the 12gunnery variables Day (D), Night (N), and Day and Night combined (D +N), revealed no significant differences between groups. Thus personnelfamiliarity did not contribute in a significant manner to performancevariation on the turbulence Table VIII.

UNFAMILIAR POSITION

Comparison of Group 2 with Group 3. Because both Group 2 and Group3 were conditions with reduced personnel familiarity, the comparison ofGroup 2 and 3 is appropriate for evaluating the effects of reducedposition familiarity. The Tukey analyses indicated ,many significanteffects. The crews which experien-ed only personnel changes hadsignificantly more total points (N) and battlesight targets hit (N)and faster main gun opening times (N), precision opening times (N, andD + N), and battlesight opening times (D + N).

UNFAMILIAR CREWS AND POSITIONS

Comparisons of Group I and Group 3. Group 3 crews experienced bothpersonnel and duty position turbulence. Because personnel familiarity,evaluated in comparisons of Group 1 and 2, yielded no significantdifferences, any differences between Group 1 and Group 3 can probablybe attributed to unfamiliarity with positions. The Contro! crews hadsignificantly more Table VIII points (D + N, and N), main gun points(N), main gun targets hit (N), battlesight targets hit (N), andmachine gun points (N). In addition, Group I opening times weresignificantly faster over all main gun engagements (D + N, and N),battlesight engagements (D + N, D and N) and precision engagements(D + N, and N). Thus, while personnel differences alone did not lead.o significant performance differences between Control Crews andUnfamiliar Crews, Unfamiliar Positions in addition to Unfamiliar Crew-members led to numerous significant performance decrements.

23

NON-ARMOR REPLACEMENTS

Comparisons of Group 1 and 4. As with Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and4 differed in personnel and duty familiarity, but involved a differentkind of duty position turbulence. The Group 4 crews consisted of armor-trained tank commanders and drivers, and non-armor trained gunnersand loaders. Because personnel turbulence did not lead to significantperformance differences between Groups 1 and 2, any differences betweenGroups 1 and 4 could best be attributed to replacing crewmembers withnon-armor personnel. The results, however, indicated no significantdifferences between Groups 1 and 4 on any of the gunnery variablesevaluated.

Comparison of Groups 2 and 4. As with the evaluations of jobfamiliarity above, Group 2 provides a control for the evaluation ofthe type of duty position turbulence created in Group 4. There wereno significant differences between Groups 2 and 4 on any of the gunneryvariables evaluated.

Comparison of Groups 3 and 4. Comparisons of Group 3 and 4 wereused to evaluate the effects of the two different kinds of duty position"turbulence. Although the performance of Group 4 was numerically superiorto that of Group 3 on all variables, the differences did not reachacceptable levels of significance.

TABLE VIII RELIABILITY

The design of the turbulence research offered a unique opportunityto acquire test-retest data with which to address the reliability ofTable VIII. The data was available because the Control crews had com-pleted their qualification Table VIII with the same crewmembers, inthe same duty positions, and on the same tanks as used for the turbu-lence Table VIII. In cases wherein a crew re-ran the Table VIII forqualification, the most recent data was used for analysis. Correlationsof +.43 for total points, +.SO for main gun points, +.37 for main guntargets hit, and +.54 for main gun opening time were obtained. Becauseof the small sample size (N = 11) significance tests on the correlationsare not particularly meaningful. These correlations are best consideredas point estimates of test-retest relationships.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Tank Crew Stability Questionnaires and Table VIII results from44 crews were available for analyses. The questionnaires were handledas they were in Phase I. A summary of descriptive statistics includingmean, median, standard deviation, and semi-interquartile range isprovided in Table 6. Selected questionnaire variables identified inPhase I as significant were correlated with Table VIII gunnery measures.No significant relationships were indicated by these analyses.This can probably be explained by the smaller sample in Phase II.

24

41

-4 -, G 0-wL

S.. C4 0

N C C L %a ufr.aý Wav0 *n qr-w en

0 Ln .n00 a0 C cC4 C. . 4. 4 . .- ! C

u Im0 0 0

Ul 0

442

C.u) M. * .

'0 *j 00 ~ -4Fr 5.1. %-0 %%.J

.0 b•0 e%0%c0- CJ~ tho Ad C

-. 1 U' c o% A0.% A.0N 0in 4 = n 0In 0a w G i

0.. 0 c:b-4 " 0 0 Lia tic a-e0c4J

I-- U m .No V~ ) >~ coc 4 U_~'w w'.4% .0 04 N0

*00. to Cn CO. 0d4 1 0 - o csc o c0 ,4) a) "a CIO -_u0 0 C.. 00 cmN.. a~- 0 m no.-r- C

00 CIS 41o 0 0o~~~~4 0 0 0 0 0 ) "4 -,q - L~".4-u

0000 8-4 I-u '-

.4 a1 T4 0CA tA th ' 1 0 .0 00 0 0 0 0 90m 004 4J4 J J4 4.J 4-) 4.8 4.)~ 41 ~ 41= .8=00000 =4)~ c) a4* C C0 J4A J 40 00 . 80 (0 880 C00 000.0 004.0 004.02 0.2 0 0.Q4 ) 4 ) 4 )

w .I-.t2

0 2S

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to determine the effects ofpersonnelequikpment and position familiarity on tank gunnery performance,as indicated by performance on Table VIII. To answer this question fourgroups of tank crews were assembled. Group 1 served as a control groupwith typical levels of personnel, equipment and job familiarity. Group2 (unfamiliar trews) was a personnel turbulence group in which crewmenserved in their normal duty positions, but with different crewmen.Group 3 (Unfamiliar Crew and Duty Position) crews were identical toGroup 2 with respect topersonnel and equipment familiarity, but unfamil-iarity with duty positions was added as a variable for the Group 3tank commanders and gunners. Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) was alsoa condition of reduced personnel, equipment and position familiarity.Unfamiliarity of duty position was created by replacing the gunner andloader with non-armor personnel.

The results of this research indicate that unfamiliarity with theduties assigned to the tank commander and gunner had a serious effecton Table VIII gunnery performance. On almost every variable evaluated,the performance of Group 3 crews (Unfamiliar Crew and Duty Positions)was worse than that of Groups 1, 2, or 4, and many of the comparisonswere statistically significant. The poorer performance of Group 3crews overall was particularly evident in the night firing scores.Also, it is important to note that the analyses of Group 3 performanceexcluded 2 crews who were disqualified; therefore, the results presentedhere represent a conservative estimate of the effects of duty positionturbulence. Had minimum scores been entered for disqualified crews,Group 3 means for points and hits would have been lower, and meanopening times would have been longer.

It is apparent that the gunners and loaders did not have suff cientcross training to prepare them for the tank commander and gunner pdsitions.The battalion did provide cross-training for crewmen in classroom settings,but there was not sufficient time to provide hands-on cross trainingduring the gunnery season. The realities of combat utilization of ourtank forces, however, suggest that combat losses may necessitate thekinds of replacement procedur's evaluated in this research.

The new 19E gunner/loader training implemented at Ft Knox shouldreduce the problem of replacing the gunner. However, this will notprovide crewmembers qualified to replace the tank commander. Thus,serious consideration should be given to cross-training of crewmembersin tank commander's duties. Results from Phase I indicated that lengthof time tank commander and gunner worked together affected gunneryperformance. This suggests that tank commander-gunner interaction isimportant and should be part of the cross training for tank commanderreplacements. A brief training program for tank commanders and gunnerssimilar to the one used for Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) gunnersand loader.; may be an efficient way to incorporate cross training intothe normal gunnery training.

26

Although crews in Group 4 (Non-Armor Replacements) also experiencedunfamiliarity of personnel, equipment, and position, their overall per-formance was not significantly different from that of either Group 1 or2. This can be explained in part by the fact that experienced tankcommanders werp present on the tanks, and had trained the non-armor per-sonnel on Table VII prior to firing the Table VIII. Also, the non-armorcrewmen had just completed three days of training designed specificallyto prepare them for firing Table VIII.

The effects of personnel turbulence were evaluated by comparingthe performance of the Unfamiliar Crews with that of the Control Crews.There were no statistically significant differences in performancebetween the Unfamiliar Crews and the Control Crews, indicating that thistype of personnel turbulence does not significantly degrade gunneryperformance. In fact, on many variables the Unfamiliar Ciews hadscores that were numerically superior to the Control Crews. The numeri-cal results can be attributed to random rather tnan systematic groupdifferences.

Although the results indicated that personnel turbulence did notseriously degrade Table VIII performance, the Tank Crew StabilityQuestionnaires showed that even the Control Crews (Group 1) hadrelatively little experience together. Thus, the Group 1 and Group 2crews did not differ greatly in length of time together. Group 1 crewswith significantly greater amounts of experience with one another mighthave performed better, leading to significant Group 1 - Group 2 differences.Such crews were not available in the battalion participating in theresearch, however. And data presented in Phase I and Larson et al.indicated that such crews are not readily available in today's Army.

The evaluation of equipment familiarity was conducted separatelyfrom personnel and position familiarity due to the fact that some crewswere not able to fire the appropriate tanks. Of all the ANOVA compari-sons run, only for moving target opening times at night did equipmentfamiliar crews perform significantly better than unfamiliar crews. Thismay or may not reflect a chance occurrence. Based on the comparisonswe can conclude that familiarity with a particular tank played only aminor role, if any, in Table VIII performance. Again, equipmentfamiliarity might have been a more important factor if the controls hadbeen assigned to their tanks for a substantially longer time.

The data presented in this research also provided some informationon the reliability of Table VIII as a tank gunnery evaluation tool.That information is interesting in its own right, and is helpful ininterpretation of the between group differences observed. The correlationsconsidered as point estimates indicated moderate levels of reliability.Overall, the moderate levels of reliability were not suprising. Noattempt was made to control for variables associated with weather,ammunition, or time of day/night when firing occurred. And motivationaldifferences may have existed because the first Table VIII was for

27

qualification and the turbulence Table VIII did not directly affect thestatus of the crews.

The questionnaire data was used primarily as a tool for crewassignment. The descriptive statistics were useful, however, in evaluatingthe comparability of turbulence in the Ft Carson battalion with turbulencein the five USAREUR battalions observed in Phase I. The correlationsbetween questibnnaire variables and gunnery performance which yieldedsignificant effects in Phase I did not produce the same results from theFt Carson data. This apparent inconsistency is not suprising since theresults obtained in the USAREUR study included data from approximately200 crews, while complete data from only 44 crews were available atFt Carson. Small effects of turbulence which could have been observedwith the large sample could easily go unnoticed with the small sample.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the research in Phase I revealed considerable levelsof turbulence in 5 USAREUR battalions. These results were consistentwith those of Larson et al. (1976) and Report of Tank Forces on TrainingTechnology (1975). Personnel turbulence was most apparent with completecrews, which had typically been together only 1-2 months. There wasless personnel turbulence among tank commander/gunner pairs, which hadusually been together 1-3 months. There was a great deal of-variationin the degree of personnel turbulence observed, however. Some crews,and tank commander/gunner pairs, had been together less than a month,while others had been together four months or more. The results suggestthat stable crew assignments were far from a reality in the battalionsobserved.

Position turbulence was not as great as personnel turbulence. Mostloaders had served in their positions longer than three months. Andtank commenders, gunners, and drivers had typically held their positionsmore than six months. Variation was also great on these positionturbulence variables. Thus, while most crewmen had a reasonable degreeof experience with their duty positions, a number of them were quitenew to their positions when firing Table VIII.

The research indicated that whole crew personnel familiarity didnot have a significant effect on gunnery performance. Neither theStability Questionnaire results from Phase I, nor the Group 1 and 2comparisons from Phase II, suggested any evidence that entire crewswhich had been together for a moderate period of time fired betterthan those together a shorter time. The results are tempered by twofactors. First, few crews which had been together a long time, evenone year, were available. Such crews might perform better than the typicalcrews in today's armor forces. Second, the Stability Questionnaire resultsdid indicate a small but significant relation between gunnery performance

28

and'the ti~ne t;ink commanders and gunners trained together. Thus, tankcommandee and gunner turbulence may be an important factor in pre-dicting gunnery performance.

The major findings of this research were related to duty positionfamiliarity. In both phases of the research experience in a particu-lar position appeared as a significant factor in gunnery performance.Both tank commander and gunner experience in their positions wererelated to gunnery performance in Phase I, and Phase II crews whichincluded men in unfamiliar crew positions performed much more poorlythan those in comparable crews who were familiar with their duties.Both Phase I and Phase II results speak strongly for emphasis on thetraining and retention of armor crewmen, particularly tank commandersand gunners, in their positions.

Mhen the results were used to address the problem of how to replacearmor crewmen, either by changing positions or by incorporating non-armorpersonnel, two findings were revealed. First, changing a crewman'sduty position without training him for his new duties, leads to markedlyreduced performance. The armor crewmen were not adequately cross-trained to assume their new positions, even though they had just completedannual gunnery and cross training in classroom subjects was providedas part of the gunnery program. The second finding was that inccrporationof non-armor personnel into crews as gunners and loaders did not signifi-cantly degrade gunnery performance. However, the non-armor men weregiven three days intensive hands-on training specifically designed toprepare crewmen to fire Table VIII. Such personnel, given a shorttraining package such as used in this research, may provide adequatereplacement personnel in emergency situations. The same type of trainingpackages could also be developed and incorporated into unit gunnerytraining to assist in cross-training armor crewmen.

Equipment familiarity appeared to have only a limited impact ongunnery performance. Only one relationship between increased equipmentfamiliarity and improved performance (for tank commanders) was noted inPhase I, and only one (for moving target opening time at night) wasobserved in Phase II. Thus, if equipment familiarity played any roleat all in the Table VIII performance observed, it was probably only avery small part.

Questions which remain unanswered address the degree to whichturbulence factors affect performance on mere structured tasks, such asTable VI gunnery, and less structured tasks, such as Table IX and ARTEPperformance. Following the position of Wagner et al. expressed in theintroduction, it appears reasonable tb assume that neither personnelnor equipment familiarity would play a significant role on more structuredtasks, and the effects of position familiarity would be reduced. On moreunstructured tasks, however, personnel, and perhaps equipment familiarity,along with position familiarity, may play important roles in modulatingcrew performance.

29

REFERENCES

Defense Science Board. Report of the Task Force on Training Technology,Chapter 8. Crew/Group/Unit Training, Washington, DC: Office of theDirector of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense,May 1975.

Egerman, K. Effects of team arrangement on team performance: A learning-theoretic Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology-, 1966,3(S), S41-550.

Egerman, K., Glaser, R., and Klaus, D. J. Increasing team proficiencythrough training: 4. A learning theoretic analysis of the effects of teamarrangement on team performance. (Technical Report AIR B64-9/63)American Institutes for Research, September 1963.

Egerman, K., Klaus, D. J., and Glaser, R. Increasing team proficiencythrough training:3. Decremental effects of reinforcement in teams withredundant members. (Technical Report AIR B64-6/62) American Institutesfor Research, June 1962.

Larson, J. A., Earl, W. K., and Henson, V. A. Assessment of US tank crewtraining. TRADOC Combined Arms Test Activity Test Report FM 331,Ft Hood, Texas, 15 July 1976.

O'Brien, R. E., Crum, W. J., and Healy, R. D. Accelerated tank gunnerytraining program for gunner/loader replacements. (HumPRO Res. Memo.RM-WD (KY)-78-3). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization,May 1978.

Steele, R. G., and Torrie, J. H. Principles and.procedures of statistics.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

US Department of the Army. Tank Force Management Group Study Recommenda-tions (Approved Chief of Staff, July 1977).

Wagner, II., Ilibbits, N., Rosenblatt, R. D., and Schulz, R. Team trainingand evaluation strategies: State of the art. (llumRRO Tcch Rep 77-1).Alexandria, VA: iluman Resources Research Organization, February 1977.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed).New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

30

APPENDIXES

PageAPPENDIX A. Tank Crew Stability Questionnaire (PT 5188) 33

B. Correlation Matrix of Summary Criterion Variables 39

C. Complete Descriptive Statistics and Frequency 49Distributions

D. Outline of Three Day Training Program 75

E. Main Gun Opening Time/Point Table 83

F. Machine Gun Opening Time/Point Table 87

G. Sumaary Data for Analysis of Equipment Familiarity 91

H. Summary Data for Analysis of Equipment Familiarity - 95Day

I. Summary Data for Analysis of Equipment Fa.ilia-ity --- 99Night

31

APPENDIX A

TANK CREW STABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (PT 5188)

33

TANK CRLW STABIL.ITY QUESTIONNAIRE

TCs, please fill in your name, tank, company. Bn, gunner's name, driver'sname, and loader's name. Then complete questions #1-10.

Have your gunner complete questions #11-14, your driver complete questions41S-18, and your loader complete questions #19-22.

Khen you rnd your gunner, driver, and loader have all completed theirquestions check the questionnaire to insure that all 22 questions have beenanswered. Then give questionnaire to the platoon sergeant who should giveit to the company first sergeant.

Thank you for completing the questionnaire.

TC name Tank_ Company_ Bn

What is your Table VIII gunner's name

What is your Table VIII driver's name

leat is your Table VIII loader's name

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.Do not count time in liE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master GunnerCourses, etc.

1. How many nonths have you and your complete crew been assigned together, withyou as TC, your current gunner assigned as your gunner, your current driverassigned as your driver, 4nd your current loader assigned as your loader?(Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

2. How many months have you and your complete crew been assigned together, withyou as TC, your current gunner assigned is your gunner, your current driverassigned as your driver, and your current loader assigned as your loader,

ti the tank you used, or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Lesst han I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

3. How many months have you and your complete crew actually been able totrain together, with you as TC, your current gunner as gunner, your currentdriver as driver, and your current loader as ldader? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

35PTS188

4. How many months have you and your current gunner been assigned together,

with you as TC an- your current gunner as gunner? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or.more

S. Now many months have you and your current gunner been assigned tog et-hr,with you as TC and your current gunner assigned as your gunner, on the tankyou used, or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 90 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

6. How many months have you and your current gunner actually been able totrain together, with you as TC, and your current gunner as gunner? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 90 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ormorc

7. How many months have you been assigned as the TC on the tank you used,or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

8. How long have you been assigned the duties of TC, regardless of the tank,crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS9. How long have you actually had to train in the duties of TC, regardless

of the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

10. How long have you served in M60 tanks, regardless of the duty positionyou held?

YEARS _ _MONrTHS

HAVE YOUR GUNNER FILL OUT THE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

PT S18836

GUNNER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.Do not count time in liE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master GunnerCourses, etc.

11. flow many months havc you been assigned as tho gunner on the tank you used,or will use, to - Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than I month 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or more

12. How long have you been assigned the duties of gunner, regardless of thetank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

13. How long have you actually had to train in duties of gunner, regardlessof the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS ___MNTHS

14. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty positionyou held?

YEARS MOINTHS

HAVE YOUR DRIVER FILL OUT THE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

DRIVER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.Do not count time in lE AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master GunnerCourses, etc.

15. How many months have you been assigned as the driver on the tank you used,or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12

13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 .23 24 or more

16. How long have you been assigned the duties of tank driver, regardless of thetank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MON'THS17. How long have you actually had to train in duties of tank driver, regardlessof the tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

37 PT 5188

18. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty positionyou held?

YEARS MONTHS

HAVE YOUR LOADER FILL OUT TIHE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS.

LOADER'S QUESTIONS

In answering the following questions count only time in armor companies.

Do not count time in l1E AIT or OSUT, or time in NCO courses, Master Gu, erCourses, etc.

19. How many months have you been assigned as the loader on the tank you used,

or will use, to fire Table VIII? (Circle one)

Less than 1 month . 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 or less

20. How long have you been assigned the duties of loader, regardless of the

tank, crew, or company you may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

21. How long have you actually had to train in duties of loader, regardless

of the tank, crew, or company ya' may have been in?

YEARS MONTHS

22. How long have you served on M60 tanks, regardless of the duty positionyou held?

YEARS MONTHS

Loader - When you have completed questions #19-22 return the questionnaire toyour TC.

Thank you.

38PT 5188

APPENDIX B

CORRELATION MATRIX OF SUMMARY CPITERION VARIABLES

39

K SUMMNARY CRITERION VARIABLES

Variable Code Decition

302 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Day)303 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Night)304 Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Day and Night)305 Ist Round Main Gun Hits (Day)306 1st Round Main Gun Hits (Night)307• 1st Round Main Gun hits (Day and Night)308! Main Gun flits (Day)309 Main Gun Hits (Night)310 Main Gun Hits (Day and Night)311 Standardized Measure of Opening Time (Day and Night)312 Standardized Measure of Hits (Day and Night)

41

""*4_4i~ 4-0! 1~ -0 ..D~ aý C.~ 402- --0 * C. 2 . f2. & - 4 - cb .. - Pf a "- Z ... a,

0 a 0 Mo a W C3 4 1 A o azQ a ýac z 0 r

in i 40 . .- v. Go' : wwia -0 -0 M~ -a

-40-

0 ý-.- 01f 410 O ~ a- O_ * 0_ .

Cp- a~ fne C, a f 4W .200 C31 -02 r al50 '0o40 0 ~ 0 q s-CP43, o 4 a t 4D 4t 0 to4 4t 40 40 e a

* 0 -~- ~ s A -40 F # *C M0 S-.Fpo Gs 00. -tfo .50 ,...

w a v a, 42 Ol o`

* 4: *r ' , A . U -

'A 01 Vs a 1 0

1 5..5 0a on15 .0 0 a,- -0 a 0 P. -0 C, Z -0- 400S aLa~9 .0. # o .4 00 fu o0 a t -0 .ic * o .~

l.. I-* al 10 cm C, .O r, , .

v. -1 N2 In w51 w OV 5$ N N - U

C. ~ c4i -as V-o --D -'P -n Nm A. ;-A 4 3

.0 ,r A a vn a Ik ,0 O 0 ý0 - ,i

a- a .3 .a do 5 .40 VSC 0, 0 4-0 4oc, C 0 moo MCI .fle ot O

~* a-, - .0 ' a C a-C' 4C a' c5 Ni - a

ui ac lCl r

10 t0. o ceo ose . - a 0 a -4 oe a-- 431:Z WW. 43,V 00

0. v" 2. c. -W 00 hiC hiC A I aC. a -Q* PCr 4r v"'D a, - .* ;

bi a. fm . D 0rd. -m 4

ixJ -a -a 00 a! 'S ;e U-sJj F-0 a,0 O- P- v5CL V 3o ~ *A on 1 -0 -0 4 66*015 4 0 65 2*'05 -- 46 * .

z crS ý4 a r- -w o. a o*.iP 4 O'1 a 5, P. .a * ,

(0 54 S N S 5 N 0 56 I 5 N U

40: fn , 4 to so M.

0u t 1. we 00% 0r ICO a V. ea- ceo Quo ft~w 0..- na ai f - a & *l -- v o , o spa *0 -- ,9 * a

ma 0 =_ - %I . .C a 41 t N - ' 5 N 6 6 N I S N 3 S Nz cc 40 L: aC a-' 0 5C Sm aC C '

0- N IL - 0 a 1 1

Co 017. -fld Ac 00 a A c. 'a.. ~ N .. a - a o - -P, 41 e It. *

CL to -40 No -b M. N N 5 N * U 5 U U *

a4 Q4 06- %: pn p

Sal~c cc cc . '.. S . 4 ~ 0- 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l r_15 0 0 O O P10 CV #5 V M- Nc . .. ae SS'

=I = W. cc

* ' .42

CD 0 0 4 0 0~ Q 44 a, ~ . Al4' 'of. g-'@ w.'. 00

W Inm *3@ a0 @Ia _%n0 10,01, C 4@ 40.4 0 0ý 43)~ W: ftP 4 0 a Co It a a ;T IV 0 c,4 0 40 a

a- 4 M oa 41 N A a. Q Q 40 eu 4. 1 ýoCri W a I4 N: f" t a I I

0 4a

*A - -0 mt AI 44.4 a'~ A..' 0U. 4 4 0, %110.0 a-.. a- CP v- 4 t

.11 33A t0 ... l- ot4 .4 0 00 .0 00 000aCP OV a- V- coo a

P4-2. * s . * 0 S P -4 00 or 0 40 0.

Sm f* 0. OS P.- Ss Sý C3,S S4 0 0:; S N S4 N , IS 10 ca a N ),

* -* '0 n 'f--0-03 - -0 o-

0 a

* w

0, ~ ~ o @P4 Ml. 34 P3. 44 -30 0 33 #-0) 30 .

f. A a- 40 ^: v Q 44 4 A 4 l 4 4

-4 C, N t 0 C: .Ný .N_ N N*4N Ucc 7. - - 3 0 U)

s 0 f

* ; 'aio -. 40 a4 In0 44. AIOC 000 VP4 04 J4 .

4 Al * -up* o- ,* a *9 11 a 0 * 0 * 3 *

ry PCr. N d sp - C b C'. -

3w :w 3 33

P.443

Q ab a

eve .040 10v. Poi 0 20- 4 Al0 4C- 400 .. 0 N 4 F_p" N. * 0 8 * r A * 0 * m o 0~ N -o lo ai * b 0": * 0

o W 0 a 4a o 0 0

P4 b.* 4-0 Go. -o' '* -2 0 0 0 0 - 0-0 v 0

em* A4 al - V -0%~ 0b -Mv ol 0- N. o-. 4 a A ~ cx Non0

S.. -Ov eO. .. w A r ~ 200 00 A0 10 - "00 0

* 0 4 41 04 0 A a .. 7 0 0 00 0 0 t- 44 UA-a wAC4 " NA N A 0 N l U N" a A c' AMN~

* -44 0 to %, 0 -00 0 0 . -so P

* 4N.0 04ý N. ad m.g. 01 .44 0N 0a 04N 0 40 -N 4 *00 m - ^l~ w0. 400 .0"a a0 a0 Non 0 "M 0 m Ale M0AONO 4-

P" co . 0 w 40 . w . 0 .0 I@ a . z

; it 0 4 .4 a

- 0 U) .. a -0) -0 601 in -0A I-4 0

0

* 09 400 C9 flo 20 a A P00 coN #40 a0 P 40 I

A C - S a A _ * 0 * 4 a -A a 0, co Cp. co -~ *ow ora a 40 a a

U U

N.. 4b a4-- 014 .. f0 000 440 #43 u4 ~4' 0 0 o10. Ve .3 0 0 . * 4 * N a -0 0 &-o * P_ 4 1-* 40 * z

0 cS Sl A 0"f 0 a 0b A 5P 0 -"a i x 4 ~0%M

U-WW

4' 0N.4 0~ -: N- A4 COO 04 a4 0. -n404m 014r o 4 v

vu) w 00 * w A, P. w P* c0 N 0ý m 04 * l 0 4 a

U4 V2 - -e - 0 c 0 '-0 -40 t -in P

-n lpa ---. c 0

4-Pc~ -n. n..N 'In... 00P. *c3. A w-~ 0.0U.

A# A a 5 0 55

2 ~ 42 Ol - 1 '0 .) - 1 'PA " mP

a I r x ' c

U #. 0". 0.N AJ. ... 9 0-A 9 0..bJ 00 0.'1

0 5-0 400 OO ION. o.- 44# 04 .NA aN c '4-

-4 old e. i, of- a

.0I co -t w) co~~~~~ vs

4 .514 I4 Cý a4.40 4 ~ i~ 4

00t a as

-' to* ~ 4 1

-419 N4 - I N 5smj a ~ 8 a

o 4 ~ .~ . ns~

i~~a

.*t cp g0

- 42 5'- g a a *

aI aCA*

tu N 4 - r P- 4 5N A-4~~~

z5', ap -ý 10,C3,~5) - ~ .. ss *.

aof

a; a . a N Jr.

on4 to7~ in is~

'pc

IT,

X I -T ! : - -- C , C. N~~~L 5 . ~ ~ ~ pp ~ ~ 4 ~

IS-

aO f a * aa - ia~r

.-N

S .44'

soa .. ONO

~~0 -'- ?.J t

C'b

zr *5C . . . f .l4~ .. ¶ '

nn nn1 --

, ~ ~ ~ 2 (P -0 A ... ; e ,,a CL

* u A IIs V =Q . 8- a .M 0 0 40 g N

* ~ 0 grI .ItI U'%J 0.4 Ta9 JI100.UO co i.

6o .. . aa

1 1,*

q v. CO S. 0% z. 6 4 I . IS a . I U

.J Z v i .0 a~ V - -0... -a- 0.aU Oa wa 4 0

* g - V CP * i . 40 C 0 . 3 * 40 * a I It a lp 4 g * U, C D .•, a a a 2 '

.6J

a 6 0 II a S. a S. C. m .4 J, t. U

0 -i

A.

44)_ _I cao - o "VI q . q! or, 3z Z3 z zZ

w ItJ .•a -1 * lm . a b " V 40 a.*m S4 " a u a * -•

a~1 a

.. 4 . 6 0 S P . U S - . C, S. 4* M4-'@5 -A al2 & . , C: -U. i7, I , . .a A

In0 Uf A0 * /60 0 0 0 0 '-3 40 @6 *@ ed

64~i it is 4 4 S 4 . . S

4-40

- b - 2 A& t- m co 4 -u -n w ip do a- r.a *p m ao CX a V a a w 'uc a 3

**~o In OA V U .n A @ .S A -2 0

a Sfu

44

J% v 43 a' .P a, -Y W. a a- a & . a .

4 ~ a IP -6 Cl In 1 4 6 4 - 4 6

3. 4 .. 9.g Ole% 0. -J% V4 .4: Q .. -I, Z

6 -,

A ofti dohi ;a.i C*0 10 *0 01 NI m 0 a, C..

4 11 N 4 4 4 I -6 to a a I If

3- 0 04 3 -A -00 fin 0 0 .00 0 -* In z

* iV IF w w a 4 aZP0 C .MC V To N Y I

4P 4-11N iJ.- A V 0. ~ 0 i iJ 0 - 0 4-.- 4-a

A. @P" CtJO a9 0 A 4 0 - 0 1 ~ -zo 3 * V a J. 1 a N @ 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 i.? 8 ~ .

b-9 1 a I a a If If ~ T V N * 0 V N * ZC, .) V) C V V

A 44

.V. . 0 -. 0 mob -- as -'. .I.0 a'0 a- In 0 a3 -0 -

w N40 UAI a- . 4-: * O @ a c o00 0-@ 4 0 N0 N-

" "e -S t N - N : S N

0I0

IninNb go t fma L .

0~~~~~~~11 It*N0 91 -N @ 0 SV -- 4 0 NV O ~

C.1'

44

APPENDIX C

COMPLETE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

49

TANK CREW STABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Variable code Description

185 Months crew assigned together186 Months crew assigned together on tank used for

Table VIII187 Months crew trained together188 Months Tank Commander and Gunner assigned together189 Months Tank Commander and Gunner assigned together

on tank used for Table VIII190 Months Tank Commander and Gunner trained together191 Months Tank Commander on Table VIII tank192 Months assigned as Tank Commander193 Months trained as Tank Commander194 Months Tank Commander was on M60 tanks195 Months Gunner on Table VIII tank196 Months assigned as Gunner197 Months trained as Gunner198 Months Gunner was on M60 tanks199 Months Driver on Table VIII tank200 Months assigned as Driver201 Months trained as Driver202 Months Driver on M60 tanks203 Months Loader on Tabie VIII tank204 Months assigned as Loader205 Months trained as Loader206 Months Loader on M60 tanks

51

STAT'ISTI-CAL PACKAGE F0N THESOIL 2 S :5PSSM RE~LEASE 6.04

Fi~lE TL K (CREATION VATF a 2ý 77¼

WELATIVE ADJUSTED Cum____ ___ ______ ___ _ -FOLO - 4EjW

CAEOYLABEL C06f ;ýPLQ (PLT) (PCT) CI'CT)

0. 7Q 37."1 57,'a 11.aO

1. 37 j. 17 .5 j@ 51.o00

3, 27 12.8 12.6 62,50

4, 7 3,3 303 8!),80

6. 0 3.6 3,8 91.40

le 1.9 1 .4 53

9. 0s e5 96,20

too 2.9 *9 97.20

A2 1.4 104 96 .6

19. 's .5 99.10

24 9 *9 lOCeco

ToTA ~ u 0 100.0

MEAN - 2,199 SID EWR , MEDIAN Il-MO6t 00C0 STD uE' VARIANCE 11.1;0KURT0318 16.836 SKE'.NES$ 4AGNINtMUP .000 -Fl -4 -1

VALI C ASES- -211' kLSSING CV:

STAT13TICAL PACKAGE FOR TME S0CIAL SCIENCES SP33K R ELEASE 6,04

FILE TANK (CREATION DATE 8 20 DEC 77)

RELATIVE ADJUSTLO CUM

CATEGORY LABEL CODE PRLO (PLTJ (PCTJ (PCT)

0. 80 -379 38.1 38,10

1I 41 19.4 1905 S7060

2. 32 15s.2 7,90

3. 26 .12.3 12.4 85.20

-- S 2.4 2.4 81.60

So a 3.60 38 9.40

be 5 2.4 2.4 95080

7. 3 114 1.4 95.20

8. 3 1.4 1.4 96.70

9. I .5 .S 97.10

1o. 2 'g 1..0 . 96.10

12. 3 1.4 1.4 99.50

190 .95 05 100000

99990 1 65 MISSING 100.0

TOTAL 211 100o0 1O000

-MEAN.914 . .TO ERR•. MDIAN 1.110MODE 1000 STD DEV 2,685 VARIANCE 70208KURTOSIS 9.599 SKEWNESS 2,6Z4 RANGf 1g,9000MINIKUM '000 MAX14UM 19.000

VALiD CASES 210 MISS:NG CASES I

53

STATISTICAL PACKAGE POR IML SOCIAL SCILNCLS SPSSH NELEASL beQ4

F ILE- TANK' -(CRFEAT ION*DT 20 AC 7 ?)

.VARIOTRELATIVE AnJUSTLO cut,

.AR50LUTE FrqLw PRELO kCWIOR ~LL...... COI)L-- FMt.0 CPfLTj (PCT) (PC1)

0, 93 44*1. 44.1 44'.10

4. 210al. 2193 54

2. 32 S j 2 1 .2

3. 18S SO50. 89,10

'I -5 2.4 2.4 91.50

5. -4- 109 -93.'4060 3 1." 1.4 4a

5 2.4 2*4 97.20

1. 02 .9 W9 98.60

1?. 2 .9 .9 99.50

19. 1 .5 as 100900

TTL 21t 100.0 100.0

MEAN ___ 150 SOERR silo MEDIAN .77I8.000 1Th E V 2.4i3- -- lfARiNce- b.00

-59RTOSIS. 44,521 SK E 0-NESS__ _.39?1'4 RANGE - 19.0000MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 19.0000

VAIDCASS- -C i 2 1 MISSNG CSES -- 0'

54

STAT13T!CAL PACK(AGE FOR 704L SOCIAL SCIENCES 3PSS"I REILEASE~ 6,04

FiLL TA~~ (i4ET1UUAILU aUO UtC-71J

ADJ CUM AOJ CUM ANJ CUP-- ~COOla..E-REQ--C~T PZT -.CUDE. -F REG PCT PCT. CODE FREQ PCT P'CT

as 0. 47 2222 6. .14 7 85 12. 6 3 98to 29 14 36 7. 3 1 66 150 a 1 99

aca.l 2 1 46. e 6. d ~89 19. .9 1 too3. 34 16 64 9. 5 a 91 2'a. 1 0 100

.A-.. 4k9-. M-- i - - A -94b. it 5 78 lie a 1ý 95

MEAN .S,53o SID ERR - 269 MEDIAN O.803MODE '000 StD DLV 3.900 VARIANCE 15.212

RANGEl 2*4.000MINIMUM *000 MAXIMUM 24*4000

VALID CASES 21l MISSING CASES 0

55

STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSiH HtLEASL 6,04

F'IL TANK (CREATION UATE a 20 DEC 77)

ADJ CUM A cJ CUMCODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE CFRE u" PY COE FHEG PCT PCT

S4.7_ 22 as 6- . . 5 12. 5 2 981t 31 15 37 7. 5 2 88 1is i 1 99

__ e -__f 13 5 6 ' so 90 16. 1 0 9939 33 16 66 9 4 42 91 19. 1 0 1006i 17 ,a, 74 10. 0 6. 3 94 24, 1 . 0 100

5S 10 S 79 11% 2 1 95

MEAN 3_t431 STO ERR '2b64 MEDIAN 20.82nODE O000 0 D-V .... 830 .. !ARANC

_UPT85S~ewnSS J,995 RANGE ......- 24.000MINIMUM ,000 MAXIMUM 24.0000

VALID CASES - 211 - MISSiNiG CASE5 - 0

56

TAT 1STI CA L PA C AGL FOR THL SO0CIAL C1L NC ES 3 P5S3 Rt LEMS 6.04

FILE TiANSk (CW4EATION DATE 20 DEC 17)

-VARI90

AD.) CUM AD.) CUMI AC. CUP~COE-FR -0 MP PCT-. PODE FREW PCT IP;T

00 54 26 26 6. 12_ 6 90 Is* 1 0 98to 41, 19 45 To 4 2 91 1b* 1 0 99

14 .59 -4,,59 2 93 174. 1 0 993a 20 12 71 9. .2 1 94 19. 1 0 t004. t5 7 __71 _ to 3 _.1 90 24, 1 0 t005. 12 0 84 12. 4 29

PEAN - 2,919 ST 51 ERR _ .25 MEDIAN 1.002~moE .000 '-STD 0EV 136026 VARIANCE- '13.s15s1KURT03SIS .. 5. J¶WS 2441 _ RANGE 24.0000MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 24,000

VALID CASES 211 ýMISSING CASMS 0

57

STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR TMt SOCIAL $CILNCtb SPS$M - "ELASE, *.04

FILE TANK UNL.ATION UATEa 20 IOEC M1

VAR191ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM

_-._CT E .ER PCT PCT.. CODE -__FREQ PCT PCT COOF FHEQ PCT PCr

0. 26 12 12 7. 9 4 67 14, . 1 871* 20 9 Zoe 8. a '4 11 lb* A5 I2, 18 9 30 9, 7 a 74 It, L 0 893. 28 13 44 100 9 4 78 19. 2 1 90

.4 21 10 54 Ile 3 1 80 20. 3 1 91i bb 12. 11 S6 ab 21w d 1 942

6. 1'. 63 13a 1 0 85 24, 17 8 100

MEAN 68639 STD EfR 0'478 "DI-Ak 4.1434ODF . 3.0 ... STo EV 6,943 VARIA•CE 18.212URTOSjS K747 S•KFNSS i.304 RANGE 24*000

MINIMUM '000 MAXIMUM 24,000

VALID CASES 211 MISSING CASES 0

58

3TATISTICAL PACKAGkz POP IHL 50CIAL SCILNCES SP5SH RLLEAS8. 6.04

fL TANK (C;ýATiON U.ATE 20 DEC 77)

VAI2- ADJ CUM AD0CU AOJ CUM

C9iQE~Y1L C __ QFL~ E CT PCT

0. 4 4 1. Q 7 107to 6 3 7 22. 1 0 47 54, 1 0 72

-20.~ 7 3 Ii 23--I ~A i~. 733. 13 6 17 24, 6 3 60 57s 1 0 74

so 5 2 24 2f. 64 2 53 60. 7 3 77b a 2 1 25 18 0AA.~ $1--647. 3 L 26 s0, 1 0@64 64. 1 0 78

- 5128 31. t5796,A~9. 1 0 28 32. 1 0 65 60. 1 0 s010L~. 1. 0~~3 L 4 2 -1-0 1 -It* 3 1 31 S4, 1 0 56 80. 1 0 82

32 0 b 35,------ 58 849,_ _3 1, 83513. 4 2 38 36, 7i 3 17. 1 0 84

1 .0 38..3. 3 4. . 0 -- 8416 3 10~ 39. 1 0 63 94. 1 0 86

242 41, 1_ 0 63 9__617. 0 43 '2, 3 1 65 98 0 8

19. 2 1 145 '68. 7 3 702___2 1-46 S 0-----3LL_ _ 1__7-

CODE FF~C~4REQ CODE _____-

MEA 3.6 SO RR 2,381 MEIAN 24,333MODE Q9 9 0 Q hE jA 34,33.! IA RI 4Mj. I 79 #j 6 6KURT0SIS W.8(,- SI(EwNSS .,74S RANGE 99.0000MINIMUM- -2000 MAXI MiJM99000

59

STATISTICAL PACAAGE FOR THL bOCIAL SCIENCES SP55H - 'ELEASL b.(4

FILE TANK (CREFATION DATE 2 20 DEC 77)

VAPR93ADJ CUM ADJ CUM AVJ Cut,

CODE FREU PCT PCT CODE PNE,_PCT PCT LODE _F V•EJ •cT PCI

0, 7 3 3 18. 5 a 44 51. 1 0 711. 6 3 6 19, f 0 •4 -54 1 0 71

7 3 to 20, 1. ,.0 5 s 50, 1 0 723, 9 a 14 21. 1 0 45 60. 7 J 754, 7 3 17 Z22 2 1 46 O2. 1 0 765. 7 3 21 2 8 ' 40 64. 2 L 71

. b..... 4 2 22 5 : 1 0 51 6S, 1 0 777. 2 1 23 k6, 2 1 52 bag L J 7b4, '4 2 2S 27.,_ 5 2 54 72. 5 2 809. 2 1 26 3. 1 0 55..6..S 1 0 so

I j _ 3 1? 3 6_1 ?.6 60 84. 2 1 81Ile I 29 38. 1 -6 bI6 6 1 0 82... 13? 6 35 40, 1 0 61 91. 1 u 82

13. ' 2 37 41, 1 0 62 96. 3 1 04

L~ 33 4ze S. 2 64 97. a 1 85, '4 2 40 43, 2 1 65 9d, 1 0 8t

AI l - t. . I _ 4•. . , . .. 69 9., 31 1t 10017. 1 0 42 50, 3 1 70

, -.. . ... . . . .- %.4 S 3 IY .N G 0 T A .....

COOE FRGCC0E FRLEDOE FE

9999. ,

MEAN 3b,057 SID ERR 2.418 MEDIAN 2494376E g9i.0-00 S5, DEV 34.91 VARIANCE .1A221.545

KURTOSIS -.969 SA*NESS 702 .FAGE 99,000MINIMUM .000 99.000

VALID CASES i09 M1SSI'G CASES 2

60

//

3TA ,T IST ,I CA4 PA CKAGL FOR THL SOCIAL SCILNCLS S$pSii RkLLASL be4M

YAI4ANJ CUM ADJ CU ANJ CUM

"_.yci pr. PC r oo!E &T, LLPC

0. 2 A 1 23- 4_ 2- 8 59. 1 0 61

S I a a4* 12 6 34 bo i b 6

a, I.j as 9 32 5. L6-62 e - -1 0 67

3. a 4 7 2b$ 3 1 37 64. 2 1 68

a 9.-A -1 -i (15 q6 2 1 69

5'. is so23. 5 2 40 60. 4 1 71

2 1 13ý -,32. 3 A241, 67. 3 1 72

7, 1 0 1~4 141 1 0 42 69. 2 1 73

~.- 4a 6 35. oiL0. ~ 7, . 74

9. 2 2 36. 9 4 47 72. e 76

10.~36 2 .. J---4.----- 47 _ 4 __ 71

12. 3 18 38. 2 149 75 1 o0773 1 20 '4. 1- -' a9 I8 1 0 7

14. 1 0 20 42, 1 0 s0 79. 1 0 76

45 0 i 's, . so e 4- 2 --S1. 1 0 21. 48, 9 4 54 850 1 0 80

17. 3L3...4 9

. 2 8 g 2-, 1 8.

%8 24 a0 1 2 56 91. 0 b2

20. 2 1 25 55. 1 0 59 99. 37 16100o

MISSING DAT

MODE EY00 5 ! ..33,? VARIANCE 1103.892

I(UTOIS -1.246 SKEONES3 .23 MNE-----99.000

VALID CASES 208 MISSING,~

61

STAT13TICAL PACKAGE FOR~ tI1k SOCIAL 3CILNCLS SP53Hi R ELEASt bpQ4

T ILf TA-,N-9 (--CREATION DATE' M20-DEC 71) -

YA RI95.ADJ Cum ADJ cum AUJ CUe4

---- JQAL FREWJ PCT PCT __CODE Fwt.Q PLT PCT CODE I-REW ICT PCT

0, 31 15 jS 7, 7 3 7? IN. 1 0 9e1* 28 146 29 8, 10 b 82 lee 1 0 912s 25 1? 461 9, 6 3 85. 1g. 1 0 933, 21 t0 51 10. S 2 87 aus a 1 94.

11 a~85 1 4 *28 22. 1 0 95!j. 14 7- '1-6 12. 5 27 91 24. It 5 100

--- -16 8 73 15, 1 0 92m 3!S1 4 G D AT A

CODE FRfQ CODE PHE.Q CoI)E FR4EW~

9999. '

5,346 $TO EIRR *'622 fqEuIAN 3.'129-P!DF. - 0.000.- 3TD OEV .6.0*9 VARIANCE. 36*830KURT031S 2.887 SI(EVNESS 1.830 MAIYGE 24*000MITUL- -1000-- -4AXIMUM.- -... 0000

-YALID.CASFS- 207 M.ISSING CA3ES. 46 .

62

STATISTICAL PALKAGL FOR 104L SOCIAL SCILNLLES 5P5S' - Lt~ASL 6.94

FILE TANK CCkE A-1O L)AT Pi 20i U Of4i C 77)

ADJ Cr'm AOJ CUM' hO, CUre-;OgE __FREWPCT PCT COOE FRLQ OLT PCT ILOVE FNLU PCT PCT

0. 1 3 3 13. 2, 1 67 27. 1 0 89to 18 9 12 14. a 1 7 28. 2 1 89

as 6 a 20 is* 2 .' I 8 29, 1 0 903. 13 6 26 10. 5 a it 30o 4 d Vie

Lki2 -- fi. j7 172 33. JS 1 93So 13 6 38 18. 6 3 75 36. 6 3 90be 12 6 44 19, 1 0 75 3/o. 1 0 977. 6' 3 46 20. a 1 76 39.* 1 0 9?at 0 3 A9 22. 1 0 17 460 4 1 999. 4 2 51 22o 3 1 j8 60. 0100o

I Q~jL _.. - . 5a ~ 2 41__ _A7 . 86'sa 61, 1 0 100It* 0 3 57 25, 3 1 do12. to 9I 60 a6. 1 o b8

M I SS ING A T ACODE -FRE41I CODE ._ FREG ý(OOE PNFEQ

12EA j627 3 To ERR 6 .35 MEDIAN 8.875MODE 1.000 8To 0EV 12.076 VARIANCE 145.631KURT0S13 11952 SKE"NESS 1*401 RANGE 61.000"InMU~M L Q MAXJMsjy .10O ._

VALID CASES .209 MISSING CASES 2.

63

37411STZCAL PAC'(AGV FOR~ ?ni SOCIAL SCZLN~CES SP33fl - ELEAUt 6.0olIIILF T?*'K (COLATIONi DAL a 2o urc in'

WAR 19?ADJ cum I AOJ Cum O U- .CODE -FREW~ PCT PCt COOL, P'REQ PCT Pct AODt PfuPTPcum

0, 6 3 3 14. 1 70 30. a 1 91to 20 to 1a is: 2 6 ? 31. £ 0 91a. 17 a 21 166 2 6 8 3J, a 921. 11 5 20 17. 1 0 9 15 a 9,e1., to 9 1 189 6 _3 12 3, 4 i 94so 12 a 40 19. 2 1 7.3 30. 1 0 956g 14 7 47 20. 2 1 74 39. 1 0 's7. it,'o I~ is. j 918, 4 2 so 22, a 75 ~ 0 9690 1 5 24. 20 12 86 600, ~ i911 &- 5. j16. 2 0 88 19 990 0142. 21 10oe 2. a1 a 09 99, 013. 1 0 66 29 go 0 90o

CODE FREWJ CODE FREQ CODE FREW-'9999, 2

MtAtI ~ TD tR1 1.o904.j9MD 24,000 3tD FYi 0V 1 74.7 VAMNgtdCt ddI.254jKURTOS545 70349 SgEWNESS 2.261 MANGE 900MIýI10U4m 000 MAXI~qMUM 9.VALID CASES 29 MISSING CASES 2

64

STATIST ICAL PAIKAc(i VOr tHt SOCIAL SCI-tNCLS SPSS" - ELLASL b.v4

FILE TANI CCEATION DATE a 20 CEC 17)

VYAR96AOJ CUm AOJ CUM ADJ CUM

CODE FLA P.LTLPCT ..... f.Dl., -FL9 PCT.P CT CODE FIEU PCT PCT

0. 2 1 1 220 2 1 33 41. a 1 811. 2 1 2 23, 4 2 3b 42. it 1.88

.. . 3 ... . 37 18 b3 "4, 1 0 883. 2 1 4 25. 7 3 56 Wit 1 0 89a,. k 2_ 6. 3 60 46, 1 0 896. 8 4 10 270 7 3 63 48. h i 9a

as. .. 2 . i as 283 . 13 64 bb 1 0 92

10. 2 1 12 29. 2 1 6S 5q, 1 1 93- Is. Z 1 13 30. 6 3 68 60, 6 3 9o1. 8 4 17 32. 5 e 71 bo. 1 0 97

.. .. J A A**- -3 __1 __0 71 bb, 1 0 91ISO 0 2 21 34, 6 3 14 70. 1 0 98

. 1...6. 2 1 .22 35, 3 1 75 71, 1 0 9817. 1 1 23 36. lb 7 53 78. 1 0 99

- 10.1- 6, . .27 .37. 3 1 84 92, 1 0 9919. 4 2 29 38. 1 0 85 96. 1 0 1002.A .•,-_3 .. - 86 99, 1 0 10021. 2 1 32 40o 1 0 86

CODE E~4 CODE- FREGGD FHtEQ

99990 3

M27N . •7,47 5TO ERR 18167 MEnIAN 24.338MODE 24.0CO STO DEV 16.834 VARIANCE 283.369.URT0SIS 3.240 SKwNS$ .. 1,390 IANGL 990000MINIMUM *OCO MAXIMUM 99.000

VALID CASiS 208 1ISSING CAStS 3

65

"0TATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR TME SOCIAL ICI&NCLS 3P3$" - RELLASL 6,04

FILE TANK CCRETIONi DATE -- DEC 77)..

ADJADJ CU JCUAJ CU

CO.....9DE FREW PCT P; OE FREQ PCT FCT LOOk. FHEU eCT PCT

O. 43 21 2 6, 10..57 7 Tb, s a 911t 27 13 35 9, 5 2 79 160 i 1 94

-....- -- .. 20 10 4S 10. 6 3 82 199 1 0 953. is ? ba lie I -as5 20, 1 1 96t a 4 S6 12, 8 4 09 21, a 1 97

So 0 •. 4 .. .24. 3 too. .6t8 9 69.. 14, 2 1 907. 6 3 72 15. 1 0 91CO.. .. .... - .. $I 581 N G .... _A T

CODE FREW CODE- FRLQ tODE FRE0

9999. 11

NMEAN_ _ _ "_ STD.ERR 942? - -MEDIAN 3.167MODE .000 STO 0EV 6,035 VARIANCE 36.424_KURTOaSS -1091~SJ.4O - RANGE 249.000MINIMUM *000 MAXIMUM 24.000

VALID CASES 200 MISSING CASES it

66

-TATISTICAL PACIAGL F OR 1T SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSM R $ELLASE boQ4

FILF TARK (CREZAT ION DATE 20 DEC 77)

.-VAR200 ... . . ..ADJ CUM ADJ CUM AOJ CUM

.i~..F~!LCC Pi.ý-!U~ A PCT.~ 100E FREW, PCT PCT

..... 1.4 7 1 .. 7 , 69 27, 4 2 921. 24 12 19 13. 1 0 69 28. 1 0 922 a 21 10 29 14 .s 3 1 71 29. 1 0 933. 14 7 36 15. 2 1 72 30. 2 1 9'.*40 3 -A37-. __. 2 73 _32f 2 1 955, 2 1 38 18. 12 6 78 33. 1 0 9S

IS_ ... 15 7. 46 19,. 3 - 1 80 36, b 2 987. 6 3 49 20. 3 1 81 41. 1 0 96

13, .. 6 6 55 a1. 2 I 82 42, 1 0 9990 8 a 4 5q 22 1 0 83 44. 1 0 9918 84 3 133 2 4 609 1 0 100

It* 5 2 65 24, 12 6 90 68. 1 0 100M I S S I N G DA T A

CODE.FCOEQ CDE FREu CODE FREU

9999. 7

MEAN 1 STO ERR 804 MEDIAN 79731MODE 1,000 STO DEV 11,483 VARIANCE 131.854

RTDS$.... 3o656 SKEWINESS .... 6. 6 RANGE 68,000MINIMUM 0000 MAXIMUM 68000

VALID CASES 20'* - mISSI 6 CASES 7

67

STATISTICAL PACKAGL VON TNk SOCIAL 8C1UNCES SPS$" - NELEASL **u4

FILE TANi CCNEATION J ATL A 20 UEC 77)

__VAIZOI A... . ... ... . ... . .

AOJ cum AOJ CUM AOJ CUMCODE ,F[ PCT PCT CODE PRNL PCT PCT LUOL 9f4L PCI PCI

1. 7 7 13. .. 2 1 67 27, 1 0 901. 2b 12 19 1u, 3 1 69 28, 1 0 91a&, 2.. 20 10 29 15 ... 6 3 72 29, 1 0 913. la 6 35 16, a 1 13 30. 4 i 93

. .9 1 74 31, .. 1 0 945. 3 1 41 la, 10 5 78 32. 3 1 95

13 o 47 . 19. 3 1 80 33. 1 0a 97. b 6 a 0 20. 3 1 a1 3. 4 de 964.1.. A3_..6. 5s o 21a '1 0 82 38. 1 0 969. 4 2 -58 23. 2 1 83 42. 1 0 99

1'. _ L__ _ . . _, .. ... . .2 4 . 44a 1 0 99lie 4 2 62 a5s 3 1 69 60. 1 0 100

_ . .4.42 . ... _ ...._ 4 66 2. t . 2 1 90 60o I 0 lO1M1SSING DATA

. [ S.• ...... ... .. CODE _YQ CODE FRfU

AN 116 ........ TER .. ..... 'e..- mEDIAN 7,577MODE 1,000 __SID 0Ev 11*585 _VARIANCE _L340219KURTOSS 3 SKENESS 3.... 105861 ANGE 6.9000MINIMUM .0.. .J., @.. o o . ..........

__AU_ _CAtS3 2Q. _ MISSING CASES 7

68

STATZSTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSN - RELEASE 6.04

FILE TANK (CREATION VATL 20 DEC 77)

0J CU?4 AoJ CVU ADJ CUMCODE FREQ P PCT COOE I•IO t ..... - DE... FRE. PCT PCT

.. 3 3 . . 17&- . . .. 1, 59 34. 1 1 891 15 a 11 18 12 6 bs 36. 4 2 91

4. L . . 7 a . 19 .a 4 . 267 _37, 2 1 923. $ 4 22 20. 2 1 60 38, Z 1 934. 3 2 23 21, 3 _4 . 2 . 945o 4 2 Za 22. 2 1 71 43. 1 1 95

10 IS _30 23 1 71 .... 44. a 1 967. 9 5 35 24, 9 5 76. 48. 1 1 96

12_ . 41 25 . 3 2 77 50, 1 1 979. 4 2 43 26. 3 2 79 56. 1 197

10, 3 2 4'4 272 S5 381 1 1 9011. 2 1 45 28. 3 2 83 60. 1 1 90

S 1 550 19 _ 84 61. 1 1 9913. S 3 53 30, •4 2 86 72. 1 1 99

. 1.. . 53 31g . . 2_ 1 87 80. 1 1 100150 6 3 56 32. 3 2 8a16, 4 2 58 33. 1 1 .

P 1 I S I N G DA T A

~Q0 ~ ~ C9 i- CODE- FREG

MEAN 16.286 STO ERR 1.036 MEDIAN 12*450MODE __ _1 aoo_- STDO DLV 14,619- VARIANCE- 4e131214KURTOSIS 2,438 SkEWNESS 1.398 MANGE 80.000

VALTO CASES t99 MISSING CAS[j s 1

69

STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCE3S SPSSH RELEASE 6,04

FILE TANK CCREATON -DATE - 0 D-C 17)

ADJ CUm. AOJ CUP' AOJ CU"

492asit5 74. 863 3 IS. 1 1 951. 36 18 43 8, 7 4 86 16. 2 1 9625 Z 11 56 *9 , _Z -.8 :9 1 1 9730 12 6 62 t0, 6 3 91 20. 1 1 974. 15 S 69 111 5 3 93 2... 3 100

. 9 5 74 12. 2 1 94 _

6.L..2 .. 6 Q 14 1 95CODE REMG DATA

FRQ --- CUODE- FREG - _ OOK FRE9

9999. , 1 _. . . . . . . .

* MAN 3,55 -ST ER - 3,1 MEDIAN' 20060.STO DV .-.. 5,06 VARIANCE 25.871

KURTOS1 4a,890 3KEONE3S 2.11-2 RANGE 24.000MINIMUM .M..AXIMUM. 2,,000

_VALIl..A. ... . . '4SSmGC. AS _13 ..

70

STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THL SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSII RELLASL boUiI

fILE TA.NK CcRE ATION OATE..a 20 D EC ?7)

ADJ CUM AJCUM OJCU"O~UL, F~t PE F'Cf PT CODE, -1ftV. PCT PCT CUI)E FIRE0 PCT IFCT

0. 14 7 1 lie 1 '4 71 24, 7 4 91. 37 19 26 12. 9 5 82 .250 a 1 96

2. 2:i 13 38 13. 2 1083 260 1 1 91is 114 7 45 1'4, 1 1 83 29. 1 1 97

I. 16 8. bý3 15. 2 1 814 3ot 1 1 985. 6 3 56 16, 2 1 85 32* 1 1 986. 14 7..63 L8,~ 8 4869 33, 1 1 99

7, 6 j 66 19, 2 1 90 30. 1 1 99a, a 4 70 20, 1 1 91 38. 1 lo109. 2 1' 71 21. 1 1 91

A . a 3 74 _23C.- 1 92MISS-iI NG D AT A

CODE FREWJ CODE Ff~EQ CoOI FREG

MEAN '1*.17 $10 ERR *sit MEDIAN 40094-MODE 1,000 3TO 0EV 8O VA9NIANCE 64.965KURTOSIS 1,945 SAEWNESS 10560 kANGE 38.000MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM.......8,000

VALID-USES[ _199 -- MISSING CAS-E&S 12

71

STATISTICAL PACKAUL ýNU TMt SUCIAL 3CILNCLS SPSS - RELLLASU ,p4

-IL -AN _ C ACEATION UATCEUZ6O LL 71)

VAR205AOJ Cilm ADJ CUM ADJ Cum

_Q.f PCT PCT COD... -tiRo PCT PCT COOL FREO PCT PCT

O 1 7 7 It, 6 3 16 2s, 2 1 95.o 40 20 a? 120 12 6 62 26. 1 u 962. 26 13 40 14, 2 1 a3 29. 2 1 973. 13 6 47 ISO 2 1 84 30, 1 0 97

-.... . _ -.53 _16, . _ 2 86 32. 1 0 96be a 4 S7 18, 9 4 90 3b5 1 u 96

. 9e 9 ' 4 62 19, 1 0 91 Joe I a 9970 9 4 66 20. 1 0 91 386 1 0 99

. .. . 2. 1 .67 21, 0 92 ad, 1 0 t009. 7 3 71 23, 1 0 92

1.... 7• .. 24q_ 4_ 2 94M I S S I N G 0 A T A

'.. CODE FREW CODE FRLQ CODE F'Eg

_9999s-. 11.

MEAN 7.25 .STO ERR .605 MEDIAN 3.962.-MODE .. 1,000 b1n OfV 8o5b8 VARIANCE 73.241

KURTOSIS 3,•q1 SKE*MESS 1.803 RANGE 48.000MINIMUM .000 MAXI•M 48soOUO

_YAL-D CASES _40Q9 .. MI9SSING CASES it.

72

3 ATISTICAL PACK AGE FOR THL SOCIAL SCIENCES SPSSM KtLEASE 0.04

VFILE TAýNW (CCEATION 0A1'',e6 U0~EC 77)

-YAR206ADJ Cum ADJ CUM AOJ CUM9

I.G.~ C9YC LT QL_.RtQJ PCT PCT COUk. Pi*.W ICT PCI

0~ 8 4 4 3. 1 6 2~. 2 1861* 14 7 it 14. 2 1 63 28. 3 2 872c 17 9 20 ISO 2_. I1 64 290 2 1 8830 6 4 24 16. 5 3 66 30, 4 2 9v

_7~ 1 32 a8 0 7 1 915. 3 31 19. 2 1 72 33. 1 1 91

be6. 16 a 39 .20. 4 _2 74 360 9 5 967. 9 5 43 21. 3 2 76 37. 1 1 96

_ , 47 22, 1 176 39. 1 97

9. 4 St 23. 2 1 7? 41. 2 1 98j ~ 53 5 ~ ~ ~ 2 683 43. 1 98

lie 5 3 56 26. 1 1 84 a8 1 99* 12. 11 61 26, _z 1- 85, 71. 1 1 100

M I SSINhG D AT ACODE_ FREQ C.D .R. CODE FE

MEN13,44 ST ER.86 _MEDIAN -90286-MODE a,000 STO, DEV 12,241 - VARIANCE 14.0KURTOSIS 1,788 SiAEON~ESS 1,251 RANGL 71.0000

VALjC.A8SFS -199 MISSINGCA$ES 12

73

APPENDIX D

OUTLINE OF THREE DAY TRAINING PROGRAM

75

OUTLINE OF THREE DAY TRAINING PROGRAM

PRETRAINING CONDITIONS: Given soldiers who are properly motivated andpossess the physical and mental aptitudes required of NOS liE and quali-fied tank commanders and drivers, gunners and loaders can be trained toperform the following operations in three days of training:

OBJECTIVES:

DAY 1

GUNNER. The gunner will be able to perform the following operations inan M6OAl during day or night.

I. Given an operational CVC helmet, the gunner will connect it to theGunner's Control Box in an M6OAl, adjust the volume of the incoming signaland communicate on intercom.

2. Given a protective mask, the gunner will mask, connect to the Gunner'sM3 Heater in an M6OAI and check operation of the heater.

3. Given a direction from the commander to prepare the gunner's stationfor operation, the gunner will:

a. Manually elevate and depress the main gun.b. Manually traverse the turret.c. Prepare the Gunner's Telescope for operation with the HEP reticle.d. Prepare the Gurner's Periscope for operation.e. Place the turret in power operation.f. Turn the Ballistic Computer on and adjust the illumination of

the dials.g. Operate the Azimuth Indicator.h. Operate the Elevation Quadrant.

4. Given a direction from the Tank Commander to prepare-to-fire, the gunnerwill perform the gunner's duties in the Prepare-to-Fire checks.

S. Given .a precision fire command for SABOT or HEAT from a stationarytank to a stationary target, the gunner will:

a. Turn main gun switch ON.b. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.c. Index the proper ammunition in the Ballistic Computer.d. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Periscope within

10 seconds during daylight and 15 seconds at night.e. Announce ON THE WAY and squeeze an appropriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

77

~ ~ - - --

6. Given a blttlesight fire command from a stationary tank to astationary target, the gunner will:

a. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.b. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Periscope within

8 seconds during daylight and 12 seconds at night.c. Announce, ON TME WAY and squeeze an appropriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

7. Given a fire command and an unidentified target, the gunner will

announce, CANNOT IDENTIFY within 8 seconds.

8. Given a HEP fire command and a range, the gunner will:

a. Identify the target and announce, IDENTIFIED.b. Take up the proper sight picture in the Gunner's Telescope within

10 seconds during daylight and 15 seconds at night.c. Announce ON THE WAY and squeeze an app-opriate trigger after

receiving the command to fire.

9. Given a fire command for range card lay to direct fire and rangecard data with no ammunition charge, the gunner will be able to fire around within 45 seconds.

DAY 2

10. Given a SABOT or HEAT fire command to a moving target, the gunnerwill apply the appropriate lead, track the target and fire from thegunner's Periscope when given the command.

11. Given a IIEP fire command to a moving target, the gunner will applythe appropriate lead, track the target and fire from the Gunner'sTelescope when given the command.

12. Given a first round miss the gunner will sense the round, announcehis sensing and apply BOT to stationary and moving targets.

13. Given a subsequent fire command, the gunner will apply the milchange and the target form methods of adjustment with the periscope andthe range technique with the telescope.

14. Given a fire command to conduct area poxnt or suppressive fire withthe coax to a stationary target from a stationary or moving tank, thegunner will:

78

a. Index JIEP on the Ballistic Computer.b. Turn the coax switch ON.c. Identify the target and announce IDENTIFIED.d. Take up the proper sight picture and fire a burst within S seconds

during daylight and 10 seconds at night.e. Walk fire onto the target.i. Execute the "Z" pattern of fire for area coverage.

15. Given a misfire of a 105mm round, the gunner will perform the gunner'sportion of misfire procedures.

16. Given a stoppage of the coax, the gunner will perform the gunner'sportion of the stoppage procedures.

17. Given a 105mm round, the gunner will hand it from the ground to acrew member standing or the tank.

DAY 3

18. Table VII Modified (subcaliber and main gun). Six main gun rounds were

fired during the day and 4 were fired at night.

DAY 1

LOADER. The loader wil.l be able to perform the following operations inan M60A1 during daylight or darkness.

1. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will turn thetank communications system ON or OFF at the AM 1780.

2. Given a CVC helmet, the loader will attach it to the Loader's RadioControl Box, adjust the volume of the incoming signal and transmit onthe.tank intercom system.

3. Given a protective mask, the loader will mask, attach to the tank gasparticulate filter system and check operation of the M3 Heater in responseto or direction from the tank commander.

4. Given one 1iEP, SABOT and HEAT round, the loader will identify eachround by shape and color.

S. Given one belt of 7.62mm and one belt of .50 caliber ammunition,the loader will be able to identify the 7.62mm ammunition.

6. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will dismountthe M219 machine gun from the tank.

79

7. Given a M219 machine gun and a direction from the tank commander,the loader will mount the coax in the tank.

8. Given a M219 machine gun and a direction from the tank commander,the loader will perform immediate action on coax.

9. Given two belts of 7.62mm ammunition and direction from the tankcommander, the loader will link the belts together.

10. Given a belt of 7.62mn ammunication and a direction from the tankcommander, the loader will fill the bananna box.

11. Given a belt of 7.62mm ammunition and a direction from the tankcommander, the loader will load the coax machine gun.

12. Given a loaded coax machine gun and a direction from the tankcommander, the loader will unload and clear the machine gun.

13. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will groundguide the driver.

14. Given 105mm rounds through the loader's hatch, the loader willproperly stow the ammunition in all stowage areas.

1S. Given the command to prepare-to-fire from the tank commander, theloader will perform the loader prepare-to-fire procedures.

DAY 2

16. Given a direction from the tank commander, the loader will manuallyopen the main gun breech.

17. Given a fire command for a main gun battlesight engagement, theloader will within 3 seconds:

a. Clear the path of recoil.b. Place the main gun safety switch to Fire and announce UP.c. Secure another round of the same type and reload as required

until commanded to cease fire.

18. Given an empty open breech, and a main gun fire command from thetank coumander, the loader will within 5 seconds:

a. Select the proper type of ammunition.b. Load the round into the breech.c. Clear the path of recoil.d. Place the Main Gun Safety Switch to Fire and announce, UP.e. Secure another round of the same type and reload as required

until commanded to cease fire.80

19. Given an announcement of MISFIRE from the gunner, the loader will

perform the loader misfire procedures.

20. Given a coax fire command, the loader will:

a. Insure that the coax is loaded, the safety is in the fireposition and announce UP.

b. Standby the coax prepared to apply immediate action.

21. Given direction from the tank comnander, the loader will changebarrels on the coax within 15 seconds.

22. Given the announcement of STOPPAGE by the gunner, the loader willperform immediate action on the coax.

23. Given a direction by the tank commander, tke loader will fire thecoax manually.

24. Given a loaded main gun and a direction from the tank commander toload a different type of ammunition, the loader will unload, restow andreload the new type of ammunition within 20 seconds.

25. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will scan theloader's area of responsibility and identify targets by type, directionand range within 400 meters.

26. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will operatethe turret vent blower.

27. Given a direction by the tank commander, the loader will disposeof coax brass.

DAY 3

28. Table VII

81

APPENDIX 2

MAIN GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TARLE

83

MAIN GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

Battlesight Scale

Points 75 72 69 66 63 60 SS SO 45 40 35 28 21 14 7 0

Time 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20

Precision.Scale

Points 75 72 69 66 63 60 S6 52 48 44 40 35 39 2S 20 17 14 11 8 S 0

Time 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

85

APPENDIX F

MACHINE GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

87

MACHINE GUN OPENING TIME/POINT TABLE

Machine Gun Opening Time/Point Table

Suppressive FireS'I

Points 20 19 18 17 16 is 12 9 6 3 0

Seconds 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is

Points 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 1 0

Seconds S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s

89

APPENDIX G

SLH4ARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EUJIPMENT FAMILIARITY

91

\/

0-'.4

Cu

'.4 v 4

4)

'44 '~00

cr

t~~~4Ln~(1 'L C' 4 0 .

uj~ cc- u TL N )%

-4 Cu -. 4 4 #~ 140I-s Nm 0 .O

-44 Ou 0 '0'C- - 11, 00 C)t'n c o M %0 00 flO r- 0 uCO

Cz 1; .4W 1 C .

CL.0-V 0~ OO t n 0WO 0 0)0 0n

ua 0.=u M ti '0'.- 09 `9O- l)L

00 Mu -- 4 '4 NO 0 -

to~tl 0 1/) atU)p 4 nL

C: 4 ~V- CO -4 41)0

C4u

0~~~~~~~ _U.0'. Ot)4)~~ #4 1)4)

4).C

Cu c-

4 A CD J (D )0 01

4 ).C 4.0 CC: o

0 .0 to .0 0 #4Vf~e4 mUC../3rq-4 r. > )

.,q g E 410 41 Cf,-I4-JO 4J U 4.44 4J 0 Cu 3 et

CL <30 . # - -0)0u

W~'>-$.a Cu ~ u C 930

APPENDIX H

SIUMARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY - DAY

9s

C4

)( 4 Go0 jAG ai

,.0,0 04t (O4eI co I- LA

P-.J 1r4 C4 LA0 qr (4 (40 AC~ O4lf 169tO -

r= . C4In*.4 CC40. C4 N LA- 0nL n L n0 L

*-. "r' It

0.m (UA 1 ý .44tOf

C4 'l0 0 LfLfnf~ ;Al mo

U._

LA C4 C - 1.4 O

cicc

I=O t 4 c %0 w4 9ý 0 0000

o Go-%

$44

.~4 NM -4 0 .,4- co '

0 0 cin -13Ct.4 4 _..4 -0

0)~ 0 4-A

$41~ z z Z0. 9:

.4 %>~4 i if f 0. r_ 0.

-$4 .4C: -- 4 ~ -. ,4 r.4 >*-4

z. 41-4.- 41.. -4 4J 4J -1

~4J4J0 0- ( 4 +A0 0 --4- ec

WU(UZ)- c'cI)Z~ I-. cc297I

APPENDIX I

SUMMARY DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY - NIGHT

99

/

0.0

U4.44

MUU CD~O LM i o

rn00 0 0

C -C L iU~ 0 V O.in "r4O 1- t1gU

0. '40".4F

Ln. u0 0 coN40qro 40.) eq if .0 0 . Cc Lf -- 4 ~ 4 . . 4 0 0 4

4N tCCU

.40 "'r- Ln O O N 0 n-*d 00%00 00O e~q 01

0' NOO% 0 ULO0u 0 140 LACfen r 41 0 a ~ j 4 S m NlCU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .CU' C44* .O

o . 4 - 4 . ' 4- 8

0& O 0 0 020

Cl -VNO '" 00 -# Go

'4N -0 rO' u

M~ -4_4 "

CUCU. 4 '1 '0 '04- O 0 41*4L fl0 ' * 0 09:* 0

C6

~00 Do~ 0 0 t rU,,

4.>

*~~~0 1~ .

DISTRIBUTION

ARt Distribution List

4 04W0 (MIRA) 2 NOIJSACOEC. Ft Ord, ATTN LAtWu2 HOOA IOAMI CSZ1 I HOUSACOEC. Ft Ord. ATTN. ATEC-:'(- E -Hunt Faciltie.I HOOA IDAPE PerF 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATTN LibaryI HQOA (DAMA-ARI I USAPACDC. Ft SBenjamuun Haritson, ATTN; ATCP-IHRI HOCIA OAPE HRE PO) IUSA Comrm- Elect Sch, IIIMonmouthu.AT- . ATSN-EAI HOOA (SGRO IM I USAEC.Ft~oomoutt' ATTN AMSEL-CT tIopI #4OOA tOAMI OGT rl I USAEC, Fr teovouth,.ArmN AMSEL-PA- P

HOOý DAP PoM' PA) I USAFC. Ft Morim. ijth, ATTN. AMSFL--SIt-CBIHGOA IDACl4-PP? At I USAEC. Fit Monmouth, ATTN- C. Fatoe~ DewrIHOCA fDAPE ARE) I USA MateriahSirs Anal Agcy. Aturn`r.,n. ATTN- AMXSY-P

I HMOA tDAPE MPO C) I Ecigwood Arsen... Ahordieon. ATTN- S.'.REA- HL. -HI HOOA IDAPE DWI I USA Otn Cir & Scht. Aherirtep ATTN: ATSL -TEM -C

IHODA tf)APE-HRL) I2 USA Ht~m Soge Lab. Aberdeen, ATTN L~bryffl-rI 84004 (DAPE CP'S) I USA Comotat Arms. Tng Si, Ft Benning. ATTN. Ad SupevrisorI I400A (t)AFO 14FAI I VtS, infantry Wime Rsch Unit. Ft SeMonolo. ATTN: ChiiefI HOCA IOARD ARS P1 I EISA tnlantrv Sd. Ft 8.rsiong. ATTN: STEBC-TE -TI kO.'.A (OAPC-PAS A) I USASMA, Ft Bliss. ATTN- ATriS--LRCI 14ODA fOUSA OR; I USA Air D).f Sch. Ft Blits. ATTN. ATSA .CTD MEI HOOA (DAMO-ROR) IUSA Air Def Set'. Ft Bliss. ATTN: Tech, LibI HODA (OASG) I USA Air Or'f Sd. Ft Sliss. ATTN: FILES1 H0OA!OAIO-Pt I LISA Air Oaf 9d. Fit Shiv. ATTN: STEBO-P0I Chief. Corjult? Div (DA-OTSGI. Adioloh-. MO I USA Cmrvd II Genvers! SO Coill.g. Ft Lpaenwwoh. ATTN: LibI Nil Asst Hum Res. ODDR&E, DAD (E&LS) I USA Cmnd 8& General Sit College. Ft Leaivenworth, ATTN: AlSW-SE- LI HO0 USARAL. APO Seottle, ATTN ARAGP At I USA Cold II Genierat SOf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Ed Advisoir11 NO Firit At".~ ATTN AFKA-01 T1 I USA Co~mbined Armsr Ceorit Dewr Act. Ft Leibipiiworttl. ATTN: DetiCde2 NO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Hamattn I USA Combined Alnll; Cmbt Dow Act, Ft Laaevenworlth. ATTN CCSI Dir, Artri Stf Studiet Ofc. ATTN. OAVCSA IOSI I USA Combined rnrms Crnbt Dew Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCA^AI Ofr.Ch~ef of Sth. Stud,"s Ohc I USA Cam') tied Arms. Cmtit Onv Act, Ft Leavernlorth, ATTN: ATCACt'i- -I OCSPtER. ATTN: CPS CCP I USA Combinerd Aims Cmtbt Dow Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: AdCACC C:The A'my Lib. Pentagon. Al ITII. ASS Chint I USAFCOM. Niqrit Viion Lat, Ft Selvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SO

I The Army Lib Pie,,agoi, ATTN, ANRAL 3 USA Comoute. Sys Crrd. Fe Bevnnir. ATVN Tech. Library1 Oft. Ant Sect of the Army IR&DI I USAMEROC. Ft Befvoir, ATTN STSFS- 00I Tech Siajcori Ofc. OJtCS I USA Eniq Set.. Ft Delvo'. ATTN LibraryI USASI.. Arlington, ATTN; tARt) T I USA Taoo.7~replhic Lao. F. cSefvoir. ATTN: ETL -TO-S1 USA Rs.$9 Ofc. Durtiam, ATTN: L:teSciences Oir I USA Towopgmhic Lab. Ft eilioir. A7TN STINFO Center2 USARIEM. Natick. ATTN: SGIA0 UC-CA 1 USA Tripograomic Lab. Ft deuo-r, ATTN: ET..-GSLI UJSATTC. Ft Clayton1 ATTN: STETC.MO A I USA Imnt~iitionce Crr & So

t. Ft Huadtiuca. ATTN: CTD-MS

I USAIMA. Ft ,aim. ATTN- ATSU CTO.OM 1 USA tntetl~qeinet C'r & S&t. Ft Huacthuca* ATTN: ATS-CTDO-MSI USAIMA. Ft Sraitg. TTN. Marrtuat Lits I USA intelligence C". II Sct.. Ft 4uac'iiea. ATMN ATSI-TEI us wC Ct &S.I McCletlla. ATTN Lib I USA tnteliigence Ctr & Scn. Ft Huichiuce. ATTN: ATSt-TEX-GS1 US WAiC Ctr & Suit. Ft McClellan. ATTN: Tog DOr I USA tntelligonow Ctr II Sc1h. Ft Huactiuca. ATTN: A-.SI-CTS--ORt LUSA O.tr.perSeti. Ft Lao, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA tntallitionce Ctr & Scfr. Ft Huistiuco, ATTN: ATSt-CTGD-T11 Intell-geiice Miteriat Dow Oft. EWL. Ft Holabird I USA totrfligence Ct. & Set,. Ft Hi~act ica. ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CSI USA SE S~ratSch Ft Gordonr. ATrN ATSO.EA I USA Inrteligence Ctr &Sch. Ft Huv,,uca. ATTN. OAS/SRDI USA Chaplxii Ctr & Scfh Ft Hamilton. ATTN: AI'SC-TE.FIO 1 USA t..telhoence Ctr & Set.. Ft Huschucaj ATT`N ATSI-Th:MI USATSCH. FtEtit ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intr~tiwice Ctr & Sh.. Ft Htachiuce, ATTN- Library1 USA War C.tk'qn. Cart ste Barractkt. ATTN! Lub I CDRl. HO Ft rtuachucs. ATTN: Tech Ref Owr2 WRAtR. Neuriwivetiatrv Div 2 CODR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd. ATTN- STEEP-MT-Sa OLt. SOA, Moilemy I CDR Pnflj.:t MASSTER. ATTN: Teth Itno Center1 UISA Ckxonert Ana*I Aq.'v. Seirhwv!li ATTN. MOCA WOC !Htt MASSTER, USATRADOC. LNO1 USA C.,ucer, Aral Agcy. Bethitsrla ATTN: MOCAAIR I Resntrch Institute, HO MA~SSER, Ft HoodI USA Coicapt Anal Agcy. etiinesd., ATTN. IAOCA.JF I USA Recruiting Cmd. Ft Sherdian. ATTN: IJSARCPM-PI USA Artic Test Ct,. APC Seattle. ATTN STEAC.MO-ASL I Senior Army Adv.. USAFAGOD!TAC. Elqii AF Aux Flid No. 91 USA Artic lest Cit. APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTF.PL.TS I HO USARPAC. DCSPER, APO SF 966358. ATMN GPPE-SEI UISA Aii,rsnt Cend Redstnnrx A~ienal. ATTN: ArSK.TEM I Stimson Lib. Aca'temy o! Healthf Scenowv Ftr SeenMaustonI itSA . 'inament Cold. Rock tIslri, ATTN AMSAR TDCX 1 Marine Corpt Intt.. ATTN: Dean-MCII F'AA NAt C Atlantic City. ATTN Lbuxi4y I HOUSMAC. Commandant ATTN. Code MTMT 51a1 FAA i't.Ar.,nii'.-~ Al 1'lJ tsni E-nq, 5, !I I )USMC. Cv.iiiA r t. ,l C xle Mist. - 21 rAA Aenivtir iC..o't ATTtj: 14AC 44,.) 2 *"iCG Academy Neiw Lo,,'ion ATrN. Admiisgion2 USA rId Arty Set.. Ft Sill. ATTJ Library 2 U:X *, Academy, No% Lon~on AT-i 1v Library1 VSA Armoir SrI. Know. ATTN Library 1 USC-ý Training Ctr, NY. ATTN: COI USA Armor Sro. Ft Knox, ATTN ATSBOl-E 1 LiSCG Training Ctr. NY, ATTN: Educ SvcO~rI UJSA Armor Sdl. Ft Krnow. ATTN. \~TSR.nlT.TF * I M'SG, Psyci,,,t Rhes Sr, DC. ATTN': CP '.621 USA Armor Sd., Ft Knot. ATTM: A tSS C-AID I HO( IIId-Range Or, MC DE 1. CIL2111 co. ATTN: P&S Div

103

1 US Marine Carps Lesisian Oft, AMC. Aloxandria, ATTN* AMCGS.-F I Dof & Civil lost of Enviro Medicine, Canada11 USATHADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATRO-ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATIN: into Sys OfS USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATPR-AD 1 MIiWPitsrpylologisk Tj.neft. Capeshagan,I USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN. ATTS-EA I Military Afttache. Felloh E m m. ATTN. Doc SeeI USA Forme Cmd. Ft McPherson. ATTN-. Library I USSISCIS Mt, C.EAp.A.-Aran@I. Toulo../Navl Fr ancs2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rucker, ATTN: STEBG-PO 1 Pvin scientific 014, APrA Humn EasyMRath Chv. MinistryI USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library of Deforme, New DelhiI USA Agcy for Aviation Sallety, Ft Rucker. ATTN: Educ Advisoir I Pairt Fisch Ofc tibeary, AKA. Isreal Defense , orcotI USA Aviation Sch, Ft Ruckur, AM~: PO DowreiO 1 Minitterit van Dafiwa*, OQOPJKL Afd SociaalI HOUSA Aviation Sys Crod, St Louis, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR lallslqghoiaWi Zakaoi, Thle Hqwue Nother lands2 LISA Aviation Sys 1Ws Act.. Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTg-.TI USA Air Del Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEMI USA Air Mobility Richi & 0ev Lab. Moffett Fidl, ATTN: SAVOL-ASI USA Aviation Sch. Rev Tog Mgt. Ft Rlualer, ATTN: ATST-T-RTMI USA Aviation Sch, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-O-A11 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN-. A4AXCD-TLI HO. DARCOM. Alexandria. ATTN: CORI US Military Academny, West Point, ATTN: Serials UnitI US Military Academy, Watt Point, ATTN: Oft of Mtilt LdrshpI US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN4: MAQA1 USA Standardization Op. UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE-QCI Olc of Naval Rich*, Arlington. AMT: Code4623 Oft of Naval Risch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 458I Dlic of Naval Rich. Arlington. ATTN: Code 450IOft: of Naval Rtcfs. Arlington, ATTN: Code 441I Naval Aerospe Med Res Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Acasa Sd. DivI Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code LS1I Naval Aerospi: Med Ret Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code LS1 Chief of NasPers, ATTN: Peirs.ORI NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr11 NairOceanographic, OC. ATTN: Code 6251, Chain ~Techs1 Center of Naval Anal. ATTN: Doc CtrI NelvAirSysCorn, ATTN: AIR-6313C1 Nov, BuMed, ATTN: 733I NorhelicopiterSubSouai 2. FPO SF 96601I AFHRL (FT) William AFB1 AFHRL ITT~) Lowry APRI AFHRL (AS) WPAFB. OH2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks APRt AFHRL (OOJN) Lacklend AFB1 HOUSAF (INYSD)t HOUSAF (DPXXA)I AFVTG (RD) Randolph APR3 AMRL (HE) WPAFS, OH2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB. OH, ATTN: ENE/SLI ATC (XPTDI Randolph APRI USAF AeroMest Lib, Brookts APR (SUL-4). ATTN: DOC SECI AFOSR (NL), ArlingtonI AF Log Crnd, McClellan AF1e, ATTN: ALCi'DPCRSI Air Force Academy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bal Scn5 NayPert &e 0ev Ctr, San Diego2 Navy Mod Nauropsycfsiatric Risch Unit, San DiegoI Nav Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: Res LabI Nav TrngCen. San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000- LibI NawPostGreSch, Monterey. ATTN: Code 55A&1 NsvPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 21241 NovTrngEqijipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech LibI US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN: Manpower AdminI US Dept of Justice, DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin1 Nat Our of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info SectionI Nat Clearing House for MH-lnfc. Rockville1 Denver Federal Ctr. Lakewood, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofes. CjinborraI Scienlifir Advsr, Mil Sd. Army HQ, Russell Ofci. Canberra1 M~l anit Air Attache, Austrian EnthassyI Ceir dle Recherche Des Faselirs. Humasine do Ia Defense

Natinarulus, Brussels2 Canadian Joint Staff WashingtonI CiAir Staff, Royal Canadian AF. ATTN: Peots Stif Anal Or3 Chieif, Canadian Dof Rich Staff, ATTN: C/CROSIW)4 British Def Staff, British Embassy, Washington

104