Ada 150149

w
—r— --»--'a—
Research Note 85-3
O) ANALYSIS OF TOW GUNNERY TRAINING
in Jeffery L. Maxey
Mellonics Systems Development Division
Litton Systems, Inc.
<
i H. C. Strasel, Contracting Officer's Representative
<
t'
Submitted by
Seward Smith, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
'£
and
Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

TRAINING RESEARCH LABORATORY
DTIC:
ELECTE|%
L •VJ
o
U. S. Army
FEB13Ö8511
E
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences • •]
January 1985
Approved for public r«ittit. distribution unlimntd.
Thii rtport, M uibmitttd by tht contractor, hat bttn cltartd fc' rdtiM to Dflftntt Technical Information Ctnttr
(DTICI to comply with ragulatory raquiramanti. It hot baan givan no primary distribution othar than to OTIC
and will ba avulabla only through DTIC or othar rtfaronce Mrvicet wch at tha National Tachnical Information
Sorvica (NTIS). Tha viewt. epinicn«, and/or findings eontainad in this raport ara thota of tha author (si and
should not ba eonttruaii at an officiaS Capartmani of tha Army position, policy, or dacition, unlatt so dasignatad
by othar official documentation.
1
■■.
Tl—öl 29—no ■
■• A 1
- - *
."•■'•••
,- . •
·•·
THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLYo
" » — ▼ —-^ -»— ^ fc !
SECSJRITy CL AiOIFlCATIOM OP THI . l'*Gf f".-»»« />»f. -.• .r'!)

Kl AP INS! CT!< 'N-, i
j REPORT DOCUMENTA FION PAGE BKFOKI-; c<v . so KO:<M
I \ MLPOHT NJV4.I .< 1 i.jvr »CCKUK»« N • . . • -j 1 A t A , . >J »r rt
Research Note 85-3

I«. TITLE f«nJ Subl/tIO i. T VPc. 0
TASK REPORT - ANALYSIS OK Cl RRENT TR^MNINn - Pad Final 1 "> Oct 7^. - 31 lite 77
Two: TOW WiMpon Svstem, Analysis »f TOW Gunnery
Training t ÊMOIMiMO ORQ (it *0>«T fiLM ir.H |
IT. AurnoHf«> « COHTHACT OH CRAST NUM-1tHf*>
.ItOfL-rv L. M.ix>. DAHC19-77-C-0011 |

-
- ■ •
I» fc.HfOH>*\HSOtZ*H\ZATlOH MAMI ANÜ AOORCU IJ. f'HoCMAM tLl M- N f. •'.Ol'. CT, 7A0K ;
AH-A» WOKX UNIT NjMir.«S
Litton-MelIonics Systems Development Division
j Defense Sciences Laboratory 2Q763743A773
P.O. Box 2;98 Fort Benning, GA 31903
111. CONTnOLUNC OFFlCt NAMK AN'J ADD«tSS 12. Ht.MO*T DATE |
1 U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral January 1985
and Social Sciences PERI-OB 13. HUMMN of PA
^-S j
I Fort Benning, HA 31905 5*
| 1*. MOSlTOÎSG ACiLNCr NAME » kDO*£$i(lt <tl ll*rfn: from Conlfalllni Ofi :*) IS. SECURITY CLASS, û/lS(«»»pof»>
1
Unclassified |
1»«. O^LASSIFICATION'UO-NCÂÜINa 1
SCHtOULt 1
IM DliT «I3UTI0N STATtMcNT fi>/«>'»/<e;>jfO j
Approved for public release; distributior unlimited
•■ ■
1 17. OlJTrtlbuTlON STATC'ir.NT (ol Iht ••>»v..;f »nftti In «foe* JO. H tlilttrrnt Iron Rrparf) j
In. SU?^LCMif4TAR/ NOTES
| l>-»VrY WOÔS fCi,ri(/nu» un rarer«* jdl» // n»r»»j«^ »n-f 1 •—.•lit b/ b'orli .-■ -.'■.0 1
Antitank Guided Missiles, - Gunnery Training Program 1
• Gunnery Tasks • ATOW Weapon Systen^ tiyj
\ Gunnery Training .^Quality Control Procedures^ |
. Gunnery Standards, \^^-
^Gunnery Training objectives \
|lt>. *MTWA' llmim w»r»r»»> »1*» Itntemmmarf mtdMtHtlf bp M—>IMM^WJ •.■••,
Recent U.S. Armv Training and Doctrine Command (TRAOOC) studi. • Indl lit that for 1
the majorltv of Army systems, training does not optimize total svsum efl'ectlvo-
ness. These saû. studies show tli.U existing practices tend to underut 11 1 zc 1
tralnltv.: KtOlirC«*. It—< ol t!ie>».- Hwdtwg», TIADOC iniliatod the Training j
Effectiveness Analysis (TLA) afforl .»n-l directed th(' U.S. Armv Infantry School i
(L'SAIS) to Conduct TFAs {or \ • Al Rlflf, th.- Tl .. tho Drapan U. apon '
'is. In support ol the I'SAIS. th« U.S. Arnv ., h Institute (ARI) has
initiatin! IT.X-rel ,tt cd fOMAtch fOC thOM MMpOM. DM ol the piirpoSOi of the
DD » 'AX /> i;73 l UlflOH O» » MIV •.^ I . ' •■- •

i!1:^» ,•'.<;iriPn
* - • - . • ■ -• ■ . »j" . ■
. ~ ■ "■ ' « * •
(O\A i
Unclassified
SCCliMiry CUAJÎFK Atn>4 Or THI • »-A. ">«n D«l4/n'«/«Ji
AR1 rt-.i--irtii is to Idtatlfy both short mi lnii^ r.m... lapfOVMWMta in TOH

ûmu-ry training. A MCCSSAty prcrequisito for .1, oaplishiog thil task is tin.-
docuniont at ion and analysis of the current Runm-ry training for the TOW svstfm. ^
This report prasents a description of current TOU' |iinaf} tralain| .uid diacv
the Implications of an analysis of this traininK for idontifylnp improvi'mt'nts
atui cost-f fleet ivc alternatives for TOW Runnerv training. ^^
kl
n
■
A'l
14^ &
it
• • ■ . •*■ ■ ...
. . . • . •. . • ■ •. • .• %■"•-■
v.
•
-.• • - - .
- .-.■»-••.
• • •• . - - ••■_ • •• ;-•
T^^^^^^ ^-^^^^^^^^^■^
KOK t: WORD
This report is providfd by the Melloni».s Systems DcVi-lopnunt

Division ol litton Systoms, lac., to the Array Research Institute
for the Behavioral iind Social Scienees (ARI) under Contract Numher
DAHC19-77-C-OOI1 This report is part of the linal report of Kht
total research support effort and will be incorporated in that
report bv reference.
Under the contract, a part ot Mel Ionics' effort concerns

support to the Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) research
presently being conducted by the ART for the I'nlted States Army
Infantry School (USA1S). One portion of the TEA research involves
the identification of Improvements and the development of cost-
effective alternatives for training M16A1 marksmanship
and TOW and Dragon gunnery. A necessary prerequisite for accom-
plishing these tasks is the documentation and analysis of the cur-
rent training for these weapons. This report presents the docu-
mentation and analysis for the TOW Weapon System. The documen-
tation and analysis for the M16A1 Rifle and the Dragon Weapon
System are published separately.
Hi
- "■..-•• • • - • • • »j
. ... . . • ■■ - . ■ . . ■..•.- . •.- _-V
ABSTRvNCT
|0CMI( I'.S. Armv Training and Doctrine Command (TRAHOC) stiulies

indicitf th.it for the majority of Arnv systems, training do*! not
optimi/e total system offectivent-ss. These MNM studies shov tli.it
existing practices tend to underutilize training resources. Bec.uuse
of these findings, TRAPOC initiated the Training Effectiveness
Analysis (TEA) effort and directed the '' R, Army Infantry School
(ISAiS) to conduct TEAs for the M16A1 Kltle. the TOW, and the Dragon
Weapon systems. In support of the USAIS, the U.S. Army Research
Institute (ARI) has Initiated TEA-related research for these weapons,
One of the purposes of the ARI research Is to Identify both short
and long range improvements in TOW gunnery training. A necessary
prerequisite for accomplishing this task Is the documentation and
analysis of the current gunnery training for the TOW system. This
report presents a description of current TOW gunnery training and
discusses the implications of an analysis of this training for
Identifying Improvements and cost-effective alternatives for TOW
gunnery training.
iv
• • -• ■ • • • ■••;-• . •. • .• • .••.••.•••.-•..•.-•■ •• • •• •
I « ■ I « i ■ J « . V iV ^ V* ',■ ' ,■.' ■ ■ ■ ^ I ,■ !■,■ ■.! I I ■ I 1 ■ I • I ^■vwvwv**** ^^^^^^
FABLK OF C0NT1 Nl
HmtODUCTIOH I
OBJECTIVES 1
METHOD 2
DOCUMENTATION OF TOW TRAINING 3
TOW Gunnery Training - An Overview 3
USAIS TOW Gunnery Training Objectives 7
USAIS TOW Gunnery Training Practices 18
USAIS TOW Gunnery Program Quality Control Procedures 22
DISCUSSION 28
USAIS TOW Gunnery Training 28
Analysis Implications 29
CONCLUSIONS 32
REFERENCES M
APPENDIXES
Appendix A I'SAIS TOW Gunnery Training Program

Training Objectives 35
Appendix B Summary of the USAIS TOW Gunnery

Training Program August 1976 Version 45
Appendix C Summary of the USAIS TOW Gunnery Training

Program IS April 1977 Version 50
• ■
:/:
' 1 •. ■ ■ ■ I 1 ■ ". -. : W K t i^n »m n nnijppn ^"i^m^^**
l.ISF OF TABI ES
Pag»
Tabl« !. Baapl« Instriu-tlonal Firim; TabK for

a SlmuLiUd 10W Fitin»; Ex«rciM 6
2. Summary of Training ObJactlVM fof t ho

USA1S TDW Cunnery rrainin^; Program 8
3. Comparison of Tasks Covered by Training

Objectives and Task Areas Covered by
the Post-Training Evaluation of the
Current USAIS TOW Gunnery Program 10
4. Dimensions of and Visual Angles (at 1,000 Meters)

Subtended by Selected Warsaw Pact and U.S. Army
Vehicles 12
5. Gunner Tasks Performed During the Execution of the

TOW Engagement Process 16
6. Tasks Performed During the Execution of the

Engagement Process for the TOW Weapon System
and Tasks Addressed During the USAIS TOW
Gunnery Training Program 17
7. Number and Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified

and Failed to Qualify Under the August 1976
TOW Gunnery Program: From 8 October Through
27 January 1977 21
I« Number and Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified

and Failed to Qualify Under the .15 April 1977
Gunnery Program: From 15 April Through 19 Mav
1977 23
9. Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified at Each

Qualification Level Under the August 1976 and
15 April 1977 USAIS TOW Gunnery Programs 24
10. Qualification Standards for TOW Gunnery Training 26
vi
• ' .*•.
■.•\--'--- '•• ■•••
T-" ■ ^T • < • < • ^ • • . • l >v • ' ■.'. • I ■ I ■' ■ I " I ■ t M ■ < « L ■! • ■ . • I • i ■ I ■ I ■ . ■ | ■ | ■ | ■! • 1 l
ANALYSIS o\ rOW CUNNKRY TRAINING
INTRODUCTION
Reci-nr D.I, Arîy Training and Doctrim- Conmnul (T1AD0C)

■tudiu Lndlcat« that tot tht Mjority oi Armv (particular]
weapon systems), training does not optimize total system effectiveness.
These same studies show that existing practices tt-mi to umierut i 1 ize
training resuurces. Because of these findings, TRADOC ioitiitod tlu-
Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) effort. The objective of TEA
is to produce improvements In training through analvsis and redesign
of the procedures and training resources used to implement current
training programs. The analysis and redesign are to lead to more
cost-effective alternatives for training.
Accordingly, TRADOC has directed the U.S. Army Infantry School

(USAIS) to conduct TEAs for three Infantry weapon systems: the M16A1
rifle, the TOW (Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Command Link)
heavy antitank weapon, and the Dragon medium antitank weapon. In
support of the ISAIS, the U.S. Army Research Institute (AR1) has
initiated TEA-related research for each of these weapon systems. One
of the purposes of the AR I research is to Identifv both short and
long range Improvements in current system training.
The Mellonlcb Systems Development Division of Litton Systems,

Inc., under contract to the ARI, is supporting the TEA research
presently being conducted at the Fort Benning ARI Field Unit. One
portion of this research involves the identification of improvements
and the development of cost-effective alternatives for TOW gunnery
training. A necessary prerequisite for accomplishing these tasks is
the documentation and analysis of the current gunnery training for
this system. As part of Its support to the ARI, Mellonics was re-
quested to perform the required documentation and analysis of train-
ing. This report presents the research findings and discusses
their implications for Improving TOW training.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research are:
o To describe the current training objectives, practices, and

quality control procedures for TOW gunnery training;
o To discuss the Implications of these analyses In identifying
Improvenu-nts and cost-ef f e.t ive alternatives for TOW gunnery
training.
1
Department of the Aritv. .\n .. -.ng training i LviWl
(TRADOC PAM 71-fl). Iteshingto«, D.C.s Auf . aber II
•"• • •. •.- • .•• ..,._ »..--•.-i.*

" " " " ' ■.»■'■ ■ 1 1 ■ « »»Pf .! ■ U»i.T....t.l.t,, , ,;1.., , ,,., ,1,1,^,,
Ml .HOD
The documentation and analvsis of a training ptoggtm tmûiti ■

(AI J .T.i n imum) InfonMtion OB tlM ii>! lowing:
.' Progrm tralolng objwtlvosi

o Program training practices;
0 Program orpanlzation;
0 ProgTM instructi>Mi and pract ici ri'qui r«'mi'nt->;
o Program quality control procedures.
A survey of the military literature revealed that two programs

of instruction (POIs) are employed to teach TOW gunnery training at
the individual level: the POI outlined in TC 23-202 and the POX for
the L'SAIS Post-AIT (Advanced Individual Training) TOW gunnery course.
Of these programs, only the USAIS program was found to provide the
ahove information. For this reason, the analysis of current TOW gun-
nery training has been limited to this program.
The data base for this analysis consisted of four sources of

Information. These were:
o the POT;
o the lesson plans for the POI;
o Interviews with personnel Involved In the conduct of the
I'SAIS program;
o field observations of training.
The documentation and analysis of the I'SAIS program wir.

accomplished In the following manner. First, the POI and the lesson
plans wero examined to derive program training objectIves and organi-
zation. Next, specific instruction and practice requirements were
Identified from a study of the program lesson plans. Later, quality
control procedures were Identified from cadre Interviews and field
observations of training. Finally, the results of the analysis were
assessed and suggestions for improvements In current TOW gunnery
training were derived.
2
».irtment of the Army. Unit antlarmor training program
(Training Circular 23-20). Washington, D.C.: Author, August 1975
- - - •-"■ • - - - . . . •.: •.■..-:

WCrMENTAT1 ON OF POW TRAINr.''.
TOW GUNNERY TRAINING - AN OVFRVTEW
Ttu' purpost' of ,i pMlMry tr.iininv |vri>i;r.itn is to tr.iin wlactttd

in i SVHUK l in tiif us«.- ot .i designated wcapon systMi BO taat tiie
enß.igement of targets and subsf<)ut'nt target hits have a high proba-
bilicv. In the IüLMI eM99t ■• -■UIUKTV I r im is •rrflStad to train
in systfin nonienc laturc, opiTatiun, and tn.i intiMi.uu «.■ and to train in the
fundamentals of gunnery, e.g., the assunptiun and maintenance of
appropriate firing positions, t-irôt-weapon svstem alignment, and sys-
tem firing procedures. In the ideal program, concurrent with or
following Instruction, opportunities to practice the application of
the fundamentals In llve-flre situations are provided. During this
practice trainees engage and fire on specified arrays of targets
using live ammunition. The assumption underlying the practice is
that such practice leads to successive improvements in firing profi-
ciency and to ultimate ptottcitUCJ levels which insure high proba-
bilities of hit.
However, the cost of live-firings for the TOW system is quite

high. In Fiscal Year 197^, a single XBTM71A TOW practice missile
cost $ 3,242 to fire.^ A training program based on 100 live-firings
per man of this missile would cost at least $324,000 per man in
Fiscal Year 1976 dollars. A less expensive alternative is to base
I M gunnery practice on simulated missile firings. In the develop-
mental phase of the TOW system, this problem was recognized and a
simulator developed. This was the M70 training set.
The M70 training set1* consists of an Instructor console, a

missile simulation round, and a target set. To use the M70 trainer,
the Instructor console Is connected to the TOW system, the missile
simulation round is loaded in place of a live missile, and the tar-
get set is installed on a vehicle. During a simulated firing trial,
the training system is manned and operated in exactly the same manner
3
U.S. Army Combined Arms Training Board. Special analysis of TOW
training (U). Fort Benning, CA.: Author, March 1975. Confidential.
4
The description of the M70 training set and Its use during practice
firing is based on information found In the following source; IVpartnent
of the Army. TOW heavy antitank weap-'ii system (TraininK Circular 23*23)>
'ilngton, D.C.: Author, ,Iuly 1970.
■
1
3
•. • n. T
V
/:.'-*.•-■... . v•.- • - • _ ".'""".
'•WiSV-'l'l
."- -•
■ .• •' ■ ■ • ^ -1
• K' tactical sysLfm during .1 live-tir« trial. pr viiiur.

des( 1
A vi'lüi K' witti the t.irget set assunes .1

spiviticd position dom*ras§t t mni LII«.'
1170 training sv.-.tom. Th.- karg«! Mt is
lurntHJ on and a COOtiMOlM iMftMtti
signal is emitted that simulates the sig-
nal ommitted hy a TOW nisslK- during
f]ighl .
Dept-ndinc en the target protocol for thf

trial, thi- target vehicle remains station-
ary or moves laterally left-to-right or
right-to-left at a designated speed. When
the trainee acquires the target's infrared
source, i..e., the cross hairs of the optical
sight are placed on the Infrared source, he
presses the TOW trigger. At this time the
Infrir.d stnsor in the optical sight detects
thi- infrared tmnissions of the target. Next,
error signals proportional to azimuth and ele-
vation displacements of the optical sight with
respect to the target are transmitted to the
guidance set and instructor console. The
console converts thes« signals Into a score
which Is an approximation of the percent of
time that the optical sight is kept directly
aligned with the target. This score is dis-
played throughout the simulated firing trial.
At the end of the trial, a final score is
displayed which is an approximation of the
percent of time the sight was kept on the target
for the entire trial.
•
As It now exists, the M70 training system also provides for
simulating missile flight time. This is accomplished by selection
of either a "low- or a high-rate qualify" setting on the RANGE
switch control of the Instructor console. If a "low-rate qualify"
setting Is selected, a missile flight time of 16 seconds is simu-
lated. Engagements Involving this long tracking time duration are
conducted against targets moving with a crossing velocity of 5
milliradlans per second. In the TOW training program this type of
engagement is known as Task A.
■irtmont of the Armv. TOW heavy antitank weapon system

(Training Circular 23- >. ' ■ . .C.: Author, .tulv'mn.
■
. • - - . ■ •.
-<-«-*- .• . . . ••:■
•
. .
- •
.-. .> _- •
I: a "h :i;h-r.it «.■ qu.ilt. ■" Mttin| la st" I..-1 .-.i, i ■Issll« t i i^lit
ti-. oi B lecoiMii La ilaulated^ Engageaenta Lnvolvlni t^ ■!(
tracking tin«, duracioa m nductMl against targata nnwin>; with
eroaalng velocities of althar IS or 35 milllrndlans per second.
In the TOW training pti . tht < engageaenta .iri known, raapac*
tivelv, as Task B and Task C.
Finally, during simulated firing practice, TOW blast effects

nav be simulated throngh tlu- use of the MRO blast simulat'ir. Thh.
simulator is Inatallad in tin- alanilc aiaailatlon round« wiu-n tha
M70 training system is activated, the M80 simulator explodes and
creates blast affncta simiLar In kind to those created by flriiiK
I live TOW missile.
Typically, a TOW practice exercise consists of a number of

simulated firing trials defined by a set of protocols summarized
by an Instructional Firing Table. Table 1 presents a sample In-
structional Firing Table. The firing table defines for each simulated
firing the following inlormation: the speed of the target, the qual-
ification rate, the direction of movement for the target vehicle, and
whether or not a blast simulator is employed during the trial.
At part of the initial procurement of the ION -ivsti-m, a train-

ing program designed to tt-ach operators the skills required for sys-
tem use was developed and provided to the Army by the prime con-
tractor for the system. Later during the test phase of the procure-
ment, the TOW system was tested by the U.S. Armv Infantry Board
(L'SAIB). For this test, a prototype gunnery training program was
developed by L'SAIB personnel with assistance from the prime contrac-
tor. During the service test, the prototype program was also eval-
uated. Based on the results of this evaluation, a 33 hour training
program was developed. This training program was designed to be
implemented during Infantry AIT and up until October 1976, was taught
at Fort Polk, LA.. At that time responsibility for the conduct of
Continental United States (CONl'S) TOW gunnery training was directly
assumed by the USAIS and a course of instruction was established at
Fort Benning, GA., under the direction of the Antiarmor and Mines
Division, Weapons Department, USAIS. This course is also designed to
be completed following AIT.
In the following sections the USAIS TOW gunnery training program

is discussed in terms of its performance objectives, its practices
(organization. Instruction requirements, practice requirements) and
its quality control procedures.
NeCluakayi M. , Haggard, 1).. and Powers, F.. Survey of Army

training ind weapon« train ing devl ea. (AR1 Research Memo-
randum 7h-8). Arl i . VAi Arnv Raaearch Inatitati f<<r tha
■ral Mid So . April 197(>.
B O W G
-
U E
r
a. — a
•ct
>
r0
i M
•a
I
3 7". i- II
5H ac ITl
H
u :< ■ g
z ■
2 U T3 ■ c -J
•—j z I C Q o
P4 K —» «4 Z
a f< o
1* -j
a M 0 E
f—< K I B 3
« x
^^ 3 U 7)
19 a I •-< s: x -j
H ^H
E
—■
H
/-*
a; u
H H
C/3 < a: a: •,
z _J i i l i i — rj
(-^ ■ —1 I •
■
9
I
A
-3 M
r
<-< |
•3
3 H > a
it
x:
4-1
w
y a
O
4J
3
«8
V4 ■
4J
0
J
4J
2
r-l
■
ft J3
o *-< o u 6C
r r: V3
J
M
—■
t3 £
4*
4J C C
«|
I z■
U ft
3
T3 T3 -o
•-I V 01
J: •x o W 4-1
u u 0 y o
3
11u r 4>
E
3
TJ TJ
X
X U
— - >< IC
C
Q |
O
0 '-<
»i
f—t « r.
ifl •»4 **4
.: ft •*-•
■_< 4-* ^: -J x: ^ i- <; fl
■-
; •*-* ' 6C w •-
-4 ■ •MM ft r3 fH ra -vÎt 4i
^ 3: a: s as Ä ft 3 M •—4 ■ i
i -• -1
,-* -. I
—< H
.- -- •
• • • •
-
_^ ■
. . -. :■■-
.-- o"-
ISAiS rOW GUNNERY TRAINING OBJECTIVES
Th« l'Ol and lus-son plans fof current USA1S lOU' |UIIIMry triinii.'
Mt« i-xanitu'd to identifv the terminal and intermcd iatf training
objecdvei developed for tiu.s pro§reaa Ihe objectivea Identified
fron tins fxamnation are preacnted in Appendix A and »ummerlzed in
Table 2.
Based on (1) Interviewe with personnel responsible for implenent-

ing L'SAIS Tow gunnery training and (2) on field obeorvatione of train*
ing, it was found that the objectives for TOW range card preparation
and tank identification have been eliminated from training. Interviews
with the TOW training cadre indicated that these eliminations were
implemented during a recent program modification effort ' is discussed
later in this report) in order to provide more time for conducting
practical exercises, particularly exercises Involving simulated missile
firings. Training Is now limited to the training objectives for the
first seven task areas listed In Table 2.
In assessing the adequacy of the training defined by the objectives

of a weapon system training program. It Is necessary to determine the
following:
o To what extent the training objectives provide for

the development of the knowledges and skills
necessary for qualifying In the operation and use
of the weapon system;
o To what extent the training objectives provide for

the development of the knowledges and skills
necessary for employing the weapon svstem In romhat.
In the remaining sections of this part of the report, the oiequacy of

the training objectives for the USAIS TOW gunnery training program Is
discussed In terms of the above considerations.
Qualification Tasks and USAIS Training. Qualification in the

operation and use of the TOW weapon system is addressed in the USAIS
TOW gunnery program by a two part post-training evaluation. This
evaluation consists of:
o A 3 hour, nine station, hands-on performance test covering

assembly of the tactical TOW weapon system, conduct of the
TOW system self-test, charging the TOW battery assembly,
operation of the M70 training equipment, use of the TOW
blast simulator, operation of the NM tarnet set, unload-
ing > TOW missile, loading a TOW missile, and handling
TOW missile mi-•.fires and hmgfires.
• - - ■
■.•-.-•
v^. v
•..-•■• .• •- •■ •
1 V
41
E
-^
< ■
I
g r
i
i■ &
c E
I § e 1a iI u
«i I
c
i •
■
4.
(-
0 O I I 3
•o c.
I"
■
«i a
o u « b 3
ft» c 4 u 0 — W 4>
■ =.» i-
C k. >. C T!
c |
€ 4i P» ^ 4.
u
C <
—o J •».
sI■
• C it tj k. • C
1
c • • • c 3
3 ti
3 I C -H
w
I i •1 X
c, x a- cr o. • B 4) •-• «• in
*<
|1
., T :■ -< C •s ■*• w* -< C X
•« « i 3 M — o c «< H C 3 • ^ < c c 4>
u c w • er s C •c <r> w « •"
« O I u
■ — "D —• u - M
•■
c
■4i
^ .-. - ■- ^^ i^ c c tl c a.
. r -■. ■»-• > -^ ■^t *< « <« »I
C V « c « v U il ■.. a ►-• u 4# 41
O J • = ■o u • -a k- ^- >- •rf 3 •o > rj —
c ~ - >- - - • -a
t* -« k-«
h U 0 £i
w 5 b -o HO«». *. ~
j —* *. ■ ■MM
C
k-l
V
*J e
•«
a. ^
k. I«
—
IB
k. «
■
C (- 4J • .|| C k. - 4, w t * a
»• a o * X. x a u t-> c 3 w tX if I J c o. c —
|lrl
3> «i c «C • U
|| 5i
3 -• J
v « H B
■
at V —
||
t-i M V •-•
k- J
q ~ U
J: ■- w
V d
SI
I
12
u 3 i- r fl
w ■ 0
■ 11 E
p C «I o
•: - ..
o •
*i
•_
v «>
k.
t
—.
x
4i
te w en
> -
b W <.
U k. .. ■« w : .. z •r> a. I» IB i> k. - t -
01 V o b e u ac . - w 41 K ■« 4 « -J t.
o- c a c
■
o n 41 0 - i « •9 - a. £. ■3
•S ■* (j *u C "C
-4 U) a.
c «
u
I
I
9
w
«I
b
< >
«
>■
I
c
I m
c
l
b
7 >
4 k« X
I 3
V
c
-
U.
-•
3
■»
e
c
I« 2o
-
1 •5 b
V
I
b
■3 I
c
•i ^
«**•» .'^-^km-^k»«. _. ^1
■
- -
•. ■
.• . .- .
v' A tiring tost Iwolviag simulaic'd Bisslla firlogl
usiiij', ilu- Tow M.ist liaulatoi during which Che
traincs each Mtgagt IQ laterally aovillg tariffs
(10 moving with a 5 mllliradlan per second iross-
in^ v«.'i.ii. it v , 10 moving with a 13 r i 1 ! i r.ui ian per
second crossing velocltv, 10 moving with a J3
■llliradlan per Becond croeaing velocity) under
daylight illumination conditions.
Table ) presents a comparison of the tasks covered by training

objectives in the current USA1S program and the task areas covered
by the post-training evaluation of the program. An inspection of
this table shows that all but one ot the task areas covered by the
post-training evaluation are also covered by training objective tasks
in the current USAIS TOW gunnery program. The task area not covered
by a training objective concerns TOW missile misfires and hangfircs.
Field observations of training, however, indicate that this task area
is addressed during that portion of training devoted to Instruction
in the operation of the TOW weapon system.
These results show with one exception that the training objec-
tives for the I'SAIS TOW gunnery program provide for developing the
knowledges and skills necessary for qualifying soldiers in the
operation and use of the TOW system. For the task area not addressed
by a specific training objective (TOW missile misfire and hangfire
procedures), it was found that training does occur in the current
program. Since this area is covered by the post-training evaluation.
It would be appropriate to develop a specific objective for this area
and include it in the objectives for the program. Having a specific
objective will guarantee that this area will always be included during
training. The development of an objective for missile misfire and
hangfire procedures, however, presupposes the appropriateness of
addressing this area during training, as well as during a post-
training evaluation. If It is inappropriate to include this task dur-
ing training, then It is also unnecessary to.develop an objective to
support its training. Further, in this case, the task area should
be eliminated from the qualification procedure.
Combat Tasks and USAIS Training. The primary mission of the TOW
squad In combat is to engage and defeat threat armor. Mission accom-
plishment depends significantly on the competence of the gunner to
execute the engagement process. This process consists of the follow-
ing phases:'
7
The description of the TOW engagement process is based on infor-
mation found in the following source: Statz, J., Tr., and Etherldge, F..
Personnel and training in hattalion level foree models (Technical
I"..per 10-76). Fort Leavenworth, KANS.: I'.S. Army Combined Arms Combat
Peveloptntl Activity, October 1976.
a
E
1
■
>>
M
C
0
c
n
•
■»
1
»M
•
=e
c
a
e
■
■1
a
*
c
«
1
• II
IB
I
3
o-
I • n
•
pE i
■1
B
*H it
I
a
| IM b «i ü d H B
^ oc a
--•■
0 gg
8H •n
e
-^« —V
w
v4 1« u
3
>s
u I
■
C V ■^ ■»-•
■
»-•
«
1
■i
•
■« ■
3
■m
ec
a
a
a
a
a
b
*4
— a
■ ■
11 •«4 ■*4 «4 «4
■
•44
U
>,
• *4
«1 »«
w (0 10» | a
x a
•-
■ ■ •o -o
09 •-• T. 11
(1 o -' «
O
r* •
&■
at
■fl
■1 I i |
> 1«
w g n -
•-*1» X W
%
2P s
(-4 «^n
8
■ X ■
n a
w r*
a
■
1*- ■ 'g Ä
3 4-1 1 i 2 1w
■
X 3 H «4 «4 «H
%M
0
X
**
0
S 'S
T ae
c
Ml
0
c
t-
V
£
*J
!*•
0
c
a
IM
0
•
Q
|
hi
2
V*4
e
ac
I
•-» n
1
at —
1 -o
0
•*4
0
y
I
n■ u
D
c
i 3
■a
—
•o 0
!B
w
••E
VM
C
w
ea 3 3
^ x
u
■
V 1M 13 •a
a C 1« -. "20 C e I c
X

c
o e —«I
s ■M
.1
■*•
X
w 4
a
w a (a
|
JL a.
O I I o
u 3
•5 o M
a a X
4 x w •44
X / a
c c -o -•
ac
c
>
a ■
3 -t f ■44 • 1*4 a «i
w «4 V 3 3 > ft
a »4 7 M cr c
>. e « c « • -•4
« > X -• »-
E
e ••• « i c - e ■
o
a
«
II i i a W -M
e
»44 -4 4 i
a
"3
ec
c
■
W >, -44 ^
a a k a <« Si U
r. u at « I- T3 3
a M w C «4 3
« a r »4 tl
2 c
c
»-4
r
a
—
«
w
»
or a
3
«t
3»
5 J
M 3
i4
I -« B II
Ha a f« •
a C
3
I o
8(-
r 5
c *
* - « Pi
X X « x
V
X
•4 a x w a
-3 X fc -4 w x
C
T
*. ■
a
W b
—
•
u v v. i ai
e w
fc- V
i - ^ 44 a k<
. . -< at r; -J
S I at
■o 14 w a. — ■_ <44 C a
- - a b <e
i
--
a
-:
a
Mi
a
W x «I
at
10
I
.--•• .■- "4 " • 4 ■
'
•.••-.
• -44, »
- .* . ■.■.
rA.-cm DeploviTUTit - Following tlu- rtveipt of i
lion re<|uirMwnti tht row sv.-'.i.m is deployed
•t an appropriate firing position and prepan-d
for MgASMMt« For both the ground and velilcle
modes this involves system assembly and check
out, ostabl ishinp fields of fire, prt-par.it ion
of a I'UW range card and system camouflage.
System Manning - Following deployment, the

gunner mans the system. This involves assumption
of a firing position consistent with the mode in
which the system is being employed. The position
selected should allow the gunner to comfortably
manipulate the azimuth and elevation controls so
that the entire field of fire is covered.
Visual Detection - After the system is manned,

engagement is initiated with the visual detection
of a candidate target. Detection is likely to be
cued by such target characteristics as smoke, dust,
and noise associated with target movement. On the
modern battlefield candidate targets are armored
fighting vehicles. Selected examples of these for
Warsaw Pact and U. S. Forces are presented in Table
4. This table also presents the physical dimen-
sions of those vehicles, as well as the vertical
and horizontal visual angles subtended by the vehicle
if viewed from the front at 1000 meters. Compari-
sons of these dimensions for V. S. and Warsaw Pact
for es shows that Warsaw Pact vehicles are generally
smaller in all di nuns ions than their U. S. Army
counter-parts. For this reason, vertical and hori-
zontal visual angles subtended by Warsaw Pact
vehicle tend to be two or three minutes smaller than
the angles subtended by comparable U. S. Army
vehicles. These facts have two consequences for the
visual detection phase. First, at long ranges, the
visual detection of armored vehicles is likely to be
a very difficult task. Second, the visual detection
of threat armored vehicles is likely to be more
difficult than the visual detection of the U. S.
armored vehicles.
Target Acquisition - Once detected, the TOW gunner

manipulates the azimuth and elevation controls of
the svstem go that the system's optic.il sight is
directly aligned wi'.h the candidate target and the
sight's crosshairs are laced on the target's center-
i-n.iss. This operation is Celled t.irget acquisition.
For stationarv and on-coming targets this operation
is llkel) ti be less of a problem than for laterally
11
.•• • • - wV •-■. -
..• - '- -- - - •- , % I 'l . . . .

3
it. c
^4 ^: X r^ r^ r-» r^ i^ X "i C C
-a
(9 U! — '- c a^ o r» «s CM a< ^ x —< c
W *J V- CN
C fll OJ
w
N V 1>
VH — I!
I
0 c i
1 <
a
 f—» ■ CM in r«.
CT\ >T m fo O c^ ^ C X o
i-^ 4J V • •■••• a
eg «9 4J ^s r>» r^ f^» >^ \C i-t ^H O l^ » O I
u
t* « r
O
■
w i-^
u it ■
V c
-^ ^
I
I
\r.
< >0 in tr, — t-i O in m O x x d
c « CM in 00 m m r^ ^^ o^ ^n •£ 'w ^^
0 u
(A O •H C vd vO Ô f- »O in 10 \0 ^ "^ ^ ^^
*! 41
3 < C -~ J
x c
EE u■ '
r
in r» -* r-< c in f^ fî C ^ fn O J
C «-* w <N Pn ^H X <-l fM >C >0 X vO m fvj u
_j a.
< - s: - r^ m m CM ri «si t""i ci fM (N <N rt <
V5 < o
M W G
00 X fn gs u-, Q X O O O «^ >» I
>. X ,£ ^ psi rj 00 J- tN fsl O «N <*> —1
" 3 £ 0£
CS tN CN rj i-< i-l tî r^ r^ rj <N f*1»
Cu •-«
u X
p
o u
B
3
I B
us I-
ft.
Z 33
I I
a»
-
C
3 —
-
£ 0 M
u 41
a* (U O
> -^ ^
■ it-. —
CQ
Z
I
B u •- -^ ^ 3
« n £ £. - 80 1 I
H 4) 4> n c
> e > > H — U
w 0 T3 C U
'O o r
■
«■> C - C
>< j< J£ ■ c
n ■
ß c c trf
<-« XB rju
X Xu u J
u ^j E •^ a. a. 4, ..
•< H H c 0 a: -J < •< r- (« J^
>o vC 0 < -< n I q u
u ü-><M ^» T. < < — m «j Cu m C
V in vC I a: a. B O O in — ^H H
• -^ i 1 - H r at \0 vß *n ^ •—• ^>
>
w:
0
H H X X X
■
1-
r z 3: z s: J
■
3
Z
12
•. v •- .>• .-,•,
■ • - L-
i>r jbliqiu-lv BOVing t.ir-'.t i. ' ,is is bccailM
targets in th« latter case an aort Likaly to
require the guimer to tratk with the system than
are targets in the former case.
5. Target Kitm i I uation - Once acquired the p.unner

must decide il the candidate target is ,1 Ihriat or
a friendly target. As discussed above, at long
target ranges, friendly and threat targets pre-
sent very small visual images when viewed by the
unaided eye. Even with optical aides (such as
7x50 binoculars or the 13 power optical sight of
the TOW system), these images are still so small
that only gross target features are clearly recog-
nizable. A further complicating factor in this
situation is that friendly and threat armored
vehicles are very similar in terms of shape, over-
all physical dimensions, and locations of external
items, such as machine guns. When all of the
factors are considered It is likely that the
accurate discr<mination of one type of armored vehi-
cle from anothe.- may be quite difficult at long
target ranges. For this reason, the problem of
target identification is likely to be severe on the
modern battlefield.
6. Target Range Determination - Concurrent with estab-

lishing the friend or threat nature of the target,
the TOW gunner must determine the range to the can-
didate target. The principal advantage of the TOW
system over threat armor is its great range capabil-
ity. For targets out to about 3000 meters, hits
can be achieved with this system with probabilities
that exceed 50 percent.8 At these ranges current
threat armor cannot achieve hits witji such high
probabilities. For this reason, it is extremely
important that the TOW gunner be able to accurately
determine the range to a candidate target.
7. Decision to Fire - If the vehicle is identified as
?
Department of the Array. Range and lethality of U.S. and Soviet
ant larmor weapons (TRADOC Bulletin 1 (U)). Washington, D.C: Author,
September 1975.
1 ?
-. •. -. •
-•.-•.■
- -•-•^ : . -
frit-niHv, the MgaSMMl priuoss is tenninatni. It
it is Identified M ti'.rcat, the engagenent procc
is (.initinucd. Unco identitied as a threat, tha
gunner must decide if the target is to he fired on.
This decision is based on answers to a number of
questions:
o What is the engagement priority of the vehicle?
o Is the vehicle within the engagement capabil-

ities of the system?
o Can system line-of-sight requirements be main-

tained within a high degree of probability
during the firing sequence if engagement Is
continued?
o Does the target's speed prevent continued

engagement, _i.^., is It moving too fast or
too erraticair to be smoothly tracked?
o Is engagement consistent with the requirements

of the mission?
o Would continued engagement be too hazardous?
0 Are sufficient additional rounds available

so that if additional firings are required to
complete the immediate mission, they can be
conducted?
If the decision is not to fire, the engagement process

is terminated at this point. Otherwise, the process
is continued.
■
8. Firing the TOW - The gunner activates the system

by depressing the TOW trigger. Approximately 1.5
seconds later, the missile leaves the launch tube.
Concurrently, the gunner continues to track the
target, keeping the crosshairs of the optical sight
on its center-of-mass. Tracking is continued until
the missile Impacts on the target or the run Is
aborted. In some Instances, after the system has
been activated, a misfire or a hangfire will occur.
For these malfunctions the gunner initiates the
appropriate Immediate' action procedure to correct
the problem.
9. Damage Assessment - Following impact with the tar-

get, the shaped charge missile warhead explodes.
Depending on the point and angle of Impart, tlu
1U
target way be compK-r. iv testroyadi MutrallMd(
or only nnüm.ülv tffaccad. re« to which
the t irgat i^ aflected is datamliMd by i itimngfl
a.^sessntMit. This procedure involves the eOBtiMMd
visual obaarvatloa ol the targat through the >'pt'~
cnl sight and a determination of tlM apparent et feet
Oi the missile impait.
Table 5 presents a list of the tasks performed bv the gunner

during the execution of the engagement process for the TOW system.
These tasks were derived from an analysis of the description of the
engagement process presented above. Because TOW target engagement
is dependent on the successful completion of all of the tasks listed
in Table 5, it follows that system training ahould address and pro-
vide for developing proficiency in conducting these tasks.
Table 6 lists the training objective tasks for the USAIS TOW
gunnery program and the tasks performed during the execution of the
TOW system engagement process. An inspection of this table shows
that the USAIS TOW program training obiectives address only seven of
the 13 tasks involved in the execution of the TOW engagement process.
These seven tasks are:
o Assemble the TOW weapon system;
o Check-out the assembled TOW weapon system;
o Assume a firing position consistent with the

mode of TOW deployment;
o Align the TOW weapon system with a target;
o Place the crosshairs of the optical sight on

the target's center-of-mass;
o Track a moving target;
o Fire on and continue to track a target.
As discussed previously, however, current TOW training does

Include consideration of TOW missile misfire and hangfire procedures.
Finally, tasks not addressed by the program training obiectives or
during the current training Include the following:
o Fstablish fields of fire;
O Prepare ■ TOW range card;
o Detect an armored fighting vehicle target;
o Idantlfy friendly armored fighting vahlclaai
is
■.-.•...••.- ... .. ...... ... . .. . ....
.•..••.•
-.•.•.•.•. .
... •
•.■.■..•.
••
.•.•.■.■■.•.
...-•, . .
. ...
.•-.-.■
.-.•
■. •, ■
■■
ir.
i1 s X
■
D
(X M
• *• e
a
■
B
>.
a. ? • X
i ■ 2
I
a
■
b
a
0 3
■« I
<J
1 ■w
ji
X
I
T) a , ai >
M n
,t * «4
ui
1 I
H C
a
I
«0
c
ai
I <~
c
B
3
X
at'
■
M
X
■
1 w
X
u.
I
u
it iw T)
1
31
s
>■
a
b*
"O
■
,\ W jl | b
1
1
I • ■ •
■■
M
i
a •
Ia «4
^|
a
a
I
1
■t
II -• a a
u «< w
■ ■
X a
: I m
►.
a
«4
|
■
00
a
w ^
• «
a
"»a
£ u a
a «• u
> x: J:
■o
b
1
1
a
■
•
il
tt
■
*4
a
b
■
M b a X.
V w
■ «^
■•s
w - M > b •o
§ M4 %) — c -o a a w <x
I ■ V
. 3
M
K
• a
•«•
a
e
•**i
£
I
>
«C w
b c
a o
H
•-MS
M c a
c a
« w >
w
a
V
b
—
w
■
b
*
c
* "2
■*<
■4
<s
c
c
•| x I 5 73
Jg 0
(4 w B
V. U -9
-• C p
X
b X I
i ■ H
o t> - a
■ '
4* ^ c
c
e
y
£
44 **■
— c
• « J
■s 1
a *- ••
Ü
b -a b
a
'-
"3
j
—r
M
» 5
ü ai
w
j|
—
I
9C
a ia " gi g " i t. 5
i B - - a Vi 8^ Si 4 i «.1
i ■it 3 b •«•
3 i 0 «C c b . M M
o •
3 a « a
c
5 a -o i.
c
«•
1I tJJ 5
>
a •
w
> **
—•
■O b
w
«<
C
a
b
a
M.
U
• -^
- V
e >
■ra
■ 21
H -* c M «C c -. *. e
« « 3 i v ■- V
f
a t c
E b «fl
"^
a ur ^* o
9 £ t: >
■
£ w <M H
w .c a
MI
a
c a » i
b X w
 1 c «4 w
— o -< a M w a
- - • ■ 1v fc
liii
a • u a
X
5
« ■
1
«1
e «
« -
.. - -
J«
■,
w w b
ecu
I
b
V
a
■
0
4> X
b a
PI
«
if
n
V
1 1 1
«. a « w •J
a £ a b a ■o TJ ■- a
4 u u tk. < < ft. •- hi ' 
III a e
■
b
|
a
«
■
■<
■
a * 'ä a .a :
fc M
>
sip
• • G
-
a
«»
b
i2
—
U
*
•-
b
r
1
1^ > H -•
16
,-..-
••;
I II
II
5 !
I I!
v\
I I
I I
s
i
I
II :
5
I
c
B
i■
1 i
? jl
i il
. il
I I I
M
■
1
1
i| - II
1 Si
i i 1
t
if!
i« w
m
• \
- ll
1
2
■|
* i
I
1
\1 «
■
S
i1 |
.
1 il
« "I
;
j 51
||
■ I
2 1 • c *• • «
s I I 11 51 ■
l
i
l 1 II
1
I ilii!
e I
1 It
iiii!
I iii:- 1!
> j IN
! I n: i
t •
Us \l
: -r
i
9
■
m
I■
—
s
I
2
■
11
• 1
! Illll \ in m
£•«
9sf il
1
! 1
1 l
r
1
••■ • {
1
|
•
?1 i?
»■ «9im
>7
. - ■ - - - < - - ■ - ■ ■
■ - • ■
: : :
o Identif) tiu".-.it iraorcd fighting vshicl(
0 Discriminate bctHMO frinullv mJ threat armored

fighting vi'hiclt-s:
0 Determine the FMIgC to | threat nrmored flghtinf

veliiel«.-;
0 Decide i!" i t.ir>;tt slumUl he fired CNI|
o Assess the damage inflicted on a threat armored

fighting vehicle bv the impact of a TOV missile.
Because these tasks are critical to the completion of the TOW engage-
ment process, provision should be made for training in these tasks.
Summary of Training (objectives Analysis. The analysis of the

training objective.-, for the USA1S TOW gunnery program shows with one
exception that the objectives address the knowledges and skills neces-
sary for qualifying in the operation and use of the TOW weapon system.
The objectives, however. Incompletely address the knowledges and skills
required to eoaplctt th.- IOU ragagMMnt process In combat. For this
reison, it should not be expected that soldiers who complete the I'SAIS
TOW gunnery training program and qualify in the operation and use of
the TOW system will be able to successfully execute the TOW engagement
process in combat. In this respect, a gap exists betweLii the know-
ledges and skills covered during training and those required to employ
the system in combat. This gap may be closed if the training objec-
tives for the L'SAIS program (and therefore, the training activities
derived from these objectives) are augmented with objectives that
address the areas currently not covered by the program.
USAIS TOW CL'NNERY TRAINING PRACTICES
During August 1976, to prepare for implementing TOW gunnery train-

ing, the USAIS Antiarraor and Mines Division developed a S day, 31 hour
training program designed to provide instruction in:
o TOW system assembly, operation, and maintenance;
o TOW gunnery techniques;
o TOW crew dotles;
o Tank Ilent Ifiiat ion;
o Range card preparation;
I Instructional firing.
IS
•
^ - . - . - t -
i! i si'us seil .ibovo, livi' missiles are not emplnved durinr tiring «
practice« Instead« simulated firings using the M70 training Mt are
conducted during practice. Therefore, instruction in the operation
and use of the M70 training equipment was also Included in USATS pro-
gram. A total ot 21»S hours ol program tine were alloc.ited for gun-
11. rv Instruction and practice. Add i t ional 1 v, 7 . S hours of program
time wtre allocated for a post-training qualification evaluation con-
sisting of a 30 minute written test, I 3 hour hands-on performance |>
test, and a I hour qualification firing test. Following this evalu- •'
atiun, 2 hours were allocated tor course graduation during which the
soldier with the highest qualification score was allowed to fire a
live TOW missile. s
Appendix B presents a summary of this gunnery program. An

examination of the summary yields the following findings:
o On each day of instruction (Days 1, 2, and 3), train-

ing time is distributed between instruction designed •
to present Information and instructional firing.
However, the proportion of time allocated to these
catagories varies across training days. On Day 1,
the emphasis is on Instruction designed to present ;.
basic information, while on Days 2 and 3 the empha-
sis is on instructional firings. «
i
o Over all training days, the majority of training is

conducted using practical exercises with the major-
ity of these exercises involving simulated firings.
o The primary instructional medium for the TOW system in

this program is actual equipment supported by the use J
of the M70 training device. '.[
o Over all simulated firing exercises, the emphasis is on

the engagement of slow moving (5 mllliradian per second)
targets. ^
o During instructional firing, only 11 percent of the target

engagements are conducted at night. ,'.
o During instructional firing, blast simulation Is employed .'>

during 30 percent of the simulated firings.
o During instructional firing, only 11 percent of the targets

engaged, moved unpredictably.
The (MMMCy training program discussed above was Implemented at

Fort Bennlng, Georgia on S October 1976. It was used, unchanged,
through 27 lauuary 1977. Data obtained from the Antlarmor and Mines rt
Division, Weapons Department. I'SAIS, show that during this period, a
total of 30'! snldieri . Tvleted this gunnery training. Of these, <2 y.
.-,
19
pcrcMl (189 s<>idiers) met tiu- ainiauB qualification raqulrawtnta« M
■howi in Table 1t the aajority »»t thaM toldiera (44 (>• I qualiflad
.it tiu- lowest level of qualit icat ion, i-^. , 2ISD Clasi Cunnera In
raapaaM to this situation, on 28 January 1977, .i series of course
changti wen- Initiatad by L'SAis priaarlly with raapact to laatructiooal
firing. TK-u' ihanês w. r^ designed to improve TOW i-unnerv instrurtion
•nid tiiorelore, increase Lho luimocr and quality oi qualifiad IOU guniK-rs.
Based on an evaluation of the effects of these changes, a modified ver-
sion of tin- August 1976 USAIS TOW gunnery program was implemented on
15 April 1977. In this pro..;t. n, .i total v>i 19.4 hours ari raaatvad
for training, while 9 aours are allocjted for a post-training profi-
ciency evaluation ari graduation. Appendix C presents a summarv of the
modified rogram.
A comparison of the AUGUST 76 and 15 APRIL 77 USAIS TOW gunnery

prograns shows that the modification was characterized by the follow-
ing changes:
0 All instruction designed to present information was in-

corporated Into Day 1 training. The remaining training
days were reserved for instructional firing.
o The number of areas addressed during training vas reduced

from 12 to 11. Two areas were eliminated (lank Identi-
fication and Range Card (TOW) Preparation) and one was
added (TOW Training Equipment: Practical Exercise In
the Operation and L'se).
o The time allocated for Instruction in gunnery technique and

maintenance was reduced.
o The time allocated for the TOW crew drill was increased
from 8 to 2.8 hours.
o The amount of time the lecture method .was employed, was

Increased from 1.3 to 1.9 hours, while the amount of
time allocated for the lecture/demonstration method
was decreased from 2.5 to 1.3 hours. The use of the
conference method was discontinued. The amount of
time practical exercises were conducted, was decreased
from 17.3 to 16.2 hours.
o The total number of instructional firings was increased

from 98 to 110. Further, more emphasis was given to
engagements involving slow moving (5 mllliradian per
second) targets bv increasing the number of these
from 50 to 68.
0 The primary Instructional media for the TOW system

remained Actual equipment supported by the use of the
M70 training equlprmnt. Because two content areas were
:•)
• - ' ■ •■■ ■ • ■ _•""_■* •••• ••* ••■•«>.-. -••••■«•■•fall

r:i
■.->.-.• •'.-.■••.. ■•-.... .. ■ . .-•..•.-,-.-.,•..• ■ , -\ .-..--.
.•...■•..•..... .- . ■ . ^-L. ■ .. .-.-•. ^_. .. ■•..-- •-•■■-i . . . . " -' ^ •-•■ •- " •-' • " ■" ' ' ■ • .•-.■.•■. .
rabl« '
N BEI .,". • ICQ fACE OF SOLOIEIS HK) QUALIFIED
AND FAILIZD TO sÛALOT INDKK THE Al'CUST 1976 rOH
GUNNERY PIOGRANl FROM 8 OCTOHER
niROUGH 27 JANUARY 1977
Quali f i eat ion Numbor Pert nit age
Unqualified 116 38
Qualified 189 62
2ND Class Gunner 136 4A
1ST Class Gunner 48 16
Expert Gunner 5 2
Total 303 100
21
dmppoij, thi 9M0 '11 charts w.is raduced and the UM "t
tin- chalk Hoard for pr«Mnting Inforaatlon was discon-
tinuud.
o TiiL- written portion ol tlM post~training nvaluatioa was

tl ininitod . Complct ion of thi* hands-on [nrfor—IM ■
U'rf;. UM BOVOd t rom Day « to Day 3.
Consideration of the chmsoi dnscribad abtf¥n show« that tho pro-

ftram r.iudit uat ion nffort MCOflplithwl tho following, first, all uf tin.-
instruction involving the presentation of information to trainees was
consolidated into the first day of training. This was done by elimi-
nating training in some areas, by moving training for other areas to
the first day of the training sequence, and by reducing rh.' amount of
training time allocated to selected areas. Second, the amount and
kind of target engagement practice for the TOW system was increased.
Ti>is was accomplished by increasing the total number of instructional
firings conducted during training and by giving more emphasis to
target engagements involving slow moving targets.
Table 8 (which Is based on data obtained from the Antiarmor and

Mines Division, Weapon;- Department, USAIS) shows the number and per-
enntaga of Mldiarfl Mho qualified and failed to qualify under the
13 APRIL 77 TOW program, as this was implemented during the period
beginning 15 April 1977 and ending 19 May 1977. During this time, a
total of 178 soldiers completed training. Of these 87 percent (155
■oldiara) met the minimum qualification requirements. This repre-
sents an Improvement over the old program which had a qualification
rate of 62 percent. Further, for each qualification level (2ND Class,
1ST Class, and Expert (uinnc-r) there was an increase In the percentage
of personnel qualifying. (See Table 9). These results, therefore,
show that the modified TOW gunnery program (as discussed above) is a
more effective way of instructing soldiers in the operation and use of
the TOW weapon system than the August 76 training program.
USAIS TOW GUNNERY PROGRAM QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
A training program can he viewed as a way of Increasing the relia-

bility of the human in a man-machine system. Usually, the quality of
the trained person is assessed at the termination of training. This
assessment typically Involves completion of a test designed to measure
the end-of-trainlng capabilities of the individual with respect to the
Instruction and practice requirements met during training.
The post-train irm proficiency evaluation for the Aujnist 1976 TOW
gumary program Involvaa the completion of the following .'xaminat Ions:
o A M minute written tost covering the operation and

use of tlM TOM weapon system;
22
.-. ."
.A--^\V -, ■ _ ^^^--. ■•■ ■ .V---.
^ ■-' --
.-•. -■ - - - - - .-•- ■-■■. -•.
^ 5 —v^
Table 8
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF SOLDIERS WHO QUAI IPIBD

AND FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER THE 15 APRIL 1977
CUHMEEY PROGRAM) FROM 15 APRIL THROUOH 19 MAY 1977
HIMI if ic.itlon Number Percentage
Unqualified 23 13
Qualified 155 87
2ND Class Gunner 89 50
Expert Gunner 18 10
Total 178 100
"--^-^-^ 1^-^^—^-^-:—^^.\. ■ ^ ■ • ^- ■ • . .. '. v^.^.1-. v -. - v .'^ ^ .. ^ ^ '•_ . . ..

^
I
Table 9
,
PF.RCKNTACE OF SOLDIERS WHO QUALIFIED AI iACll
QUALIFICATION LEVEL UNDER THE UXSOWt 1976 AND
15 APRIL 197 7 USAIS TOW GUNNERY PROGRAMS
Qualiticatiun Level August 1976 15 April 1977

Program Program
2ND Class Gunner 44 50
Expert Gunner 2 10
Totäi 62 87
24
'
^^ -• •- ,-■-.•
o A I liour, iiiiu' st.it ion, hands-on psrforaancc ti-st
»verlng ••■•■bly ol the tactical I '• weapon lya-
tM scli-tt'st, charglns tha ION battery assi'inbly,
oper.itlon of the M70 training equipment, usf of
tha TOH blast simulator, operation ot the Ml
target set, unloading a TOW missile, loadlttl a
row alaaila and handling low missile Biafiraa
and hangfires;
ü A hands-on, simul.ited firing test requiring the

engagement of 30 laterally moving targets (10
moving at 5 milliradlans per second, 10 moving
at 15 milliradlans per second and 10 moving at
25 mllliradians per second) under daylight
illumination conditions using the M70 training
set and the TOW blast simulator.
To complete this program successfully, trainees are required to

answer correctly 70 percent of the written test questions, achieve a
score of 7^ percent at each performance test station, and achieve
minimum engagement scores of 55 percent for the 5 and 25 milllradlan
per second target engagements and 75 percent for the 15 milllradlan
per second engagements during qualification firing. Additionally,
applying the standards stated in Table 10, trainees are assigned (on the
basis of their firing scores) one of the following qualification
ratings: Expert Gunner, 1ST Class Gunner, 2ND Class Gunner and
Unqualified as Gunner.
With the implementation of the 15 APRIL 77 TOW gunnerv program,

the written portion of the evaluation was discontinued. The other
components of the post-training evaluation were unchanged. The
information provided by this evaluation serves as the basis for
quality control In this and the initial gunnery training program.
The quality of the personnel produced by a training program is

reflected in terms of their post-training proficiency, as well as their
capability to perform once they are on the job. Therefore, control of
program quality can be accomplished in at least three ways:
o By assessment of product quality as a function

of time with respect to the proportion of
personnel whose post-training proficiency meets
minimum success standards.
o By assessment of product quality as a function of

linu with respect to averaße post-training profl-
• iency of the personnel who complete the train-
ing program.
o By assessment of the on-the-job performance of the

personnel who have completed training. \\
i
25
• •-
■ • • -■• - - - ■ - -• ^.^ . -^ v:
T.ihK- 10
QUAL IF If .Ml ON STANDARDS TOR H)W GUNNERY

TRAINTNG*
TarRet Engagement UnqiMlified 2Nn Class 1ST Class Expert

Task as Gunner Gunner dunnor Gunner
5 Milliradians
Per Second 0-54.97 557-64.9^ 65%-74.9% 75%-89.8%
15 Milliradians
Per Second 0-74.9% 757-82.5% 82.6r:-89.9% 90%-1007
25 Milliradians
Per Second 0-54.^ 557-64.97 657-74.9"' 75%-89.8n' .
To determine i trainee's qualification rating for a particular target

engagement task, lind the qualification classification corresponding to his
engagement score for that task. The trainee's overall qualification rating
is the lowest task rating.
26
.■ • ■ •
-'•'•-••---■ - -- _^ ^
DiacuaaioM with knovledgable aeaberfl of the Antlaraor md NiiM Dlvl-
aloni revealed that -it prea«nt quality control t.>r liiis [»ro^ran la
.u • ump 1 ished only l>y tli«.' lirst Mthod discussed above-. In employing
this ira-thod the following procedure ll use«?:
For each class of Boldlara completing the pwwiary

Liaining prograB) the overall qualification rat in,;
of each soldier is derived as indicated in Table 10.
Next, for this froup liie inimher of individuals with
each overall (jua I i l icat ion rating is determined.
This information is Incorporated into a data base for
all previous classes. Next, the percentage of sol-
diers qualifying at each rating through the current
training group is computed. These results are enter-
ed into a table which presents the proportion of per-
sonnel who have qualified at each rat ins as a func-
tion of successive TOW training classes. Periodic
inspections of this table indicate to what extent TOW
gunnery pre duct qualitv is consistent. If the cumu-
lative proportions appear to remain relatively con-
stant over time, quality is considered to be consis-
tent. If the percentages within selected catagories
.ir>. judgad to be too high or low, program changes
designed to adjust the percentages within selected
catagories to acceptable levels are tested and eval-
uated. If the program changes are judged to be
successful, they are implemented.
As discussed above, this method is the only procedure currently

employed to evaluate TOW program quality. Members of the Antiarmor
and Mines Division were asked if any other method is ever enpK'ved to
assess gunnery quality. It was reported, that on occasion, personnel
from the USAIS have soldiers who have just completed the gunnery pro-
gram, demonstrate that their overall qualification rating is, in fact,
valid. In these instances, these soldiers complete for a second t imc the
M70 qualification simulated firing test. Based on the results of this
test, a second overall qualification rating is determined for each
soldier and compared with his first qualification rating. If the two
sets of ratings are found to generally agree, qualification ratings are
Judged valid and the program Is judged as adequate. On the other hand.
If the two sets of ratings tend not to agree, an cssessment is imple-
mented to determine the reason for the discrepancy.
Finally, personnel from the Ant Iarmor and Mines Division were
asked if formal feedback from units receiving personnel trained bv the
(JSAIS TOW program is ever directly received that indicates to what
extent these personnel are capable of employing the TOW system to
aagaga targets. It was indicated that this never happens because the
AntIarmor and Mines Division has no formal mechanism set up tcr obtaift*
Ing this Information directly from units In the t h Kl Howev. r, t'lese
27
vW --" v".".'
«M-MtaM - - •-
i
luT.-,lMuu'l ni.iUioiuvl tls.it. t'i i-* t viu- i I inlormatiDii would hi- UMftt] in
i -'ini; tlu'ir progra
DISCUSSION
The AKi It ewrtMitl) conducting mnnntch to Identify laptovwwoti

and develop cost-effective alternatives for TOW gunnery training. A
necessary prerequisite fo? •CCOnplishing tlMM tasks is tin dotumt'nta-
t Ion and analysis oi cuitvnt gunnor) training fur this s\stcin. As part
of Its support to AR1, Mellonics was tasked to perform the required
documentation and analvsls. This section discusses the results of the
documentation and analysis and their implications for the AR1 TEA
research for the TOW weapon system.
USAIS TOW GUNNERY TRAINING
The purpose ol the current USAIS TOW gunnery program Is to qualify

military personnel in the operation and use of the TOW system. An
analysis of the overlap between program training tasks and post-training
evaluation tasks revealed that substantial conmonallty exists between
th«j twi» sets of tasks. This indicates that program training generally
provides for accomplishing the above stated program purpose. However,
it was found that many of the target engagement tasks critical for
effective combat use of the system are not covered by current train-
ing. In this respect, I gap exists between the training provided by
the current TOW gunnery program and the training required for effec-
tively using the system in combat.
Analysis of the training practices for the USAIS program re-

vealed that the majority of total program training time (16.2 hours)
is allocated to the conduct of practical exercises. Most of these
exercises consist of instructional firings with the majority of these
firings (68 out of 110 firings) Involving slow moving (5 milllradlan
per second) cooperative targets. The analysis also shows that the
primary Instructional medium for the program is the actual TOW system
and its associated training equipment. Together, these results
Indicate that the instructional emphasis of the program is the acqui-
sition of the basic skills required to track and fire on targets, l..e.,
the development of proficiency In TOW gunnery fundamentals. This is
accomplished via substantial use of the actual TOW system supported by
the M70 training system.
Finally, It was discovered that program quality control Is only

ncconpllshtd through intra-program reans. Interviews with program
cadri' revealed that summary statistics Indicating the percentaKe of
personnel qualifying (at each of three levels of proficiency) and not
qualifving after the completion of training are used as the basis for
measuring program cjuallty. Periodic assessments of this Information
MtVi as the basis for derisions to make changes to the program. It
28
- ■ - ^_
was aiSD found that no tormal procodurcfl now exist to obtain dlTOCl
iiiJhu-k from units receiving USAIS TOW qualified gunncra with rv-
spt-ct to ti)i:*ir on-the-job missile firing prof i<.; iem v.
in summary, the above disCUMiOO indicates that tile USAIS IOH

gunnery training program is designed primarily to produce «unners
proficient in system oparation and the application ol tiie fundaaentala
of TOW gunnery. For this reason, the USAIS program can, at best, be
characterized as a preparatory weapons training program. In such pro-
grams, trainees .ire taught only the skills necessary lor the operation
of their weapons so that these weapons can be fired with satisfactory
consistency.
The results also show that the USAIS program employs minimal
quality control procedures. These provide only for the assessment of
intra-program quality and, then, just in gross terms. For this rea-
son, the identification of program weaknesses is likely to be some-
what inefficient. Further, because no formal procedures exist for
determining the on-the-job adequacy of USAIS gunnery graduates, it
is not possible for personnel administering the USAIS course to
directly establish to what extent the USAIS program prepares its
graduates to perform as TOW gunners in the field.
ANALYSIS IMPLICATIONS
Train tng. Because the emphasis of TOW gunnery training Is on the

development of the basic skills necessary for system operation, a
question arises concerning the extent to which this training can be
expected to transfer to combat. A comparison of TOW target engagement
tasks with the current training implemented during completion of the
USAIS TOW gunnery program showed that few of the tasks involved in
target engagement process are addressed by the USAIS program. As dis-
cussed in the results section of this report, the current program is
I modification of the Initial TOW gunnery program implemented at Fort
Benning, Georgia. In the initial program, target Identification and
range determination (two important components of the engagement
process) were addressed. With the implementation of the modified pro-
gram, these topics have been dropped because of lack of program time.
However, qualified TOW gunners should be proficient in these tasks.
For this reason, some provision should be made for instruction in these
subject areas. Further, in neither the current or original USAIS
Jacobs, T., Saltcr, J« and Christie, C. The effects on training

requirements of the physical and performance characteristics of
m pops. (HUMRRO Technical Report 7^-10). Alexandria, VA: Human
Resource Research Organization, June 1974.
:■'
- -• . w . -•-•.••■.
progrm wa« there tny eonsideration oi aatablishinft Fielda *>t flra,
Icular ■> ii < ' detacl um, ran . princlplea
.i.rni •. ississnii nt, or darliloo BHHIH fof IOU target engageaent« Fhaaa
aro also latargal compont'nts of the tarRet engagaaant procaaa« For
thi-. reaaoa training should also be conducted foi tbea« topi
Additionally« it is appropriate lot the I nnei to IM prac~

ticed in engaging targets that have properties similar to those likely
to ba ancountarad during i-omhat. Becauaa of tha aaîhaala of tha cur-
rant U8AI8 IOU gumary liro^r;iin, as well as tha limitations imposed by
the TOW training equipment, the target engagements conducted during
this training are relatively sterile events. Targets are not realistic,
since they are not armored vehicles. Targets are generally cooperative,
in that they move along predictable paths either from the Itft to the
right or from the right to the left. In no instance do targets advance
or retreat from the trainees during training engagements. Oblique
profiles are never presented. As shown in the summary of current
training practices, most of the simulated firings are conducted during
daylight hours; few of the firings involve intermittently moving
targatai and most target engajrments Involve relatively slow novlng
targets.10 Obviously these conditions are conducive to the develop-
ment and practice of basic gunnery skills. However, because of this
non-reallsr. (sterility), it cannot be expected that trainees will be
adequately prepared to track and fire on combat targets.
Preparation for firing on such targets can be obtained through

specific practice sessions designed to provide the trainee opportun-
ities to engage realistic targets moving as they might in comhat.
In particular, it would be appropriate to have trainees engage uncoop-
erative, erratically moving tanks and armored personnel carriers;
obscured by dust, smoke, vegetation, or terrain features; advancing,
retreating, and obliquely moving targets. Additionally, It would be
appropriate to provide substantial practice under conditions of low
Illumination levels. Currently, the USAIS TOW gunnery training pro-
gram includes no specific practice sessions that Involve the
engagement of combat-1Ike targets. Because such practice Is one way
of extending the application of gunnery fundamentals to more complex,
more demanding engagement situations, it would be appropriate to
augment the preparatory gunnery practice of this program with exten-
sive amounts of combat related practice. In this way, graduates of
the program would be better prepared to engage and successfully defeat
enemy targets on the modern battlefield.
10
These conditions have also been noted by Swezcy, R., (hitwood, T.,
Ir., Fas ley. D. , and Walte, R.. Implications _fpr TOW Gunnery Training
Development (Final Report). Springfield, VA: Mel ionics Systems
Development Division, Litton Systems, Inc., October 1977,
?n
-. . . ■. .
ility Control. As dlmw—4 abov«, ttu- I'SAis Tin; lunnery pro-
,i.. provides only for -i limited .1-. nl ol lotermi] qualltya Pro«
|raa quality is, rci Icclt-tl by the percent .it;v' of pOTSMM] qualifying at
aach level of Runnerv proficiency (Expert, 1ST Class, .»nd 2ND Clnss
Guanara) and by the percentage of personnel who fail to quality. U-m-
pariaona of these pareantasaa fof current mi paMMfy classes with
those of past classes is the means by wliicn training adequacy is deter-
mined. If the two sets of percentages are Judged not to be signifi-
cantly different, current training is judged to be adequate. Other-
wise, it is judged to he inadequate. 111 this vase, an irnvsr i gat i >n is
implemented to determine basis for observed deviations. The problem
with this procedure Is that while it provides for Identifying quality
problems, it does not provide for Identifying the nature of these
problems. However, this deficiency can be remedied by the collection
and maintenance of detailed class records reflecting class performance
at each stage of training and evaluation. When a problem Is identified,
these records can be inspected and evaluated to determine the exact
basis for the identified problem. Specific weaknesses for specific
classes can be determined and appropriate remedial action can be taken
to ensure that for future classes these problems are addressed and
solutions implemented so that they cease to be a problem.
It was also noted above that no provision currently exists for

assessing the extent to which program graduates are capable of
meeting the TOW gunnery requirements of their post-training assign-
ments. This Is viewed as a significant limitation of the program.
I'nless program graduates possess the gunnery skills required for
on-the-job success, they will not be able to perform their new
assignments satisfactorily (at least initially). Therefore, it
would be appropriate to establish a procedure for obtaining infor-
mation reflecting on-the-job proficiency. Appropriate information
to be collected in this case would be:
o Field comments of commanders;
o Amount and kinds of remedial training needed for

each graduate in order to be able to minimally
perform in their post-training assignments;
o Annual firing scores (both live and M70 meter scores)

for the TOW.
Once collected, this information could be correlated with appropriate

training and evaluation data. An analysis of this Information would
provide a basis for establishing the quality of program graduates with
respect to job preparation. Additionally, such an nnalvsis could lead
to the identification of short falls in the training program, j_.e.,
areas for which job preparation was too little or totally absent.
31
-"■_•• • ' \>.'-". . :-.,.-.v.-.. ..••-•-.vw

^L .V . "■—:—.-.'.A-^. .-. ." .■■.'■■.:•.•-.".vV.-'-^'-'i."-'»V . .■,..."_■
CONCH'S IONS I
The primary goal of all iraining in tiic U.S. Army is to prepare
for winning the first battle of the next war. To win this battle,
I'.S. rorees from the onset of hostilities must be able to use their
weapons profieiently so that eunhat effectiveness is maximized. For
this reason, weapon system traiaing should be geared to the produe-
tion of personnel so proficient in the use of their designated wea-
pons, that they are eopablt of entering battle on a monents' notice
without additional systems training.
Long range antitank guided missile (ATOM) systems are among the
dominant weapons on the modern battlefield. Their combat effectiveness
is a function of basic system capabilities, the tactics and tech-
niques of employment, and most notable, the proficiency of the
gunners employing the systems. The primary ATGM system of I'.S. forces
is the TOW heavy antitank weapon. Because of its importance,
it is essential that TOW gunners be able to proficiently perform
each task necessary for successfully engaging the primary target for
the system, armored fighting vehicles. Otherwise, the combat
effectiveness of units supported by this system may not be fully-
realized. Well defined and implemented gunnery training proprams
are the means by which proficient TOW gunners are produced. In
this section of the report, conclusions derived from the documentation
and analysis of the USAIS TOW gunnery program are presented:
o The L'SxMS TOW gunnery program is a preparatory

weapons training program. It emphasizes only the
tracking and firing aspects of the TOW engagement
process. Because of the preparatory emphasis of
the USAIS TOW gunnery program, it can not be
expected that graduates of this program will be
able to effectively complete the engagement pro-
cess for the TOW weapon system unless they
receive training in the areas of armored vehicle
detection and identification, establishing fields
of fire, range estimation, target engagement
decision-making, and damage assessment. Additionally,
trainees must be provided with opportunities to
engage targets that have properties similar to those
likely to be encountered during combat.
o The quality control procedures for the USAIS TOW

gunnery program are limited to the assessment of
Intra-program quality at a very gross level. The
development and maintenance of detailed records for
each stage of training and evaluation for each USAIS
gunnery class would 1Ikely provide a data base for
identifying the basis for deviations in internal
program qua I it v.
o Establishment of formal procedures tor gathering dali
directly indicating iMi-the-jub proficiency ol USAIS
TOW gunnery graduates would provide a basis :or
assessing the adequacy of the program with respect
to job preparation as this reiau-s to TOW gunnery
by those personnel responsible for administering the
USAIS program.
31
Rl-KKRFNCr.S
Department of the Arrw. Analyilng training .tfcct^veness (TRADOC

PAN 71-«), Itoshlngton, D.C.: Author, December 1973.
Depattaent Of the Ann;. . Range and lethality Of l.S. and Soviet

antiarmor weapons (TRADOC Bulletin 1 (U)) . Washington, D.C.:
Author, September 19 75.
Department of the Army. TOW heavy antitank weapon system (Training

Circular 23-23). Washington, D.C.: Author, July 1970.
Department of the Army. L'nit antiarmor training program (Training

Circular 23-20), Washington, D.C.: Author, August 1975.
Jacobs, T., Salter, J. and Christie, C. The effects on training

requirements of the physical and performanee characterIstlcs of
weapons, (HUMKRO Technical Report 74-10). Alexandria, VA: Human
Resource Research Organization, June 1974,
McCluskv, M,, Haggard, D., and Powers, T,. Survey of Army weapons
training and weapons training devices (All Research Memorandum
76-8). Arlington, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences, April 1976.
Pretty, R., and Archer, D. (Eds). Jane's Weapon Systems 1970-1971

2nd ed.) New Yoik: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Statz, J., Jr., and Etheridge, E.. Personnel and training In

battalion level force models (Technical Paper 10-76). Fort
Leavenworth, KS: L'.S. Army Combined Arms Combat Developments
Activity, October 1976.
Swezey, R., Chitwood, T. , Jr., Easley, D., and Walte, B..

Implications for TOW Gunnery Training Development (Final Report;.
Springfield, VA: Mellonlcs Systems Development Division, Litton
Systems, Inc., October 1977,
U.S. Army Combined Arms Training Board. Special Analysts of TOW

training (U). Fort Henning, GA: Author, March 1975. Confidential.
f."--/ •.. . .".•■■- •. .. ■ - ^ v ...

.^.'. .. .>—■• .% 1
<• ■ •
APPENDIX A
USATS TOW Gim'LRY TRAINING PROGRAM TRAINING OBJECTIVES
9.• ■
v.
3S
•-'- • ■ - ■ - --. A. •-■«-'■«-•. «.i,-'.v. ^',-.-..v. '.

INJ:»V.:
.<•.■•-^'-1*. •*.
*- «*- «*-
.. . , . ,'• .■.".. ..".■-■■.•,-.. . , .- .-V_'• .->j
i If
t
-
11 i j g
II
I1 I N
"I
|l
J5
• ••
11
h —
8
h ä e
.1
•«—
■s
•t
ft ■ «
C ?
M i •
IE 2a- IJ
«6 •* I
i6
s III i
I
■ii
£ il!! : Hi •o ~
h Hl
ii
I5 .2
1 ? Jil
'> - mmm
■
« -
- e » •
r :i I !a 4 -
I c w
Vivo
■
k.
r S s ».
x < 1 a,
v
<-
>
e « «ii
i ä
I
r3 -9s • .. - T>
I1 if *
J V II
" " _J, * I I
f V — ^ ■J« i c r gj
I I : ?
I s
Ic. 5
|J i I • K O
m m v
I
s If l~2\ I
e
Ii i1 1 la] | i
itl
B • s
s ■•IS
•-
I 2! ilii I 2^
.5 i
,t:
E^ -
=
f
§
I
I I'
c •
ifii
■: = i
I 2 it I 1 ih I
I I
Wl « (J C
I s 1
I
I i
- e
1 «
■ ■ i
iff
■
S !
I
3^
_^ ■..-
■ •.•-.••.•■
■
_■■_ ^^^^^^^H
tt
r ■ ■i
I s
tt
I S
I
I ?
I
li
» ■
ik
c
I
852 1
a i ss 11 J
£• —i
S I
I■I^
s. §
iJ
I ft. V
■ /
^ I
i
I
C Tl
31
v •
5 S
I ■ - -< * 1
•
■«
*
■
I III I 5
1
% i
: i &: 8.
3•- 5 2
- »
• — — > •
rf » -
s
< e
i 1■ »I
«
4.
►* fi •"
«1
C
I
|
>• r
a.
0
1
M
C
5
■ • «
1 fsl 5» a . H s
* ••a
9
«« •
u » « 11 ft it
r 's, » I c ■ S 71
- •
I
TI ^
.hi c II
« s > 5 I 3 J 9 ■ •11
8X 28 - •
5 . J
C • W I• | I j 8
8t I
w S
V I -*
0 3 II
b « I
c - - I —5• •! 11
M i> ^
li w -
w «
e 8 lii 8
-i
-
- a X
r
il
I i
•r I 1 2 ■^ c *•
^ 1 . ' • s
I
•o
i
c
1 » 2
I I ■
- ^ i
^ I 8
I
c
i ! s
e
I
37
-■ .- .■ _• •-■ . -
i
^ —«I
•
1■ s
J
1
— » ;« %
■
IM
■
•
^4 i 3
■o
X
■
B
■•
t-
—
| V c a 1 *>
J- ■^• 3
j- M C •
!« 1
i
1 ■
■ ■ 1
•SUM
S
C
la. ••5
k
T3
|
b
a
»<
i ■
|
C
n
•
i 1 1i r. 1
i i B
ml}
V- u u
.
-4
3 ■■ | -44
ai
< 1 1 £.
.. 11 ■ «-«
■3
a
■
b -^4 44
1 a
* -4 tr ■^
b ■ 41
■I1
■
« 3 »1
M vl b —( i
9
•• a •^ M <4~
3^^ 1 a
■
•-4 1- m
-•
*ii
«4
• -■itt mm
1
a
1 M
M
• a
V
a —
m
•
■u
a B
3 -^ -j i- u 3 Tj C -
a c
i■ M m 9 *4
w
«SEI
CJ:
a
■
-«
| b
• C
in 0
X >■"
|
•
V
44
a c
> •>
C
a
^ g a.
c 3 « ■
«1
■H
»i b
a *
■ •«
1 •J
<r -
0
9B -; -3
«« • w
-x X
B
b
b v.
3 ■- 3 -. •0 • C •
•o • own y IM *
k U 1, £ <fl
T
1 ■
a oc c
0
3«
g b
1s 5 b
-H •V«
-t 5 i». -j -« -4 «1 y - 1
M a 3 —« • •J b 1
a •^ a
|
. X X
— r « 3
V 0 U
m M
S
b PJ
1|
? O.
b r)
1 if | X
H el J<
Jii, •«•
Iaw«« -J a c
•
444
o
• !
*
a
•
-3
C r4
• s
7. k OS S
X
I
>
lu j e lu
•o - .* -o o
«T i o
1
■ ■c
D.H
H ■ CH
I«
X
i
3 § ^
86-, M
50 - -
■e V N
U
*
1 }l
J —
1 N b %
fl V B •• ■ ■ »4 •** «, -o h! — "5
5
w *^ •« T C 3 *
3 «44 X t)
1B '«
•-4 -
1
D »•
« -
n
« o
•o c 5 u —
6
■ «* • V
9 • M ■«
B
|-|
p^
«-4
■*«
2H
.'w
9
u <J
^ J! §
1
c
a 44
3
44 U
X
1 ««X
1
- « « 0 « > E a u « a b V
w — l/t £ O. U ■o •^
■ e
1■
c > v
- -M 00 r*«
£ 1
■
11 -a ■--.', _i
■o
w *
«4
. 3
a
a
•-4
E
•o
b
3
a
b
|
■
it ~* *4
P4 r^ 00 e b OC S b
^*
5 «4
■o
DC
53 W b U 0 U
V U O. « b «
?H a
■^
Kl
»
I■ T3
a
—
-'S
4i
!
991
>
«
• -•
k- r T «
1
c - 1
X lb 10
U
1 1
■
X
a1
O
«i
■
■o 1
3
tr
•
= «
1
■«
</> b ■ ■
G i
21
■- u
W b -
* i c o~
n b 9 b -^ (^
^4
s: 0
Ij1
^3
3 «r
■
1-4
■
J>
eo 1 11
5 H «4 «4 «^
■«
Srt a 4j
il X a X
IM
■ a
■
b
■
— £ I «4 «4 b <4
u <•» 0 B
3^ x a
H• *
«i
c»« (A U 0» h. V I GU < 1- »i
60 I'
•- •« b b b
«
A
1
at U *-l
1
w
!
«*•
E
• ~
R
M
1- ■o r.
■< 3 — C > >
3 »
v
C — -
* % ■•4
■•J
•öI 1 •4
■V
A. «r »4 •1 e a
•«
C a
b
" 1 •4 «4
1is
1
C
5
u M a ■1 M
•• ..
■
<v C b y b VI
♦-•
8 ■ t-
■c
i ■
■^
C
r) M e «1
•• M
W1 b
e-
M
a ■•
W
*•
•O
M
c 1
M
••
J<
M
•c
-•
e
I -4 j<
« ^
■ •a 1JK
1■
tJ c a
1■
M
«4 i b b
t ■ 1-4
c a
jtf ^ -4
I 1 -
|
! •••:
c
c t- >-
I ■
1
- - - - ^-^ — ^^ ^^ m . ■. *
4^ -■••
■' .. .-:
.'. -M
••""i
■o
§ U -3
: -
■w
o 4i -.
1
11 IS
- ~>
.
■
c ■
U
-< J "
1 w *-*
ä
«
§2
J
TJ
«
c ■
I
i 11
a.
I
•
«1 X
c <n
i
u
m
DO
H^
41" 1
1
^J
« IB
c ~l ■'
*< 4i
E =
1 1 %
1« B
-3 1
■
W
41 b "->
1 "3
■
<t J0 « 1
'
M u '4
1
"O «1 w
■«1
1 N
■
w »
H
■ 1
- b
• x: u C
%, ^j -. ■*•
1
oc I *
■
«4 a JC
*»« 0
Ü «• c
o
V
3 C M
■1
*J w u ~«
1 •
1
■M
•M
0
b
H
J
§ w e
s 0« J e
« U w
•
oc 8H t:O X«&b
U w «
2(- n
• V «
4i
■
I
a e& .CM«!
U <« £
•-« w
—«
«4
*
||
■»
111 /»
4 3 u
C 1
ft. < ^- 918
«• .« T>
s a i
39 '
■—
■
- -■ ■ i_^ v^. ^J. ^ ■- - . . . . •. •. ■ •. . •. •

M
u II *»
•
1
B
M
Si M
i •x 1
c £ >« M
1 1
«4 .X « It ■2
« n a i I
N • cr «4 H
■1
E
■•a
i
w «
■
1 ■c !
^1 ■o I
s■
<• ■ 4
2 «
■1
i
■i
S '
| ..-a 0
r.
1
M ■0 J=
M
1
■
u
'c |
1
»■ y
u "B 3
£ c* l- 3 ■
-o «i «-* b 44
■ «
S5
w M
C
«4
M
■
e
*
o
v4
1
1
H
i «• j ■»4
c u M b
■3 «1 0
•
■~*
|
44
«
3 M
-3 |
■
i H
u
a 1
-^ «1
44 ^
o \,
■
Ä T>
m
i § ■3
44
■
•o
| | s
EI fl
e
fl
■
^ M
£ a
44
a
e
gft ■
in i
I I
■
u *. <«4 •r4
p
a 1 u
b 1
••<
£ 3
s1 i
o •»4
r
8
i-
|| ■o M
2 8 « e
■ 1 1n ■ 9o
ti T3 -■ g C « 1
3 w ^< » 1 1
d | | 4i > 44
■«
IJ
-4
u,
< 8
■
■• ■^ 1 *
•*4 il
•<■
u .. o
■ ~
X 44
k
5 ■ 0
p4
1»
SB § m u IM
1 > 44
g- 44
•3 ' 1
1 If 1 c
■1
1
| ?■ Is «4
3 E
u
■
• <H
■ •(
WV
V
|
3
t> ■
tl
<< V
JC oe •• 1« at 41 4»
1
■ 8
M " 1
*s u U
^ 0 S
C
a
B
•
1
e ■ 44 t
—* •
I0 10
o
5 h U
I
•
a u ao
■
44
3
OC-V
c —
-44 U
J< •-
1I
1
« «
e u
*•
M W
a « v
H ^1
2$
8
" u" fr
»« •
1■ %
■
i* ■■ •
s« «3 ■|
o ■1
ft a * Q. a z
li
■II
gU JLS1
■ •8 o • «^
•
ft. ss %
• 1 •« O
■
IM
«1
3!
■I
«t <*-
c u
• ;•■_>
tl H
>
■i
■ ••
■ ■rf N •1 *<
isa*
•9
e
■3 H < -«
1 *
Tl
■a s
i
44
| t»
! DC
5 I -4 1
■
if .. (/I 1
ft
■•
44
•**
"«
c
■
u
1 ■ Jt
:
C <•
■
|i
i
«4
1
3
■
44
c vl a
^ ■■
1
M «4 •^1
i i
c
8■
•
1
>k^h îî - ^ •- ■- «- - - ■- -■--«- ^. . . ■ ,. •- •-

-5 T-
i
44 >-4 i
1i
0 44
gy
1
•• » »i
II
et, I
I
i g ■ 8 <s a X
1 H »1
» =
«J j- « 44
*^■■
1 0 ^4 1
1
1
t
m a <• * 13 B
' n c
o
n i-
•o I
-O |
I
it «1
%
H
Ü
•*% S a BJ
tn
*<
tl I .. m ^3 | '
:_, ■ y
•» m
?g ••
>
<
•-• C
•^
■
Jl ■
X
«i M
£
U
w -o
|l
B
-4 X
c
-r4 •
«■ J
■ c
Hfl 4 </. <Q (A
i
I1 c »-« « -fl
:1
U J< Jl j
11 i «4
0
I yl 0«
1 3 t M •T3 0 w c !
] t ■o
■
C r-- u "44 1
1 Ml >, r.
i
V4 4- 1
(2 ■
■ H
a.
C 1« {■ X "4
•
1
1
"1
OC ,.
M | c iy
•o
■■• •5
3
M |
i
■H 1 C cr b
* 4l
i-
41
l
44
|
i 5
n
i
a
a*
^
«
«1
T3
«i
1ft y 1
> fci
«
y
A
O .-n
00
41
4i
H 1
■
m
■
1
> in
B -
I 11
e o
■1
"
1
i
1 1
j. !
| 8
5^ 2
M
1-4 1■ ?■?
1 |
c
^
n
c
W
«
«1
■
00
H
•
►-•
-^
■«
>
2S
a** :ii
e
•4
44
1
■ u
M C* b 41
e « y 0 « 00
■i n > «
|■
-• u
|i
9) q . W *i k"
1 « ■
^«
f •44 44 1
1 3
s1
4
-x
1•- fl
OC k- at u
Jjl
i
C 0 « X
!
H
■ ■ ■o
1 ;
h
ll
0 ^ .. 0
1p i—*
DO 44
^"«1 « -<
I
1
M
w
■
u — in
9M
or .n
^
•*4
C 00
^-i 44
| ]
!
t <M
•o «1 i c 44 14 a
11
oe-c ■o « i
fl -H w X *. 41
<0 3
U. i i 8 (J 0
«
»4
-a 01
X
w
a
0 «a ■y
: i 1
1 w « 1 1
8 S •
tl . !1
M 8 8
m
•■ X 0
w w
«4
W |l >. ^
■
M «t « »l 44
X
it
H
U
• w
■
II ^ X C M 9C
c —
l'. X
i
S 8
I«
%X iS «4
-4 il
1(X u
11
i
O
1
I
|
M
j: je
at ~
■M
0
b
a a
y •
H
w S >>
J V *<
1 tj M
â
•
■ —
>-
_ a
44
"• •
i
i'
i
*-0 C w 1 1- -■
« ^4
> c
I
— i, U k- 'H
5 <■ *■
I »i w; k « n w
8 ••* M a 0 S. 3 TS
^8 ■"*
i 1
1
H
6« - v 1 y 3 s '
■
 c y ti « •« c. j
■ v«
| Q <•
e • a
e y i
H | «• 9 u u y o -a B '
9 IS er
a- 9^" *4 !
|
^
o
«4
1■
a
m
a
-8 I
« - o
. ■
.If
w < ^
y
c
«4
h 1
(4
C V
t.
■44
1*4 W
9 c
% ;U
b
st .
■
^ ■ k
■
V4o
•M ■eI 2 8
e b
« f 0
.
9
T» M~4
X
•
44
M(4 4-»
«1 "
1
&
■ t«
1
s■ KlB
IM U
■
1
if■
00^
cum
u
y
■
3 11
H -44
a -4
I'
0
U
«
X
O d
3
■• u 2 r ■- w
« « •4
s t 44
jgj.
' is. u w
0 JC i-< • • ■ tx
r-i
■-t | 2W *14 i
e■ a
1« -fl■
U «J
SJ
M
3
H
,il V « r 0
« y u
«CO Ü
V
OC
y^S
a w
■■ ■ &
«4
■•
1»
| 1. 5«
■■ ■■
yr M
■
4i 00
u E 8
e
If 5111
Ui 0 W c -< m
<4 M^ « a. 5 $ Ul ■*■ f~ • i-i 
i u
■
1« 4i | ••
1 t
1
w
^5 1 M ^
11
BL.
e
1 1 1
1
M
i
, i
n 6
c
1
■
»-
•• M
W» E •• \r>
i 1■ e
—y5 ■ H
6 •• 1
■ 1 ■■« e • 1
*4
iA ••
j ■
W
»-• v4
*•
M
M
•fl
«4
c
«4
■1
w
•
«4
••
-4
M
M
■o
«4
c
■^
a I
i M
u
e
a
4»
■
I
i
>- 1
J h-
9
M I H
Jl T»
-3 *4 • «
.
e
■1
3
J •-• i* *•*e l
i
1
1
«J
E
'
v.
L i ..-.-.-. —-. -.■.•' ■•■..■-_.,.
. . ■.■ M . -4 ■ - - -•-■- ^^^^v . _ . -
- i i
|II
3 E
• ,0
1s C
1)
9«
"5
U T3 î2 ■
o
u
ss • 29
c o -a i.
B
«I in
w CM
M
I
« i
.H 2
ill I 6
I« ^ o
I u O
.
s I
iS m m
«M -» <-~
i
^ O l
•-• •-»
I
la
I IN
r
i] fi
«
3 - r x -o
M w e ■at
e to
■
0 Ji ■I
s Ix X
u •
>. w
8
c
-. 3
•O -. «M
5 SI
SI »»
O •!
m I
I I - X
m iv
X
t 6»Iü
2ia >
i}l ec
c
w r >- u ■
3 « T3
m <-> • X) X
U 3 ^ IT
«> O
■ < 4 O 8■
O. "< 3 •» «
3 «. I X -
3
H
S2
w M
ft
S" I 3 r:
I |j
& 5c9
o u o «
I b 4> U C o
E e u « « ki lb 0
I
<y
C
3
I
M
i
I
u
M
-<
M
C
c
I
s I 2
i
i 5 I E
C
— - - - - -• ' •- - - ■ - -■ - ■ ^ ^M -•■ -' ■ -

-1 « B B-
■
tt
f.
»I
ll
ll
■ u
1
<r4
PH
>
2S
■
1 « £
i M
C
•^
I X
•w
«o «•
0«
9
•o &s .
i. «1
1" -»
■ C 1
m 4, — r»
u •o x:
■ w U
CD
s
« it*
5.^
I
< M
C
•-•MM
a
«4
| I J-
3 u * -a
■
•o « 4i «
■» U w
•o »4 V4 O U
w -a w o
«u I« e
■H
-«
« a
-• ^^« I
& ^
gsg
8*• 3v ■ MM
*» -4
m l' 8
BH n
« -o a
"He
u
: III
■
«0
6 « u 1
a «4 •
ti 44 « <-l tl
r o £
M
1
>.
8
1M
■
— a
- w —
-< C
1 r:
2c M
a a
? H
2
•• .• .
- - - - -• -• -• ">- iA - - -■ - - -
■
I 3
s -3
u
o c
!
! I c
o
41
I
i e s u »«
■o
ä
I s
I I
(J
8 o
r
■
u
u
u e ■
s i 1
1 ■ •o
I I
I
s
u
41
1
u
$
3C
«J
i
-o-l
04
a
te0
g
et
£
I 44
u
|
^
44
y!«
■ <«
a. M a.
Si 8.i ■I1 s
E I b
9
■O
»1
w
I •i It ^
3 3
«
&
s 0 Jtf e
■
10
g g
■
1»>
t c c
< o o
s I . ^c 4 I (1
11 0*
s
«
u
•i
c.
m m a «4
I 01
a ■ I
II « 1 (*
t-
■o •o
n u .0
> 0C
c
w 1 *4
-a
I -3
2 §g 3 C
i
UJ £ O
5 I g
e
ti 0 6
o w s 0 0
c
c
5 9-2
"0 K O ■c •
•8 S •I I
s a -o
•s
«0 e k.
?s I
I
M
« e
at >» •
e
s
41
3
> •1 I
8ft
32 ir 1 U - t
o
« w 2
5 !
I i 3
><
•s
:u
^1
•H
« *
U
J!
2
I
^
3 ! I 55 I
U
4) •
00
d e
«
w ^<
10
2 | I
»1
il
a 9 0
I S 5 ■J
c I M
n
■2
«4
a
Ii i
DO 4
e u
e
—
I «a
3 ■
B
-4
V g
e fi
-o «4
c <o
c 4
8 u
I -
-"- ■
-^•:^;.\. ;.^ . . :,•- . - ■ - "-'■- --'- ^ - -^:-
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF THE L'SAIS TOW GUNNERY TRAINING PROGRAM

AUGUST 1976 VERSION
45
, - - - . . T-. • . .. r ^ - ^ ^ - . ^
.^
. -^
V^
r^ v •
' - - • ----■- •-
1 - i
- <
■ c
Z V
M) c
c
a.
•o >o O *n -1 ■f P|
o «M fvi CD »n «N «M o
3 T)
«I
a «
u —
a —
c <
Je 3
s
I-*
O X
I c
o o
-- <
■ i|
1 I I<
«
j
■
3 f
«I
1
I
M
C
i I
-
w
T,
C
u.
I
■* C ■
"i —
■ 1o I
3
» -3
- -.
1«
•
cr 3 c
(I w
e
I « «
b e
z
1 m (A
^ j p o
C 1 c s u c o
II « -*
I
W C
- o
c -
—
c
^ gg
Q. •t
>-.
b
« = s
mm C
e ••
3 M
I V
C
-4 b •^ 3 —
* < e 3 ^5 - u b
J
-■
. ■'. - .. .
-•-- - ^ - - - ' - . . ■ ,
i
I
u
>• B
at
u
tt
■J
Ul CE B
O
U
(Al i
O a:
O w
o
■o -<
c- -
ig
B
I* u ■
V
3 C
-
I
O 3
X
u. r^
O <*
3
UJ H ^- — ~i
fin
-I
a
^
I
3 *
3
«
w e
«I o
a
o
!
«I
kl
< ■
C
M
■■
C e 9
■2a I« "1c e •H 1
fl
•rt|
c 0
«I « w t* a
a 9 -1 w bb B
■ ■
4
C ■^ (-4
o
(J ■o c
c
a
a. 2 H
>
« ■• u a. .. -x
■
0 «t 0
c ■ X « w
I 3 3 8^ 4-*
M a.
•■4
■
£
«e
■
«
■« I
u M ir - M 3
■ C UJ -4 1 u
■
T3
■3 C 1
<
■-
> ■— c >. IS w
X . C •ec ■1
•— «i
•■ i x >
a u
• tu
*
■o e
■3
»-•
a
,j
■ C
*1
1 J<
a« «
—« *Î 3
o
C
3
a
3 o
O
H
c
«
h«
1
H
J3
H
a
9
a
p
pri
—•
<
•,-■--.. ,-..,>«■> . - .
.-•v-.v
■ - * - n . " V::- ■. •■ . . .:
■1 ■ > ■ ■ ■ ^ ■ 1 ■ ■» > ■_■ i • i m ■ i _i ■
1
-.' -•-'—.l '-'—•-."-. -•■-."■
. S
J ^ I it
- \ \ -! | i « —
II«
is
in m —
. 1 »
...
i u 2 <« u
ri ■
s Is
3
I 1 I |m tsw
I Si. -32
« u
—
I
" - ». X 3
- it 3 •
l|"
i IJllJ
JO « K '
— 3 - d
»2
iJIII
t
'It 5 5
ivl
i e o I s
■ 25 IP
Iff Jj il w cT[ 4 .; -
i
P 9 *
3 e
- K
in c ifj
cili
still — > lill Ifl
wjs I^Jisi II,
- ; - r
. ^ »_ i -
i- ^ ■■ J
»
-< c
s
I I
e I
II 5
3
il «•IB
*-
M
e
6 I JJ I
? 3
I 11 J
^8
: „%. ••■ rtvOCv na A".-.' :.\ • LW. ^^^H^ •■^-.v

CM
■
r e
— c
> m -o
«
I
Q ^ Ö
X TJ O
« J
w i* tl
i -r« V.
in b
•^ ti
■ 0.
C ■
•^ c
> • "2C
O «4
s: -o o
• <-
W U «I
«
b •-•
in «I
■
c a
•
i -o o o -4 |S>
« u
_< k. 4.
i u —
^2
ET
S
# t I I • I I « c
I
I 00
44
w
1
Z
«1 I H
 ■
I
1 H
ta
■•
■ ■ ■
1
ä
I- •
s
< « <
M
U l-t ■-■ M > W P
«9 t
\ ... . .
: •■ ■■- ••v^^î^vvv.;.: L^^w/.^y^wv^vA'A^^v:^«^
r m ^,» "^ ■."' ^_^ ».w * ^ v■^"W■»■■^- '' V WJ^w - w^- ■ ^ w - ■ ■ T - T w y w w_- T» <"¥■! - gwy*»^ j » =' » K» T^ r
^ «." T ^ ? ^ '' " ^^ T * ^ >* t.^ ^* T ^ 1 ■ ■ ■ | ■ ■ ■ 1
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF THE USA1S TOW GUNNERY TRAINING PROGRAM

15 APRIL 1977 VERSION
SO
• v. • ■• ■■ -. •
it
•~ <
M
ll
v; s
o o
S
x
•^ o
-« «
.J u
oo eo o
3 f—» ^
»- O
«I
w W
e «
« u
J o
U —I
il -I
C ■<
c
■o m
v o
q ti
- u
o <
< c
«
H5
I <
| ä
A ft.
?
I r
1
1
1
3
1
|
U
1 3«
c
1
■■
k«
»j
ex
oc
C
•*4
■
3
B
• n
E
• Ei
■
C n
•• •■ e u. •■« I a» ■
e M w •— H H i
m C e r-« ec •r*
>-< 3
I
I " s0 >
«1
I c
il
t-4
o M || e
8 c
■
S 1 e 1
9
■ •
E
u 4J
o
< w
•
3 o- u
m ■
«a a
»1 M
■3
S
I -^ 0
to. ^
■a s ■
H
•-
C
«
Jr e
c >. o
1-5
■M 0
>,
M
e
|J
3^
C
X
u
41
c -■
- «
M
«4
a
b
w
M
e
>-•
w
-c
H
»-•
w
c
H
« w
ft.o
c
0
«4
W
«
^
ü
c
§
•-*
**
—■
C 0 — — e« e - o M c u 0 m
c
o
Q.J3 u
T a !»
V C w -c
3 • W 4
c
—
-<
m
u
! is
w
m
u
a • h
i» u «
« e w
3 v4 U
X
h
I
■^ 94
•1 «
b O
■
(- <•
2■
u
k«
|
^^
«I
I c
a*
c
•'
**
fr.
«M
•P*
—»
^
4i
5
■o
o
•*-«
M-»
--4
is C
I'
•-■• 73 —*
|
c
.3 1 I
X m
H
G s
X 1 n
u
O 1
.-
■.■'■■'—•—.
ft
i
■I
'.'I
n ti
1
I «
O CS4
u u
Sr 2I '.
11
CM
11 C
11 w
«I -
* Si U B
3 -
V
JB
J- H
MM
II
- II U. r-
O K
m
IS 1
52
■
c
aI l
0
■1 1« 2
flI "O
■1
•i
b ■ c C 9
«1 V 0 l« I 10
*S «4
«1
I
«I •o n I W M B
u
<
• «
>N U
u
V
0.
C
«
c
U 3
a ac
c
1■
- 0
M U o « £1i« -• u
e
■naa. •J M a)
'J c -« e
.• .. e
u
c
3 < "
oo
ai c
1
w
e
1o.
1 -i
c —
i(c. u*
0
K
-^
ai
aa
>
ee Ic
■3
.. ©
e ■ -i •P4 B c « - «1 «4 X
^« «I c 3 V 3 3 C H ai
e
•«4
u s
01
tr
Ui
-*
«
1«
w
tr
«4 ■<? 2■ ^^
w
3 3
rt
1
> e ■ E
«*■
*l
(0 >, TJ 1» r-»
it V. £ je DC j] ■1 B £
c u 1 e E IC H
c *4 c >i — w Ä c
•— •-•
n
0 DC
o. c
c
t.
>.
b
►« r «
■«« -< ■ ^— X
«e
•a «( k «a u 1 ►-*
■ 1
■
•9 — 1«
• -o E «1 «-I ■ b »• ■
3 •
0
H
«
w «
c
H «
I u 5)
• •4 ~->:]

. - . * ■
. ■ ". • •■.
.■• .■,» .■•
|1 11,
I] f|]|lj
11*1%
^ u »- . - i-
M w aw
- « u •- u C
^1 - U 5 "■1 0
I 1
J s°
I
• • k
i 8
J J 8» >. -
s
« • b
0
«a « •
ill«!
I I
<n 0
b ^ in i
•"Si 8
llfl
SI '^8 I S it
- w » •M b » b
r . i - • - » I
:
s Uli I
■ ■ b I <
25,1J
, I
I I I jsî |
I I 2 I£ - = £1. I III
> b
1
iIts ij1
§
II
£ - v
in if ii
JZ T;
3
ui a il v« e
2 ir. e 15 vi e 3 <3 •
- >-
I
llli
Sill C •
• b V X -
■«. I• -t 11
w t* 0 w ^
1 S^x-S t ^SnxA
i lllll iilll 2UI1 si|iM9 " ^ 'S X - -.::^2?
v ^!;7xi
■- * - —
9 ■
I a >• b ■ -•
o 1- H -J r 5t- H J r
a «
a. b b ■ «•
IIIJII ^H^J:
-
^"H
• 3 • J- ^1 «,
'r i2^
»Ck 1w «•b ■1 «•1
0 »- ►- J r
1I ■
OS
tl I
ap, 3
111 1 II
J
1
?
53
S-v ■ :••>•. .-?-•-

•"W ^ - ^-J <r-,- r- T .-■■- v.»-.
■c
-« c
t -3 i I • M I
M 6 fl
4* -• ^.
0.S
I«
c
c «
8
Ix -o?o
»- u x
01 ■>< (/I
eo —
b "I
Jl|
■
z ■-•■
•* c
0 »< c
r -o e O CC
u »< 41
I
1 i
J3
I
u
a
on
b
I
e u
"8
■
4»
■ £
W
«4 •M
c k-* »-»»-« r^ >> i»

I
a
11 X
n
a a
c
u k »-I •o
« o I
u w
n
p-t
■>
T3 J<
u
«■
i o
1 r H
■ ■
^4
Wl
M
V)
■ac
M u
«1
t<
tq B E
^ « 1
CO H H
5A
• /•. • .-.••.. • • • - • • . ■. .•

Ada 150149

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ada 150149

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

w

Research Note 85-3

O) ANALYSIS OF TOW GUNNERY TRAINING

Seward Smith, Chief

Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Approved for public r«ittit. distribution unlimntd.

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

SECSJRITy CL AiOIFlCATIOM OP THI . l'*Gf f".-»»« />»f. -.• .r'!)

Research Note 85-3

IT. AurnoHf«> « COHTHACT OH CRAST NUM-1tHf*>

.ItOfL-rv L. M.ix>. DAHC19-77-C-0011 |

IM DliT «I3UTI0N STATtMcNT fi>/«>'»/<e;>jfO j

Approved for public release; distributior unlimited

In. SU?^LCMif4TAR/ NOTES

DD » 'AX /> i;73 l UlflOH O» » MIV •.^ I . ' •■- •

AR1 rt-.i--irtii is to Idtatlfy both short mi lnii^ r.m... lapfOVMWMta in TOH

This report is providfd by the Melloni».s Systems DcVi-lopnunt

Under the contract, a part ot Mel Ionics' effort concerns

|0CMI( I'.S. Armv Training and Doctrine Command (TRAHOC) stiulies

DOCUMENTATION OF TOW TRAINING 3

TOW Gunnery Training - An Overview 3

USAIS TOW Gunnery Training Objectives 7

USAIS TOW Gunnery Training Practices 18

USAIS TOW Gunnery Program Quality Control Procedures 22

USAIS TOW Gunnery Training 28

Appendix A I'SAIS TOW Gunnery Training Program

Appendix B Summary of the USAIS TOW Gunnery

Appendix C Summary of the USAIS TOW Gunnery Training

Tabl« !. Baapl« Instriu-tlonal Firim; TabK for

2. Summary of Training ObJactlVM fof t ho

3. Comparison of Tasks Covered by Training

4. Dimensions of and Visual Angles (at 1,000 Meters)

5. Gunner Tasks Performed During the Execution of the

6. Tasks Performed During the Execution of the

7. Number and Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified

I« Number and Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified

9. Percentage of Soldiers Who Qualified at Each

10. Qualification Standards for TOW Gunnery Training 26

ANALYSIS o\ rOW CUNNKRY TRAINING

Reci-nr D.I, Ar^iy Training and Doctrim- Conmnul (T1AD0C)

Accordingly, TRADOC has directed the U.S. Army Infantry School

The Mellonlcb Systems Development Division of Litton Systems,

The objectives of this research are:

o To describe the current training objectives, practices, and

•"• • •. •.- • .•• ..,._ »..--•.-i.*

The documentation and analvsis of a training ptoggtm tm^uiti ■

.' Progrm tralolng objwtlvosi

A survey of the military literature revealed that two programs

The data base for this analysis consisted of four sources of

The documentation and analysis of the I'SAIS program wir.

- - - •-"■ • - - - . . . •.: •.■..-:

TOW GUNNERY TRAINING - AN OVFRVTEW

Ttu' purpost' of ,i pMlMry tr.iininv |vri>i;r.itn is to tr.iin wlactttd

However, the cost of live-firings for the TOW system is quite

The M70 training set1* consists of an Instructor console, a

• K' tactical sysLfm during .1 live-tir« trial. pr viiiur.

A vi'lüi K' witti the t.irget set assunes .1

Dept-ndinc en the target protocol for thf

■irtmont of the Armv. TOW heavy antitank weapon system

Finally, during simulated firing practice, TOW blast effects

Typically, a TOW practice exercise consists of a number of

At part of the initial procurement of the ION -ivsti-m, a train-

In the following sections the USAIS TOW gunnery training program

NeCluakayi M. , Haggard, 1).. and Powers, F.. Survey of Army