"Research Report 1255 LEV

EFFECTIVENESS O)F IMPROVED BASIC RIFLEMARKSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

0' •,Thomas J. Thompson, Seward Smith, and John C. MoreyArmy Research Institute

andArthur D. Osborne

Litton -Mellonics Systems Development Division

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

SDTICELECTE,MAR 27 1981

E

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1980

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

81 327 1455

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

FRANKLIN A. HART

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US ArmyTechnical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION- Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address corresponden.e-

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Rewerch Institute for the Behaviral and Social Sciences,ATTN: PERI-TP, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSIT•: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. lesew do not return it tothe U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral end Social Sciences.

NOTL: The findings in this report are not t ue construed as an official Departmint of the Army position,unless so designated by other euthorized documents.

I.

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WMhen Data Ktnered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE REAL ISTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM1. REPOPT NUMBER 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO. . RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Research Report 1255 __ ____ ___;_

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPROVED BASIC RIFLE Research ReportMARKSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(q)

Thomas J. Thompson, Seward Smith, and John C.Morey (ARI); and Arthur D. Osborne (Litton)

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASKU.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA 22333 2Q163743A794Litton-Mellonics, Fort Benning, GA 31.905

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATEU.S. Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, GA 31905 September 1980U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, s. NUMBER OFPAGES

Fort Monroe, VA 23604 5714. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thli report)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioraland Social Sciences Unclassified

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 1sa. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thIb Report)

Approved for. public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abatract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It necessary and identify by block nmnber)Rifle Marksmanship TrainingMl6Al Rifle TrainingTraining Effectiveness AnalysisMarksmanship program comparisonBasic Rifle Marksmanship Program%%A TrRACr (Ce~adm am Fevers* skis IV icesmm7 and idemtllfy by block number.)

S} •_4The Basic Rifle Marksmanship training program comparison took place atFort Jackson, SC, during the spring and summer of 1979. Improved periods ofinstruction were compared to provide the soldier in Basic Rifle Marksmanshiptraining with better skill acquisition. Emphasis on fundamentals, downrangefeedback for error correction, and improved instructor-to-student ratios werecritical added components of the three experimental programs compared to thecurrent marksmanship training program

(Continued)Fm EDITION 0O Unclassified

SECUIRITY CLAW8FICATION Of T1415 PAGE (When Dots Entered)

UnclassifiedSmCURITY CLASSIFICATION OF' THIS PA(mi . "ata mBem

J Item 20 (Continued)

The findings of the test showed that instructional changes contributedto significant record fire score improvements. The issue of instructor-to-

student ratio changes remains uncertain without further training and testingof instructor personnel

I.

I m

-C A Unclassified" MJ'•CU, RITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE~tln'en Dot*m Bntoted)

L+ +•T.. +.':. :+ ,• "T... . . .. . .. . . . +• .+ .. . . _ . . .

Research 9pWt 1255

" EFFECTIVENESS OF /MPROVEDBASICIIFLE

MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

-.... / J( Thomas J.fthompson Seward mith,,nd John C.iMorey y

SArthur DW sborne - -.

Litton--Mellon cd-S-Syuhis Duvpup'ment Division

Submitted by:

H.C. Strasel, ChiefARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Approved by:E. Ralph DusekPERSONNEL AND TRAINING

iRESEARCH LABORATORY

-A#

/'•j .•.- .

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

A'7 rP er Rifle Marksmanship/ !An%4J Training

A.pr.wo e for oublic ,,leee; dint Ibutlon wilitId.

"A

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks und for othLr research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the taSK, formal recom-mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

ivf

FOREWORD

The research reported here was performed by the Army Research Institute -

Fort Benning Field Unit, Fort Benning, Georgia. It is part of an ongoingprogram of research directed toward development of cost effective methodsfor individual and collective training in Ml6A1 rifle marksmanship. It isconcerned with all aspects of training inquiry from problem assessment,through instructional improvement, to consideration of appropriate trainingaids and devices. The effort involves !lose coordination and, in someinstances, collaboration with various interested organizations, including:The US Army Infantry School (USAIS), US Army Infantry Board (USAIB), US ArmyMarksmanship Training Unit (USAMU), and the US Army Training Center, FortJackson, South Carolina.

The series of experiments which led to the comparison. of candidate basicrifle marksmanship programs made in this report were conducted at FortBenning, Georgia, and at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The cooperation ofCommanders and staff personnel contributed immeasurably to the conduct ofthese experiments.

This experiment compared the current standard Basic Rifle Marksmanshipprogram with three candidate improved programs. The programs were designedto meet and work within the training resource constraints currently facedby US Army Training Centers.

ARI-Benning research in training systems development is conducted asan inhouse effort augmented by contracts with organizations selected ashaving unique capabilities for research in the area. The project was con-ducted as part of ARMY RDTE Projects 2Q163743A794, FY79 Work Program. Itwas directly responsive to the requirements of FORSCOM, USAIS and TRADOC.

A~ososion For

ZNTIS GRA&I 7 ("JOSEPH IENERDTIC TAB _JOEPTechnical Director

Unannounced [3Justificatio

ByDistribution/

Availabili. '(odesAvail and, o

Dist Special

V

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTWROVED BASIC RIFLE MAEXSPNASIIIP TRAINING PROGRM1S

BRIEF

Introduetion:

The Army has sought through Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA)efforts to examine current training procedures and improve upon them.Rifle marksmanship, as a primary skill acquired by all new soldiers, hasbeen the focus of TEA research by the Army Research Institute Fort BenningField Unit on behalf of the United States Army Infantry School. Theresearch conducted at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and presented in thisreport represents the latest effort to maximize effectiveness in BasicRifle Marksmanship (BRM) Training given constrained resources. The candi-.date programs were developed from results of previous field research inthe marksmanship training arena.

Procedure:

Three candidate BRM training programs were developed to be testedagainst the standard program, All differed from the standard substantiallyin program content, but not substantially in number of training hours.Differences in one or more of the three candidate programs includedimproved zeroing targets and procedures, comparisons of down-range errorcorrection information procedures for firers, transition to field silhouettefiring improvements, and experimental increases in instructor to traineeratios on the firing line.41

Eight companies of basic trainees (both male and female) took part inthis experiment, during their rifle marksmanship training at Fort Jackson,South Carolina. The groups were compared on their record fire (qualifica-tion) scores, comparable program component performances, and on knowledgequestionnaire responses.

rindings:

The record tire scores of male trainees were superior in all trainingprograms and related comparisons to those of females. The experimentalprogram record tire performance results for both males and females weresignificantly better than standard program results. Substantial differenceswere found when performance results of trainees attending all trainingwere compared with those of trainees having missed some periods of instruc-tion within each training program. The differences in the standard on thispoint were nonexistent.

Vii

Two of the candidate training programs provided favorable comparisonsof performance results necessitating a comparison of the knowledge ques-tionnaire results to select the most effective training program.

The results of the increased instructor to student ratio comparisonwere inconclusive at best. There was evidence available to suggest thatthe instructor training provided before the experiment was not sufficientto markedly improve instructor performance. As a result, future examina-tions of instructor effects on training must include sufficient pre-testtraining aaid preparation of instructor personnel.

Utilization of Results:

The results of the experiment conducted at Fort Jackson, S. C., willbe incorporated in the US Army Infantry School's Basic Rifle Marksmanshipprogram. The experimental results will also serve as a basis for future

research in advanced individual and unit marksmanship training.

viii5

EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPROVED BASIC RIFLE

MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

I Table of Contents

PageII ~INTRODUCTION . . . . . a. . . . . . . . *..aaa 1

Subjects . .. a . . . a . . 2

Procedures . .a .. .. . .a . * . . . . 2

Data Collection . a . . a a . . . . *.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10

RESULT]S . . . . . . . . a . a a . . . . . . a . a . . . . a . . . . 11

Training Attendance .a a .a. . .. .. .. .. .. a a. 11

Record Fire Performance . a . a . a . . a . . a . a a 13ICritical Periods Performance . a a . a a a a a a . . a a a a a 16Questionnaire Data . . a . . . . . a . . a a a . . . . 20Knowledge of Zeroing . . a . 20Knowledge of the Transition from 25 meter to Field Firing . 22Knowledge of Effects of Range . . a a a . . a a a .a a a a. 22

Total Questionnaire Scores . a a a. 22

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . a . a a a .aa a a a a a a a' a 27

Improved Performance . a a. 27Ratio of Instructors to Students . a . a a a a a. 28Instructional Improvements . a a a. 28Guides . . a. 29Missed Training . . a a a a a a a a a . 29Implications and Future Developments aaaaaaaaaaaaa 30

REFEREN"ES . a a a a a a a a a a . a a a a a a a a a a a a. 31

APPENDIX A . a a . . . a a a a a a a a a a a a a a .a aa a .a 32

APPENDIX B . . a a . a a .a . .a a .a a a a a a . .a a. 45

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Rifle Marksmanship Training Program Comparisons 4

Table 2, Male and Female Trainees Assigned to Each Treatment 11Group

Table 3. Training Attendance 12

Table 4. Analysis of Variance of Record Fire. Scores foz 13Trainees Who Completed All Training

Table 5. Comparison of Record Fire (RF) Scores for Males and 1.4Females Who Completed All Training and Who MissedSome Training

Table 6. \nalysis of Variance and Contrasts of Record Fire 15Scores for Males Completing All Training

Table 7. Analysis of Variance and Contrasts of Record Fire 16Scores for Females Completing All Training

Table 8. Cri~tical Periods Mean Performance Scores of Males and 18Females Completing All Training

Table 9. Common Period Mean Performances for Trainees Completing 19All Training

Table 10. Mean Questionnaire Scores for Male and Female Trainees 21Completing All Periods of Instruction

Table 11. Correlation of Record Fire Scores With Questionnaire 23Scores for Male and 'amale Trainees Completing AllPeriods of Instruction

Table 12. Analysis of Variance of Questiunnaire Total Scores for 24Trainees Completing All Training

Table 13. Analysis of Variance and Contrasts of Questionnaire 25Total Scores for Males Completing All Training

Table 1.4. Analysis of Variance and Contrasts of Questionnaire 26Total Scores for Females Completing All Training

x

5 LIST OF FIGUPRESCPage

Figure 1. ARI 25 Meter Zeroing Target used at the 25 meter range 5for initial firing including zeroing (actual size8½" x 9½").

Figure 2. 25 Meter Target used to transition from the Canadian 6Bull (Figure 1) aiming point to a center of targetmass aiming point on field fire ranges (actual size17½" x 22½").

Figure 3. D Center Repair Target used at 75 meters to provide 7i error feedback to the firer (actual. sive 26" x 36").

Figure 4. 175 Meter Target attached to a 6' x 6' witness panel 8and used to provide downrange error feedback to thefirer (actual size 30" x 40").

Figure 5. 25 Meter Target used to introduce the firer to timed 9engagements. The firer has 45 seconds to engage 10silhouettes during the exercise (actual target size17½" x 22'").

Xii

xi j

...............t..

EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPROVED BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

The Army Research Institute Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia,(ARI-Benning) began work with rifle mirksmanship programs under thesponsorship of the US Army Infantry School (USAIS) for the purpose ofdeveloping and implementing improved marksmanship training programsat basic, advanced, and unit levels throughout the Army. ARI involvementhas been a result of widespread concern that marksmanship training wastoo expensive in terms of time and resources and that resultant performancestandards were too low. Initially, ARI entered marksmanship trainingresearch by participating with the USAIS and TRASANA in the Basic RifleMarksmanship (BRM) Test (TRASANA, 1977) which resulted in training pro-gram changes to reduce the time and cost of training. Several reportswere generated by this test as well as subsequent research efforts toidentify areas for improvement in training procedures (Evans, Thompson,& Smith, 1980; Hicks & Tierney, 1978; Klein & Tierney, 1978; Smillie &Chitwood, 1980; Smith, Thompson, Evans, Osborne, Maxey, & Morey, 1980;Tierney, Cartner, & Thompson, 19i9; Tierney & Cartner, 1978).

The study being reportfi here was a major final field experimentconducted at Fort Jackson, S 'ith Carolina, and was designed to testprogram improvements for Bas c Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training. Thisstudy represents the culmine.ion of a series of laboratory and fieldexperiments conducted at Fort Benning, Georgia, and at Fort Jackson,South CarolinaI.

Earlier tests showed thst the typical trainee received inadequatefeedback and often confusing fundamental information during basic riflemarksmanship training. More emphasis was needed on marksmanship funda-mentals, instructions and procedural improvements in the zeroing process,and enhanced feedback from errors made during field firing. Previousresearch findings indicated that there were alternate possible colutionsto the training program's short-comings. In order to determine which oneanswered the problems most adequately, each had to be tested independentlyir a training center. Independent candidate programs were implemented ina training center environment (Fort Jackson, South Carolina) with typicalbasic trainees participating as test subjects. The instructors and drillsergeants used were those normally assigned to teach BRM and to work withtrainees. The cadre of instructors and drill sergeants were given trainingsessions to become familiar with the critical training components which dif-fered from the standard program. A limited number of additional personnelwere assigned to assist with data collection on firing ranges during the test.

1 ARI-Benning would have been unable to conduct this field work with-out 0he cooperation and full support of the Commanding General, his staff,and the BT Committee Group Commander, and his staff, at Fort Jackson,South Carolina.

1 ... ' ,=• • 1 i[ • ••• •..... ?:

-, -~ '? ~ ~ "

METHODS

Subj ects

The 1,151 subjects (910 males and 241 females) were members of eightbasic training companies undergoing entry level training at Fort Jackson,South Carolina, during April and May, 1979. In order to avoid inter-rupting the normal flow of training and to prevent division of tightlyconstrained instructor resources, the experimental limitation of assigningan entire company to the same treatment condition had to be accepted.Assignments were further limited by the need of the training center tocomplete the test treatments requiring double drill sergeants first.There was, in effect, no random assignment of subjects to treatment condi-tions. As companies were filled for training they were assigned to treat-ments as required.

Procedures

The experiment consisted of a comparison of four training programs(hereafter called Tracks). Track I was the standard ongoing BRM program(which served as a baseline or control condition). Tracks II and III werenew candidate BRM. programs differing only in that Track III had a "walkdown-range" feedback exercise for showing bullet location at distanttargets and Track Il did not. Tracks II and III used more than the usualnumber of instructors. The regular complement of instructors was employedby Track I and by Track IV (which was otherwise identical to Track III).

ARI-Benning, in cooperation with DTD, USAIS, and the BT Committee* Group, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, developed the improved candidate BRM

programs for testing during the spring of 1979. The basic training center* at Fort Jackson had the necessary resources available to train cadre,

conduct BRM training, and control data collection during the test under* conditions that might reasonably be considered representative of those

at other basic training centers.

A letter of instruction detailed procedures for Fort Jackson instruc-tion and support participation (HQ, USATO, Fort Jackson, South Carolina,1979). Included was the requirement for additional drill sergeants toaid in instructing Ttack II and Track III trainees.

The programs differed in a number of ways from the standard BRMprogram and were expected to improve skill acquisition and related recordf ire score performances.

0 Instructors and drill sergeants received training to enhanceinstructional performance on the firing line.

2

-~ 61*

* Higher instructor to trainee ratios were provided (Track II andIII). The number of drill sergeants on the firing line to assist traineeswas doubled.

* Emphasis was placed on shooting fundamentals and on logicallysequenced instruction.

* Concurrent training was to be used to reinforce, through practice,primary shooting skills.

* Use of maximal performance fesdback to aid in problem diagnosiswas critical to all three experimental tracks (II, III and IV).

Table 1 presents a descrip::.ion. of the experimental track programsas well as the standard traininF, program, Track 1. The first period,Mechanical Instruction, was taught by the training company cadre prior tothe trainees arriving at the range sites.

The fundamentals block, Periods 2, 3, and 4, of the experimental tracksfocused on developing tight shot groups and initial battle sight zero (BSZ)on trainees' weapons. Firing took place at the 25 meter range with allfour tracks using the new BSZ target (Figure 1).

IIn period 5 the standard program (Track 1) trainees moved to fieldf ire ranges to engage 75, 175, and 300 meter silhouette targets. In con-trast, all experimental tracks remained at the 25 meter firing line andwere exposed to simulated field fire targets using the rifle's long rangesight (which makes point of aim equal point of impact) (see Figure 2).This training at 25 meters permitted trainees to fire 18 rounds at (sim-ulated long range) targets and obtain feedback from their errors. 4

Period 6 provided continued field firing for the standard programtrainees. Track TI trainees fired additional exercises at 25 metersilhouette targets using the long range sight. Tracks III and IV movedto another range to fire at full size silhouette targets, on larger panels,at 75 meters (D Repair target see Figure 3) and 175 meters (see Figure4) to continue capturing error information and make necessary sight adjust-ments. All experimental tracks (II, III & IV) moved downrange to inspecttheir targets and be critiqued about their performance. *

Period 7 was Practice Record Fire for the standard program while theexperimental tracks were introduced to field fire targets. The experi-mental groups fired fewer rounds during a condensed version of the standardfield fire exercises than did the track I trainees.

3

CURR';hf IFT .IACIKsOI'IOCR.'.>: ItHACK I 1IHACKIIRC I RC

Iles 'I I~d : 0lira -' R,!;: ;,t : ' Kds 0lrb;: , R-is: (I

IIF LD 2.4 IIR~o) 2 PE~o) 5M I,;loRI )) 2

lira 6 ds:0 Hs: Rd: 0firt rs:s 0 P:Intr s: Vitl:. It

PEID3PRO 31110 'LIIO i 01):

PEI1 1 4PK I ()r 4 1114 .1[ 4It1li1: 41

lia:6Rd:2412 les Rst1+1 irs: 6 Kds: 1&4+12 irs~: 6 9~de: 1

PE ID 5:E M 52 l'L~iOl 5 2 ¶tM. !IF. .( :)

Itot 'edFr 5MrLrIIIIIO~iIttnvt 25-Nt r I nliantcem,vitt i-St 1,I'ntuitlis d: 2)t, 2Ks 8Frs: 2 lids: 1$ Iiis: 2 Rdl.:

P:i l611:RIO )2511 PE.RI 111 6 17 75. F1r.Al01)tIi~~ ie25M tiliaticomunt Known ISLit.ohu Knotwtn Di!Itaii.

lira: 4 Rdt: 36 lr:jRds: IS llr.,: 6 lids : 18 IIrs: 0 11ds: Iv,

PEI'IID 7 IiVR100 lIRKILiI ? PERItDiPiract ice Record itt: ro to I1lelt Fir 1 its!ro tk Fie.ld I'I r. Iri o toC. Pl'is2li Firi!rs: 4 lids: 401 lirs: idl: 42 lit..: 5 lids: 42' ix'; 't lids: 4zIi FIR loll 1) VIA.: 1:11 ? 1,1. 1, it)0) o

Target llotei~t oion 1 ir-u t 'eteL tot. I ;:rI I,-t l !tt on

II:,S: 1. lds: £.2 Il-1k hi: S:0. "hIs: 12 111:11.k Ir 1 t 1±:, I' ta:

I'15..)!3) 9 R l Mu) 9 2M F I AI d 9 2;.1:

F l u d F i rei m od I ' t c t l i e F i t i d L i r e d ( o F a i j c . I I n a l Ie ( I t F.?R0 ;

-1) 1Eol l P R l l

In;: 4 ldids 50 ls: 4 Uis: 20 trs 4 hd15: 29

R~eir.VioR cord Frae Record Fire L Record Friw,)

F~s ., is:4 lirs: 4 Rids: So lirai: 4 lids: 40 FIirs;: 4 ltds: 40

8IRtD9lEi~I1 PERiOD 12 NR-!ItpRIoD": 11Auor F.ire, Itt in, Ateo rire, Kne I ngnt Fire Kne IlogAut Fi re, ielt:

lirs: 3 lids: 44 FIrsi: 4 ldid: 440 Era: 41 lds: 44 firs: 3 lids: 40

PLiODth 9t liFR7MlD 13 PERIOU1 1.2 iFbl(llbo UAigt Fi v, IIre g Nutu Flre Kneln Nigto Fire Nneln iAuto Fir(-e ni~i.

lira: 3 Rds: 48 lira: 4 Rde: 74 Hirs: 41 Rie: 78 tirs: 4 lids: 78

TIYAL RMINOiS: 31i TOTAL ROUNDMI 1 101,%! ROUNDS;t :t TOTAL. HIl NItS: 3V,,

RFrI;N'TIo: (6) WELKS RI;1l22rON (6 tSjlKS, RETENTION (6 WEEKS RETENl ON (0i IVlLKSAFTER BRIM1) AF`TFR ARM) AFl ER RIKh) .AFTE R 110)

lIrti: 3 lids: 9 1142 lirs: 3 Pds: 9 BS?/. lire: 3 Nd,,: 9 05/ lIrt: 3i Rd*.: 9 b.lira: 3 Rde: 40 Rcd III r: I lids: 40 lied tire: 3 Ma:; 40 Rcd lira: 3 Rde: 40 Rud

NOTE 355 rounda bali ji-in.iitit In doostivnt include thte 12 rounds foir Remedial 852 uf 5% of lhe co~t~itiianpri sent lorn Fttinlngý, nor the 12 roundt blank ammunititon for Target Detect ion training'.

N'OME Tracks 1i Lnd III had twice tie:. tc'cmal number of drill aargt'ants fit, tusining -ustually 16 ttipteado f 8.

ARI 2S5 METER ZEROING TARGET14 13 12 11 10 1 1 1 6 5 4 3 21 0 1 2 3 4 S 56 1 I v 11 12 13 14

Is ...... 0

II--------------------------------@ .. Is14 14

1ii11 1

F! att - -Front ,

6

44

3

K2 20"-0

2

33

, I I i I i l I !IsI 1" OUMETERSi

U6

h ~ot __5 MEE Sogh S

A 1....

1 ,o. -SION -Sql_,h,,,

122

13 .. 0)1314

T0 ZERO MOVE SHlOT Gliou t meci n 10 ULIACK DOT CLICK tACII SIGHT THE NUMSER 0f 1IMiS~MASIKED ONd LINk-

Figure 1. ARI 25 Meter Zeroing Target used at the 25 meterrange for initial firing including zeroing (811 x 9!½"actual size).

5

' I l L I l l l - '-"" I l l !*':''-- .. S

300 M

75 M

175M 1M5 M

3- M75 M

Figure 2. 25 M'eter Target used to transition from theCanadian Bull (Figure 1) aiming point t, acenter of target mass aiming point on I Lieldfire ranges (actual s1ze 17'2" x 22!2").

6

J

Figure 3. D Center Repair Target used at 75 meters to

provide error feedback to the firer (actualsize 26" x 36").

Period 8 was the standard Record Fire period for Track I. Theexperimer."l tracks had a target detection period during which 12 blank P

rounds were available per trainee to simulate target engagement.

Period 9, for the experimental tracks, was a return to the 25 meterfiring range to confirm BSZ and to fire a 45 second timed exercise atsilhouette targets simulating presentation at various ranges (see Figure 5).Each firer had to determine his own order of target engagement. Thisexercise was fired from both the foxhole supported and the prone tinsupportedpositions. The time limit simulated the time pressure and rapid shiftsto other targets faced by a firer during target engagement sequences onthe Record Fire Range.

The experimental tracks fired a second field fire course on the practicerecord fire range during period 10.

7IIA -p. <

Fig~~~Irý11 (I m~ d~ 1) 1a-'t atI h()V L' a' 1-01' iImck to t I

300 M 300 M

200 Mj

260 M 200 250 M

lOOM II

hi

1505M Isom

50 M

Figure 5. 25 l1eter Target used to Introduce tha firer totimed target engagements. The firer has 45seconds to engage 10 silhouettes during theexercise (actual targot size 171" x 22½•"),

9

!I

Record Fire for the experimental tracks took place during period 11.

The remaining portions of the experimental tracks - automatic firingactivities and night firing - were identical to that of the standard program.

Data Collection

Performance data were collected for each period of instruction whichincluded live fire exercises (see Table 1). Demographic and marksmanshipcomprehension questionnaires were administered during the Record Fireperiod to all subjects. Specific data collection included:

* The number of rounds inside, or touching the four centimeter circleon the BSZ 25 Meter Target (Figure 1) for each of six shot groups. ThisinforLmation was recorded for each of the four tracks.

* Tracks II, III, and IV fired six 3-round shot groups at 25 metersilhouette targets simulating 75, 175, and 300 meter ranges during period5 (Figure 2). Three groups were fired from the foxhole position and threewere fired from the prone position. The numbers of hits (0-3) per shotgroup were recorded.

* Track II fired an additional six 3-round groups at 25 meterrilhouette targets during period 6 (Figure 2).

0 Tracks III and IV fired two 3-round shot groups at 75 meter targets(D repair targets) and four t the new 175 meter nilhouette target (Figure3). Period 6 for these two L.:cks involved actual knowr distance (KD)downrange feedback.

* Field Fire scores (Track I, Period 5; Tracks II, III, and IV,Period 7) were recordAd as the number of target hits by range (75 meters,10 possible; 175 meters, 14 possible; 300 meters, 18 possible).

* The data collacted for tracks II, TII, and IV during Period 9,included the number ot rounds inside or touching the four centimeter circleon the BSZ target (Figure L) out nf three 3-round shot groups and thenunber of silhouette hits during two 10-rond times fire exercises at 25meters (Figure 4).

* The number of hits recorded during practice record fire (Track I,Period 7, Tracks II, III, and IV, Period 10) from the foxhole and pronepositions was recorded. The experimental tracks had a 10-round warmupexercise before practice record fire which was recorded as well. A totaloi 40 hits on practice record fire was the possible score for all tracks.

10

..... ..... .. *.I,

9 Record Fire scores for all four tracks were recorded f or foxhole

and prone firing position scores. A total of 40 hits was possible onRecord Fire.

* The questionnaire which trainees corplete.d during the Record Fireperiod is included as Appendix A. Append:xx B shows the aggregation ofindividual questions into three conceptual areas.

RESULTS

The number of male and female trainees who completed all or part ofthe training in each of the experimental tracks and the standard trackis shown in Table 2. Each track included trainees from two separateF training companies.

Table 2

Male and Female Trainees Assigned to Each Treatment Group

Track Males Females Total Subjects

1 229 58 287

II 246 75 321

II224 60 284

IV 211 48 259

Total 910 241 1,151

Training Attendance

Test soldier participation in all periods of training was consideredimportant for meaningful testing of the effectiveness of the candidatetraining programs. This was emphasized in the letter of instruction

Table 3

Trainir- Attendance

Track Trainees with Record Number Percent Percent PercentFire (RF) Scorcs of Males Females TotalsProviding Sex and PeriodsRace Information Missed

1238 0 33.5 (64) 57.4 (27) 38.2 (91)1 57.6 (110) 36.2 (17) 53.4 (127)2 8.9 (17) 6.4 (3) 8.4 (20)

100.0 (238)

ii285 0 69.3 (149) 52.9 (37) 65.3 (186)1 16.7 (36) 22.9 (16) 18.3 (52)2 4.2 (9) 7.1 (5) 5.0 (14)4+ 2.3 (56) 51.7 (4) 3.2 (94)3+ 7.4 (16) 11.4 (8) 8.2 (24)

100.0 (285)

II273 0 66.4 (144) 51.8 (29) 63.4 (173)1 9.7 (21) 12.5 (7) 10.3 (28)2 7.4 (16) 8.9 (5) 7.7 (21)3 9.2 (20) 17.9 (10) 10.9 (30)4+ 7. 4 (16) 8.9 (5) 7,7 (21)

100.0 (273)

IV 250 0 55. 9 (113) 37.5 (18) 52.4 (131)1 15. 8 (32) 16.7 (8) 16.0 (40)2 11..4 (23) 10.4 (5) 11.2 (28)3 9.4 (19) 14.6 (7) 10.4 (26)4+ 7.4 (15) 20.8 (10) 10.0 (25)

100.0 (250)

Total percent attending all 57. 0 (470 50.2 (111 55.5 (581training across all tracks of 825) of 221) of 1,046)

Note: The number in parentheses C)is the number of trainees attending training.

Note: Totals for this table are less than other test track totals due to incom-Iplete inforiration provided in questionnaire responses by some trainees(sex and race information).

12

prior to the beginning of the tet (HQ, USATC, Fort Jackson, April 1979).The results of some analyses presented in this report are based on subjecttotals which do not equal the total number of assigned subjects (Table 2).Trainee attendance during all critical training periods of instruation wasconsidered important as was the accurate completion of the question-aire.Analyses comparing groups having attended all training and having rsedsome training support this point (see Table 5). Table 3 presents the subject 61

totals and percentages of those who completed training.

Record Fire Performance

A global measure of rifle marksmanship proficiency i3 the record firequalification score. An analysis of variance of record fire scores(Table 4) resulted in significant main effects for tracks, (F (3,634) - 25.24,

< .0001) and for sex, (F (1,634) - 14.00, • < .0001) but no significantinteraction, (F < 1.) Inspection of the mean record fire scores of traineeswho completed all training (Table 5) revealed that in all tracks maleperformancs, was superior to female performance.

A series of independent group t tests (Table 5) demonstrated that formales in all the experimental tracks missing some training had the effectof significantly reducing average record fire scores. Average femaleperformance was adversely affected in tracks II and IV. The impact ofmissing some training in tht standard program (Track I) was negligiblefor both sexes. Standara Lra~niag was insensitive to differences betweensoldiers missing some training versus completing all training. However, thenew methods were variably sensitive to the amount of training.

Table 4

Analysis of Variance of Record Fire Scoresfor Tr'inees Who Completed All Training

Source df MS F

Tracks 3 935.370 25.242 < .0001

Sex 1 518.753 13.999 < .0001

Tracks x Sex 3 12.311 .322 NS

Error 634 37.057

Total 641

13

77Z77

Table 5

Comparison of Record Fire (RF) Scores for Males and FemalesWho Completed All Training and Who Missed Some Training

Track Males Females

Mean RF Mean RF t df p Mean RF Mean R t dfAll Tng Missed Al' Tng Missed(N) Some (N) Some

(N) (N)

20.48 21.27 <1 227 NS 18.97 1.8.67 <1 56 NS(82) (147) (34) (24)

II 26.32 22.78 4.13 244 <.0001 23.25 23.14 <1 73 NS(113) (73) (,.to) (35)

111 26.47 22.91 3.69 222 <.0001 24.47 19.10 3.6 47* <.003(146) (78) (30) (30)

(119) (91) (18) (31)

*df adjusted for unequal variances of groups.

In order to assess the relative merit of the candidate programs ofinstruction with respect to record fire scores, separate analyses ofvariance were conducted for males and females who completed all training.These analyses appear in Tables 6 and 7 respectively.

The treatments sum of squares of each analysis of variance was decom-posed into three contrasts reflecting a priori hypotheses regarding train-ing program effectiveness. The first contrast compared average performanceunder the three experimental programs against the performance under thestandard program. For both males (t(520) - 7.51, p < .0001) and females(t(118) - 3.80, p~ < .001) significant differences were obtained repre-senting a 27 percent improvement for males and a 24 percent improvementfor females. The second contrast evaluated the effect of reducing the

* 14

Alm

number of drill sergeants in Track IV. For neither males (t(520) = 1.72,S>.05) nor females (t(118) - .66, p >.05) was this found to affect

record fire performance when the average performance of Tracks II and IIIwas used as the basis of comparison. The last contrast sought to isolatewhich of the two conceptually different candidate programs, Track II orTrack III, yielded superior record fire scores.

Table 6

Analysis of Variance and Contrasts ofRecord Fire Scores for Males Completing All Training

Analysis of Variance

Source df MS F [

Between 3 760.6011 20.276 < .0001

Within 520 37.5118

"Total 523

Contrasts

1 - Track I compared to average of Tracks II, III, and IV2 - Track IV compared to average of Tracks II and III3 - Track II compared to Track III

Contrast Value SE t df 2

1 5.487 .73 7.513 520 .000

2 1.121 .65 1.718 520 .086

3 .081 .34 .236 520 .813

15

Al"

I

Table 7

Analysis of Variance and Contrasts ofRecord Fire Scores for Females Completing All Training

Analysis of Variance

Source df MS F £

Between 3 186.3133 5.468 .0015

Within 118 34.0715

Total 121

Contrasts

1 - Track I compared to average of Tracks II, III, and IV2 - Track IV compared to average of Tracks II and III3 - Track II compared to Track III

Contrast Value SE t df

1 4.501 1.185 3.80 118 .000

2 1.025 1.546 .66 118 .509

3 .608 .705 .863 118 .390

;J1

This contrast revealed no difference for either sex (both t < 1) leadingto the conclusion no selection of candidate programs could be made solelyon the basis of record fire scores.

Critical Periods Performance!L

Given that the record fire data revealed no differences among the experi-mental tracks, exploration of performance differences within tracks wasundertaken. Periods of instruction which were determined to be criticalto the POI, because they represented live fire performance feedbacks,differed by track. Track I critical periods included Battle Sight Zero(BSZ), and Field Fire (FF). Track II critical periods included BSZ,Silhouette Target A (STA), Silhouette Target B (STB), FF, Reconfirmationof Battle Sight Zero (RBSZ), Timed Fire A (TFA), and Timed Fire B (TFB).Tracks III and IV critical periods included BSZ, STA, Down-range Feedbackat 75 and 175 meters (DF), FF, RBSZ, TFA, and TFB.

16

-' - , .

Practice Record Fire (PRF) was included in all tracks and providedperformance measures for comparative analysis between tracks. The experi-mental programs included ten warmup rounds before PRF which might havecaused equivalent performance comparison difficulties with Track I, thestandard program.

Table 8 presents the performance results by track and sex for subjectscompleting all critical periods of instruction. All experimental tracksprovided better performance results than the standard program, Track I,in common critical periods. Generally, with the exception of the TimedFire A exercise Track III females (Table 8), Track IV provided a slightadvantage in all instructional periods common to all tracks. This may bedue to improvements in instructor presentations which resulted fromexperience with the other experimental tracks. Track IV was sequenced lastin the experiment.

All training tracks shared three common blocks of instruction duringwhich comparative performance measures could be taken. Table 9 presentsthe mean performance measures, by common period, for subjects who attendedall training.

A comparative analysis of battle sight (RSZ) data is problematic sincethe trainees in the experimental tracks were given more opportunities tofire prior to and during the zeroing phase of training. However, allzrinero sight adutmlensts wereemade. As shown inup Tableg Ptero 4 thenterainesfired adutmleatst threem3-round shotn grup during Ptero mae wnhenexperimental tracks achieved on the aegeat least 15mrhiswithinthe target's four centimeter circle in the firot nine rounds than thestandard program males. This difference was statistically significant,F (3,519) = 14.40, p < .00001. The same comparison for females revealeda similar difference, F (3,118) - 8.72, p < .00001. Compared to femalesin the standard program, all other groups of female trainees achieved ailaverage of at least twice as many hits within the zeroing circle duringthe first nine zeroing rounds.

These findings suggest that trainees in the experimental tracks bene-fited from greater familiarization firing (Period 3) prior to zeroing. Thishypothesis was assessed by comparing the initial three round shot group ofall trainees during zeroing. It was reasoned that any carry-over effectsof familiarization firing during Period 3 would be apparent as the zeroingprocess began. As shown in the column of initial BSZ shot group size(Table 9), the mean nlumber of hits in the experimental tracks exceededthat for the standard. This difference was statistically significant forboth males, F (3,516) = 5.67, p = .0008, and females,.F (3,118) = 5.90,2= .0009, which leads to the conclusion that the zeroing process benefitsfrom more emphasis on familiarization (18 rounds as 9 rounds) prior tomaking sight changes.

17

. .-- ---- --- ---. -.. ~ . .- ---- -----. A

Table 8

Critical Periods Mean Performance Scores of Malesand Females Completing All Training

Period of Se. TrackInstruc-tion andPossible 1 112 111, IV4

ScoreSD X SD X SD X SD

BSZ 1 3.7 2.2 5.9 2.7 5.9 2.6 6.4 2.9(0-9) F 2.6 1.8 4,7 3.1 5.4 2.1 6.0 2.5

STA M -- -- 12.9 3.6 13.2 3.3 13.8 3.1(0-18) F .. .. 11.2 3.7 11.9 2.5 13.4 2.4

STB M .. .. 14.1 3.2 -- -- -- --

(0-18) F .. .. 11.9 3.4 -- -- -- --

DF M -- -- 9.8 2.1 10.9 2.0(0-18) F ...-- -- 9.4 1.6 10.3 2.2

FF M 15.7 6.8 19.0 7.3 23.2 6.9 23.3 6.9

(0-36 1 F 14.3 5.6 16.9 6.5 21.4 6.6 23.3 6.70-42 II-IVU

RBSZ M -- -- 4.9 2.4 4.8 2.4 5.2 2.5

(0-9) F .. .. 4.2 2.1 3.3 2.2 4.8 1.8

TFA M .. .. 7.4 2.2 7.7 2.1 8.0 2.1(0-10) F .. .. 7.2 2.1 7.8 2.0 7.2 2.3

TFB M .. ..- 6.1 2:.3 6.5 2.1 7.2 2.1(0-10) F .. .. 5.5 2.3 5.1 2.2 7.0 2.8

PRF M 18.8 6.6 24.0 6.0 21.1 6.6 24.0 6.0(0-40) F 15.7 4.8 [ 20.5 6.5 17.8 5.8 22.8 8.6

* Note: BSZ = Battle Sight Zero; STA = Silhouette Target (foxhole po~itiuiL); STBSilhouette Target (prone position); DF = Downrange Feedback; FF - Field Fire;RBSZ - Confirmation of Battle Sight Zero; TFA= Timed Fire Exericse (foxholeposition); TFB = Timed Fire Exercise (prone position); PRF = Practice RecordFire.

I n - 82 males and 34 females 2 n - 173 males and 40 females

n = 146 males and 30 females n = 119 males and 18 females

18

... , ./t-.-.t' ... ...

Table 9

Common Period Mean Performances for TraineesCompleting All Training

Males

Track Initial BSZ Battle Sight Field Fire c Practice Record FiredaBd

Shot Group Zero b Record Fired

I .7 2.5 15.7 18.8 20.5

II 1.2 4.1 18.9 23.9 26.3

III 1.1 4.1 23.3 21.1 26.5

IV 1.3 4.5 23.3 24.0 25.3

Females

Track Initial BSZ Battle Sight Field Fire c Practice Record Fire d

Shot Group a Zero b Record Fire d

I .2 1.7 14.3 15.7 19.0

II .9 3.2 16.9 20.5 23.3

III 1.0 3.9 21.4 17.8 24.5

IV 1.1 4.2 23.3 22.8 22.8

a maximum possible - 3b imaximum possible - 9d maximum possible - 42

maximum possible = 40

T

19

j;9

The shooting superiority of the male experimental track trainees wasmaintained throughout subsequent periods of instruction as revealed in meanperformance during Field Fire and Practice Record Fire. Using the plannedcomparisons statistical procedure, trainees in the three expe~rimental groups(combined) had more hits than did those in the standard group for:(a) Field Fire, t. (516) - 7.24,p.<.00001 and (b) Practice Record Fire,t (516) - 5.63, p < .00001. Track IV was demonstrated to be superiorwhen compared to the average performance of Tracks II and III for bothField Fire, t (516) - 2.93, p - .004 and Practice Record Fire, t.(516)2.18, k - .03. The content of Track IV was identical to that of Track IIIwith the exception that the normal student-instructor ratio was in effectfor Track IV. Therefore, the presence of more drill instructors did notmaterially improve male firing performance during the middle portion ofthe experimental programs.

These findings for males were mirrored in the data from females.The aggregated data from experimental programs was shown to reflect supe-rior performance when planned comparisons were made with the standardprogram for: (a) Field Fire, t (118) = 4.81, p < .0001 and (b) PracticeRecord Fire, t (118) = 3.65, p < .0001. Further comparisons of Track IVmean performance with the average of Track II and III performance revealedthat Track IV female shooters scored more hits in Field Fire, t (118)=2.48, p < .02, and in Practice Record Fire, t (118) =2.19, p < .05. Sincefewer instructors were programmed into Track IV, the conclusion for femaleshooters is identical to that for male shooters: the Track III/Track IVinstructional content yielded superior performance during the middle por-tion of M16 rifle training.

Questionnaire Data

The questionnaire was administered at the end of BRM Record Firequalification to assess the trainee's knowledge of three aspects of marks-manship fundamentals: zeroing, transition from 25 meter to field firingand effects of firing at greater range. Only data from trainees who com-pleted all training were selected for analysis to exclude the responses ofthose who had not been exposed to all concepts and skills addressed in thecandidate programs. Scores from individual items were added to yield thethree composites below.

Knowledge of Zeroing. Since the experimental programs (Tracks II,III, and IV) focused on zeroing fundamentals, it was expected that improve-ment in trainees' knowledge of how to zero the rifle would be reflectedin questionnaire responses when compared to the control, or standard pro-gram. Ten questions dealt with zero-related knowledge and zero conceptcomprehension. The questionnaire responses showed that males and femalesin all three experimental tracks scored somewhat higher than the standardtrack suibjects (Table 10).

20

Table 10

Mean Questionnaire Scores for Male and Female TraineesCompleting All Periods of Instruction

Males

Zeroing Transition Effects of Range TotalKnowledge Knowledge Knowledge Score

(0-10) (0-5) (0-9) (0-24)

Track n x SD x SD x SD x SD

I 68 7.0 1.5 2.7 1.3 4.2 1.7 13.9 3.2

II 149 7.8 1.6 2.8 1.4 4.1 1.8 14.8 3.5

III 144 7.8 1.9 3.2 1.4 5.3 1.9 16.4 4.0

IV 113 7.9 1.5 3.1 1.1 5.2 1.8 16.2 3.2

Females

Zeroing Transition Effects of Range TotalKnowledge Knowledge Knowledge Score

(0-10) (0-5) (0-9) (0-24)

Track n x SD x SD x SD x SD

I 27 6.4 1.7 2.4 1.2 4.0 1.8 12.8 3.0

II 37 7.6 2.0 2.4 1.1 4.0 1.9 14.0 3.3

III 29 7.7 1.9 3.1 1.0 5.6 1.5 16.3 3.3

IV 18 8.1 1.3 2.9 1.4 5.0 1.8 15.9 2.5

( ) parenthetical notes show the number of questions related to the knowledgearea,

21

F The correlation of record fire scores with zeroing knowledge was

strong for Track III males (r .50) and moderate for Track IV males(r - .22). On the other hand, a strong correlation (r -. 51) was revealedbetween record fire and zeroing knowledge for females in the standard pro-gram. All correlation coefficients are listed in Table 11.

Knowledge of the Transition from 25 meter to Field Firing. Fivequestions addressed utilizing information provided on the ARI 25 metertarget to make judgments about bullet strikes at greater range.. The meanscores recorded for this concept area (Table 10) showed that all four groupswere within one point of each other. For both sexes a slight advantage intransition knowledge is shown in Tracks III and IV.

A strong positive correlation between record fire scores and transi-tion knowledge was demonstrated for Track IV females (r =.50). Moderatecorrelations were obtained for males in Track III (r =.33) and Track IV(r - .28). Accounting for this finding is difficult since the reasoningrequired to read the ARI 25 meter target is not put into use during recordfire. The significant correlations may reflect improved teachitig skillson the part of committee group personnel and drill sergeants, or in thecase of the groups lacking moderate correlations, an absence of any teach-

ing skill may exist.

K, 'dge of Effects of Range. Nine questions dealt with the effects

of range the flight of the bullet and appropriate adjustments when tfiring at ýnger ranges. Trainees in Tracks III and IV responded to thesequestions with higher mean scores regardless of sex an shown in Table 10.Only in the case of males in Track III was the effects of range knowledgecorrelated W hi record fire performance (r=.31). This relationshipindicates th.h trainees gained better knowledge of bullet trajectory andits relatio'-hip to aim through downrange inspection of their targets inTrack III.

Tctal Questionnaire Scores. For each trainee the three subarea scoreswere added to yield a total unweighted score. The mean total score bytrack is reported in Table 10. An analysis of variance of total scores(Table 12) revealed a significant main effect for cracks, F (3,577)17.09, p2 < .0001. No differences due to sex of the trainees were evident.Comparisons of the mean total score for males showed both a significantlyhigher score for the experimental programs considered together (t (470)3.99, 2 < .0001) and a superior mean score for male trainees in Track IIIas compared to those in Track 11, t.(470) - 3.83, p2 < .0001. The remainingcomparison between Track IV and the average score of Tracks 11 and III wasnot significant, t (470) =1.73, > .05. The contrasts are shown inTable 13.

22

r

Table 11

Correlation of Record Fire Scores With Questionnaire Scoresfor Male and Female Trainees Completing All Periods of Instruction

Males

Zeroing Transition Effects of Range TotalTrack n Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Score

I 68 .10 .07 -. 04 .05

II 149 .05 .07 .07 .09

III 144 .50*** .33*** .31*** .49**

IV 113 .22* .28** .23 .27**

Females

Zeroing Transition Effects of Range TotalTrack n Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Score

I 27 .51* .08 .04 .35

II 37 .21 .08 .19 .27

III 29 .05 .14 .27 .19

IV 18 -. 05 .50* -. 05 .20

* £< .025** i2< .005

* < .001

23

Table 12

Analysis of Variance of Questionnaire Total Scoresfor Trainees Completing All Training

Source df MS F

Tracks 3 206.312 17.090 <.0001

Sex 1 26.167 2.168 NS

Tracks x Sex 3 5.070 .420 NS

Error 577 12.072

Total 584

As revealed in Table 14, the females demonstrated the same patternof differences in their questionnaire total scores. The experimental pro-grams considered together produced higher questionnaire totals than thestandard program, t (107) - 3.78, p < .0001. Of the remaining two contrasts,only that of Track II versus Track III was significant, t (107) -3.01,p- .003, which supports the conclusion that for the females the content

of the Track III program led to better understanding of marksmanshipfundamentals.

Despite the fact that both males and females benefited most in theirmarksmanship knowledge by participating in Track III, only the males showedsignificant correlations of record fire with knowledge obtained in TrackbIII and IV!. The stronger correlation was obtained for Track III (r - .49)as compared to the correlation obtained in Track IV,E r- .27. In contrast,no significant correlations were found between record fire and question-naire total score for females. Although the knowledge base was comparablebetween sexes, for females the transfer of marksmanship principles intoperformance was less apparent.

24

Table 13

Analysis of Variance and Contrasts ofQuestionnaire Total Scores for Males Completing All Training

Analysis of Variance

Source df MS F

Between 3 138.464 i0.o*2 <.00001

Within 470 12.632

Total 473

Contrasts

1 - Track I compared to average of Tracks 1i, III, and IV2 - Track IV compared to average of Tracks II and III3 - Track II compared to Track III

Contrast Value SE t df

1 5.579 1.399 3.989 470 <.0001

2 -1.359 .787 -1.726 470 NS

3 1.589 .415 3.826 470 <.0001

25

Table 14

Analysis of Variance and Contrasts ofQuestionnaire Total Scores for Females Completing All Training

Analysis of Variance

I'

Source df 11S F

Between 3 72.918 7.586 <.0001

Within 107 9.613

Total 110

Contrasts

2uesTrack IV compared to average of Tracks 1i and IIIATrack II compared to Track III

Contrast Value SE t dfs

1 7.872 2.081 3.783 107 <.0001

2 -1.517 1.652 -. 919 107 NS

3 2.317 .769 3.014 107 <.005

26

I . .. . , - . .-. • • •.- .

Hunting and weapons experience. To explore the possible influence ofcivilian experience with firearms, trainees' record fire scores were corre-lated with their reported experiences with various weapons. These correla-tions are reported in Table 15. Readi.ly apparent are the facts that thefemale data show no significant correlations of weapons experience -withrecord fire score and that, for Track I males, no significant correlationswere revealed. With the exception of .22 caliber rifle experience, noconsistent relationship between firing ability during record fire and levelof civilian firearms experience was evidenced across tracks.

A possible explanation of the inconsistent correlational results isdifferential amounts of weapons experience across tracks. This possibilitywas explored by generating chi-square statistics using track as one classi-fication variable and experience on individual weapons as the second variable.Only in the case of .22 cailber rifle experience for males did a significantchi-square result, X2 - 19.78, df - 6, p~ < .025. Whereas for three tracksexperiences tended to be bimodal (either no experience or a great deal).Track II males revealed a uniform distribution of experiences across theweapons experience rating scale. However, the generally nonsignificantchi-squares support the conclusion that differential weapons experienceacross tracks did not generate the pattern of correlations observed.

But given the correlational results, the influence of weapons experi-ence in evaluating the relative merits of the candidate BRM programs wasexplored. Since .22 caliber rifle experience showed a relatively stablecorrelation for the three experimental programs, it was chosen as a co-variate for an analysis of covariance of record fire scores. The data forthe control group were not included due to its nonsignificant correlationof .22 caliber -experience with record fire. The analysis of covariancerevealed nonsignificant differences among the three tracks, 1(2,352) - 1.57,p> .05, despite the anticipated finding that the covariate accounted fora significant portion of the variance in record fire scores, F(1,352) -20.79, p < .0001. Adjusted means for Tracks II, III, and IV wýere 26.32,26.47, and 25.30 respectively; these mean record fire scores are practically-identical to those reported under the males' "completed all training"column of Table 5. These results suggest that, if it were possible,adjusting record fire scores on the basis of reported weapons experiencewould not alter the outrvomes of other analyses reported above.

27

Table 15

Correlation of Record Fire Score withHunting and Weapons Experience

MALES

TRACK

I II III IVExperience (n- 82) (n 173) (n - 146) 1 119)

Hunting .06 .21** .23*** .17(65) (149) (144) (112)

Air Pistol .08 .10 .20* .24**(58) (116) (122) (107)

Handgun .02 .22** .07 .18(60) (127) (119) (109)

.22 Cal Rifle .04 .21** .25*** .25**(60) (126) (122) (108)

Large Bore Rifle -.01 .17 .24** .13(55) (117) (116) (108)

Shotgun .11 .20 .29 .17(58) (126) (116) (107)

FEMALES

TRACK

I II III IVExperience (n - 34) (n - 40) _n- 30) (n- 18)

, -ting -. 06 .03 -. 02 .11(27) (37) (29) (18)

28

Table 15

Correlation of Record Fire Score withHunting and Weapons Experience

MALES

TRACK

I II III IV

Experience (n 82) (n - 173) (n = 146) (n = 119)

Hunting .06 .21** .23*** .17(65) (149) (144) (112)

Air Pistol .08 .10 .20* .24**(58) (116) (122) (107)

Handgun .02 .22** .07 .18(60) (127) (119) (109)

.22 Cal Rifle .04 .21** .25*** .25**(60) (126) (122) (108)

Large Bore Rifle -. 01 .17 .24** .13(55) (117) (116) (108)

Shotgun .11 .20 .29 .17(58) (126) (116) (107)

FEMALES

TRACK

I II III IVExperience (n - 34) (n = 40) n = 30) (n = 18)

Hunting -. 06 .03 -. 02 .11(27) (37) (29) (18)

28

Table 15 (continued)

TRACK

I IIIII IVExperience (n - 34) (n 4 0) (n 3- ( 18)

Air Pistol -.24 .13 ---. 06(24) (31) (18)

Handgun .06 -.01 .01 -.07(25) (33) (26) (18)

.22 Cal Rifle .12 .32 .01 .05(25) (35) (27) (18)

Large Bore Rifle .23 .20 .06 .02(25) (31) (26) (17)

Shotgun .12 .25 -.02 .05(25) (33) (27) (18) I

Note: Numbers in parentheses are number of cases used in computing,correlation coefficient.

p< .05 - .025 p< .005

29

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Imroved Performancef

The purpose of this field experiment was to test several marksman-

improvements to Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship Training. The three experi-

mental programs tested shared in common the following features. All placedgreater emphasis on fundamentals training than did the control (standard)program and all utilized the new 25 meter silhouette target firing exer-cises (see Figures 2 and 4) and the ARI zeroing target (see Figure 1).

However, differences among the candidate programs were provided throughIvariation of the number of instructors (more in Tracks II and III) andinclusion or exclusion of the 175 meter walk-down-range performance feed-back exercise (included only in Tracks III and IV).

Evidence has been presented showing that all candidate experimentalBRM Programs (Tracks II, III, and IV) provided record fire performanceimprovements for male and female trainees (see Table 5). The mean recordfire performance of candidate track trainees clearly shows improvementover standard training and subsequent analyses showed expected significantperformance differences between candidate training procedures and standardprocedures. The record fire performance analyses revealed no program to I

be clearly superior among the candidates tested. Additional variables hadto be considered to determine the best program to replace the current one.Analyses of the experimental tracks revealed that the instructional contentof Track III/Track IV yielded superior performance on live fire in train-ing (see Tables 8 and 9).

Questionnaire data were analyzed to determine the importance ofinstructional content to marksmanship knowledge and comprehension. Threeareas of marksmanship fundamentals were addressed by the questionnaire:zeroing, transition from 25 meter to field firing, and t~ie effects ofjfiring at greater ranges. The results of analyses measuring these areasrevealed that for Track Ill males understanding of marksmanship fundamen-tals and record fire performance correlated strongly (see Table 11).Track III females did not demonstrate nearly as clear a relationship be-tween record fire performance and marksmanship knowledge (see Table 11)but did show generally greater marksmanship knowledge than males in other :training tracks (Table 10).A

Record fire performance supported by other evidence pointed to thesuperiority of the Track III program that included additional instructorsand detailed performance feedback from down-range in addition to theenhanced 25 meter firing.

30

Ratio of Instructors to Students

The Army has greatly reduced the number of instructors committed to

marksmanship training in recent years. In the current experiment an attemptwas made to assess the impact of this reduction. Tracks III and IV were

I j identical except that Track III had twice the normal number of assigneddrill sergeants. The questionnaire data revealed that Track III subjectsdisplayed greater knowledge of fundamentals than did those in Track IV,a fact that could be attributed to increased instructor/trainee inter-action. Some additional understanding of marksmanship fundamentalsoccurred during the course of Track III training which was reflected inthe post record fire questionnaire results. Track III record fire perfor-.mance was also generally higher but the difference was not statisticallysignificant, There is evidence that the drill sergeant instructors avail-Nable were generally inadequately prepared for their assignment. Observationof these instructors throughout the experit.Lent revealed their very limitedcomprehension of marksmanship skill~a. Th.~y were provided only two hoursof familiarization training related to the experimental programs beforethe beginning of the test. They were themselves earlier products of thesame standard BRM training program which has been shown to be deficientand they therefore could not be expected to impart knowledge and skillwhich they did not possess.

There has been a demonstrated loss of institutional knowledge over 1the years in fundamental marksmanship skills. Observations of drill ser-geants who were unable to correctly diagnose trainee errors or more simplyto recognize improper firing positions were not at all uncommon during thetest. To assist in correcting trainee errors, the di ill sergeants must betrained adequately themselves. In short, more unque-l.fied instructorsare not a training program improvement. The US Marine Corps uses highlyqualified instructors in a ratio of one to two students at critical funda-tuental skill acquisition times. There is evidence that this; has much todo with the excellence of their marksmanship training program. It remainsto be seen what gains would occur for the Army as the ratio of student toqualified instructor drops freci as much as 20 to 1, as now exists, to asmaller ratio permitting greater individual attention per student.j

Instructional Improvements

The. quality of instruction must be improved for instructors and drillsergeants as well as for trainees. The Fort Jackson test has clearlydemonstrated this. Program improvements such as knowledge of firing re-suits afforded by down-range feedback must be understood and practicedby cadre members before they can adequately deal with the task of trainingnew firers. Drill sergeants, in particular, should receive more intensemarksmanship skills training as part of their preparation for working withthe trainees. This should be emphasized until good marksmanship skillsacquisition again becomes truly fundamental to the soldier.

31 46

Guides. Two guides are being developed to accompany the new BRM pro-gram of instruction (Track hIllyI), in part as an aid to improved instruc-tional quality. A draft Instructor's Guide has been designed to introduceBRM instructors iind drill sergeants to the fundamentals being taught inthe new POI, the capabilities of the typical M16Al rifle, and the principlesof shooting which, though not new, have been lost over the years in theevolution of training (Osborne, 19801).

The second guide (to be developed) is a shooter's book to track train-ing performance during BRM. The trainee can refer, as can his or herinstructor, to past performance to aid in correcting reoccurring shootingproblems. These augmentations to the BRM program should help fill aknowledge gap which the test at Fort Jackson revealed.

Missed Training

In earlier observations at training centers it was obvious that train-ees were often missing portions of training. It seemed important to seewhat impact missing training had on final performance so careful recordsof attendance were maintained during the experiment.

Assuming that the time available for basic rifle marksmanship train-izig is already minimal (even in the experimental programs tested here),the impact of missing critical training periods was expected to be severe.Statistical comparisons demonstrated that males in all experimental trackswho missed some training had sizable and significant reductions in recordfire scores. Females in Tracks III and IV were affected as well. Thestandard program showed no differences (see Table 5). Table 3 provides a de-tailed breakdown of the number of training periods missed across tracks. Com-mand emphasis at the training center was placed on trainee attendance beforethe test began and was emphasized during conduct of the test (HQ, USATC,Fort Jackson, South Carolina, 1979). In spite of this emphasis 43 percentof males and almost 50 percent of the females missed at least one criticalperiod of training (Table 3). This has basically two implications fortraining. The first is that missing critical periods of training clearlyhurts performance and the second is that very large percentages of train-ees are missing training and thus are poorer performers than they shouldbe. Emphasis must be placed, at all levels, on trainee participation inall periods of instruction in order to insure maximum acquisition of marks-manship skills.

1A. D. Osborne, Basic Rifle Marksmanship Instructor's Guide, Litton-Mellonics draft research report, January 1980.

32

Implications and Future Developments

As a tesult of this experiment and previous research the US Army hasbegun adoption of a revised basic marksmanship program at Fort Benning,Georgia. It is patterned after the Track III/IV program.

The key to good marksmanship skill acquisition is appropriate andrepeated practice with feedback to the firer of performance results.Under the new program the periods of instruction have been redesigned andsequenced to provide the firer with logical transitions for maximum bene-fit. Continued developments in the training program may be expected asimproved teaching techniques, aids, and range equipment become available.

A major area of potential f or improving the quality of marksmanshiptraining is use of devices to provide better feedback about shooting per-formance. Accurate down-range feedback equipment could save time and allowmore time for practice. One very promising prospect is a developing pro-jectile location system that automatically gives bullet location, whetherhit or miss. Automated ranges combining such a location system with scor-able targets would permit immnediate feedback to the firer without the needfor large witness panels and walks down range or pit crews lowering andscoring targets.

The Army Research Institute's marksmanship research continues in theareas of advanced individual training and unit training. The overall goal

is to aid in developing programs for the acquisition and retention of

4

33a

REFERENCES

Evans, K. L., Thompson, T. J., & Smith, S. FORSCOM/U.S. Army Marksmanship UnitMl6Al rifle and .45 cal. pistol marksmanship training evaluation. ArmyResearch Institute, Research Report 1263, August 1980.

Headquarters, USATC. Letter of instruction, basic rifle marksmanship test,April-May 1979. Fort Jackson, S.C., April 1979.

Hicks, J. A., III, & Tierney, T. J., Jr. Cadre evaluations of the riflelaser and rimfire adapter rifle marksmanship training device. Army

F Research Institute, Research Report 1196, August 1978. (AD A061 273)

Klein, R. D., & Tierney, T. J., Jr. Analysis of factors affecting the de-velopment of threat oriented small arms training facilities. ArmyResearch Institute, Technical Report 78-B2, February 1978.(AD B026 375)

Osborne, A. D. Basic rifle marksmanship Instructor's guide, Litton-Mellonics,draft research report, January 1980.

Smillie, R. J., & Chitwood, T. E., Jr. Literature Review, Army training:MI6AI Rifle, TOW and Dragon weapon systems. ARI Research Report 1254,August 1980.

Smith, S., Thompson, T. J., & Evans, K. L., and Osborne, A. D., Maxey, J. L.,& Morey, J. C. Effects of down-range feedback and the ARI zeroing tar-get in rifle marksmanship training. Army Research Institute, ResearchReport 1251, June 1980.

Tierney, T. J., Jr., Cartner, J. A., & Thompson, T. J. Basic rifle marks-manship test: Trainee pretest and posttest attitudes. Army ResearchInstitute, Technical Paper 354, April 1979. (AD A069 941)

Tierney, T. J., Jr., & Cartner, J. A. Basic rifle marksmanship test: Cadrepretest and posttest attitudes. Army Research Institute, ResearchProblem Review 78-7, August 1978. (AD A076 713)

TRASANA. Basic rifle marksmanship cost and training effectiveness analysis.Technical Report 16-77, September 1977.

34

~ - ~t

APPENDIX A

BASlC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP

j QUESTIONNAIRE

DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

TITTLE: BREN1 Training Questionnaire

PRESCRI'BING DIRECTIVE: AR 70-1

AUTHORITY: 10 USC Sec 4503

PUJRPOSE (S): The. data collected with the attached f( rmn are to be usedfor research purposes only.

Th13 is an experimental personnel data collection formdeve-loped, by the U. S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences pursuant to Its researchmis,' -n as prescribed in AR 70-1. When idlentif~iers

r.or Social Security Number) are request(,d the-,y areto be used for administrative and statistical. controlpurposes only. FullI confidentiality of the responseswill be maintained in the processing of th~edata.

Your participation In this reerhis strictly voluntary.IndivIduals are encouraged to provide com~plete andaccurate information in the interests of the research,but there will be no effect oil individuals for notproviding P" or any part of the. informat~ion.

35

I3

" i06

BACKW) UxN DATA

1. NAME(l.asL) (First) (M dl'.,)

2. SSAN: ACE:

o. UN.IT ASS I(;.ED. ...........

CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH I71.;:4

4. SEX: a. Male b. Femal.

5. FIRE FROM RIGHT OR LEFI" SHOULDER: a. Right b. left

6. RIifUH OR I.EFr HANDED: a. Right b. Left

7. EYE COLOR: a. Blue b. Hatol c. Green d. i, own

8. RACE: a. Black h. Whitte/Caucan mI c. Spatui zd, d, Other

9. I'VE HUN'ED WITH A FIREARM:

a. Never b. I t, 5 rimes; e. ,More Than 5 limes

10. DO YOU NEED TO WFAR GI.ASSES: a. Yes b. !"o C. I l)un't Know

11. IF YOU NEED TO WIAR UESES, (IRCd. ONE OF THE FOILOWING:

a. I need to wear glasses, but I didn't have theun to wear at any timne duringbas ic rifle marksnmanshLp.

, I n.eed to wear glasses, bitt I Lad them only for sour.Pe ol ,,,;tc riilema rks•oanshi p.

c. I need to wear glass;Cs, but I decidtcd not to use them when firiog" the rlfl ,.

FIREARMS EXPERLENCE

Listed below are different kinds of firearms, For each firearl,place an X in the box which showb how much experience you hiave had.

No A few experlienees Quite a lu, experience Many i.xperieuti ,sexperience i - 15 16 - 30 10 or more

Air Pistol

HanditUn

.22 Cal Rifle I

Larger than.22 Fifie

,'iII or '416

shotgp is IDo1 mii In, 1i04-. it,- MI )ri rule uit kcnq.ao-i i l, t I n i rlip yvi !,i!.t omui- I t- at

Ft. * iik.m3

: ~36

L

S S•h 1',t• uw art, ptuii it ret s of ht I:rinf' on 20101. . g•+ rzertitny t rV•, t-i. ',v th ,iev sthot :.rntlips t3 In.." I

tOL 10 o] •j I '-It] est IŽ,

A. W ! ' Ih slho t groui 1 1: r, erred t +i a I Iti htshot itrup! (Cl rce I one,)

A B C

n, Should the tra I rive who I red Sit L ,ruui V.make sight chianges? (Ci rle sutm)

YES NO

Stint Group linot Group B

tO

+ , I . . . . . . Ii , . , .: i •fij. '- ii " i.. ..

1+ '. I + , , . . .

.. ... . ... . .. .. .. . . .. . .... ..i l l . . .. t . . . . , , .. :, *. .I . . . . . . . . '

1; iit -t Group C

;i .t t i ! ' 'i

•I.. I.. .

SVr,": '......ISi A

A . . .. . . . . . .

i .. . . ..3.

I

t2 . q> a a k I d i

S '.. pl a.t- d? ( ii a ,' i et

A L 'i ?I

* f., .,..

S. .. ! ... . ...$f . I ' ; It, -1...t r . . . ..

, . . I • • , i . . . ', .

V-

. .. .' i .

38

P#

t1 I tur.d hi- I.,, 1 a -h1t t gt up. u 1 , ' .SIt hi' .e, Il in q u t I o f

AkI 33 M! !13 Iti1191t'. tAiI I4l 3) ii 3" 1 tO 4 I 1 4 4 3 • I I t ' i -. t ' It t i t 3 .i t :1 .. :. . . ,

~4 ..- ! 1

•- j-" "' v :-. t .. ..

W. i i'V 1 r t;

t -r( I [ ? J I -I

10r0 1lt T i(Ie'kCIr. h ,1 t ai 41 1. H

h v I F I i I 1 '")

.i. .---a ... ... -.I

L i

34-

-' - i! ,

1 4-- - .-.-;4-'4' ;

I ..... - " :.....i

"ii t • I it • I,, 3 1',,. 3 , • .. . . .g -. ... ,'3 i t

I A. . •l • I .... it " 'li t. . gL til 1-, ... f--lO -W ---? (Clot 'S.... "'. t i R i....... S -- '" " "-,h I. . .• • :-.. ...- t I ¾I 3 I - 3. -, vi i . . ..I.. . . '

,,. .it i ;i~ .tt'" " "311 • h -- t i C.-. L. ht . OV' t , i

S...... -.. . .. . .. : :. . . _ , :t. , . . .

,. Pi Itt ured below is it ,lhot gr ounp Use this ta rgettL ,In.sw ,r tIt- v 1 l, Iow Iin g ite I t tio n (C o t)L i hI. , u d fr, ,

qu mt,• eio 3 w, On1 t ia p1)! vioViUl 1 ) age)

API It %Ir(P IE4MAIC lAli~tII 1 4 3 2 1 a a I 1 1 4 1 1 1 to 11 I1 o I A

1l .. 4 1 tlr~.7 lV~ v 1 :Is 1, ,I i

. . 4 . I

141 •4 -- Ti K

,- 1{- ,

,, '1--i- t *-H- T' - -4 JI~f 4--, , -,' ,'I

t t - ,

S ,.,-......... •_ 4 . .'.. .. ..

-4

:: • . . ./ ,L ., -s .. .... , ....0. .I t. . .. . .

'4 II "0 14 40 4 5 4 6 4 0 4 6 1, S I II 4t a4II Il

(C. Now that t~he trainee haos madu- the etirrer t eight hnge•,thle next time ii., or olhe firets th,, rnt ie thet shot .rotapwill let (Circle 4)7t)

(A ) I 1 itlt to the rio: Cc) lwn 1and 1 1 th ra i h

(h) U1I) :11d to thI V ieit (W ) Down ind to the left

!1. 1f No qIglht flhangCes aire mal t, will the rifle hit targets

aIt I et' r n t v r ( rt I L ,0 It' U

YES NO

I . II N44 s |I , i ll t c 'h a ii t g I ; a r e I044 0, ,Il l tlit r i l l.- lif t ta r ge t ,

a t 30(0 mvt rs? (Circle rnile )

YES Nt0

40

_____

"--- X'., Lt,

5. A trailnct puts the fronit :ipg'it post onl the 25 rieter

tairget a,, .okowri it the pircture below. Ift the Itrn'IeI

ftires th, r ifl sI,:It this, targot where w I It rh e h)ul eIt 9

P h 3 3i t S ? a C I 1 4 2 I v i . I I '3 1

I3

4. ...1 ...4 ...

II

I'm

1. 4-

44 II

6. Picturd heoiiw i: a 41iit group fired at -t23 ? rterzeri ing t.,r ;;et. L Uv t h. is t arge t t o aniwir thiv

fo] llowing quest in:i:

iiii ig i4i-,,,, i .t4 . '

+:!- 0 "! 4..

I fa ta i ~ use tem ri le to .~ I~ea 5

• u I I e L - ? !

A~ . Hea

B.I A b vcc nu fm

c. .Ce te of .,- . .

4,' .. . . t4 4 ' . '... . ;,,,

!). A I i a b ve1 cn t v r .f ma s

Ce e a +. t n i ' enter of ssoah rets tl

!). ,A little beiiw canter ,ii nas!.

E. Off the target

42

7. c I tured h- 11w i , *h t g ri-u; Ifr d !rt a MV r Eee er

zeroing tar:tut , "' lt I t rgLet to ,i0.1 .;- r the!•'lo i'rgq qsi..-;r Iluri:

........ .. ... .. ....... ;..... • ... ;

q' , ." to .

+ r

tI

r r ,.

if a •tiiaie.- tie'r. h • S e C fll,, to tire it a 0',

meter i~arg;t nod• a;rrs c.,flier or mccii, •here v'iii .ir

bu~llets 'it? (Cfir,'., one?

A. }head

tA

B. A ]i tile above Ceritit, . f 2r..i3

C. C .nic? ...f ma .

D. A little below rooti-r of tnrs.

E. i''f tlt- L.)rj, r

C 2 .. .... ... . . . & --- ,', -15 i..a tg i V .i

S.... ... .. .... .•":, - • - ,t, " ' '• ",:,; _. ,.. • 2 .• , • ,i'•' •-- ':.: :•, :, 'A

C. i ' .tt .I +I o w I o, t to o r ip r,, , i . ) m tv t vrzercv i: talr g '' . I . , . 1'h targv,,t I ,1itw-I r tilt"follow1 + :. q Iica tIr:

4 'ii.I t*4*I - 4 • *l

I i f I a l t. r a I o e u m. v t fie sam r I f I v t o I j t n 2+ , i 0

,m te-t r -g-t - - .. . ... ... a im ... . ..r t, .... ...... w f .. . O i u'k

A. He $ 4.

:I A -I I-ii I t L I P ... UVC ca e •i v r ma s

"li t e ',I. v t v of z i+;I f t I. a r •ý; I

4 44

Iff

S -_ i+. :' ...... V.: .*. ,; . _ , I 4 : . 1

;Li :i:_ i:+ iJ I " : " +I'*.

A. Head+• ,+ + ++

t. 4entc' if 'ma

D. ..little''.iIw itiitr of ,ats

Ceter targetan ai s < n er ,[ m 's ,l•rw l ti' il , i.;

hit? (Cir le o e) lI

B. A ~ t lt ,bu e 'e"L!'r t~ l,;+44 •

9. 'sing a well-zFroed ri lie, a trainee fires a shot

group within the circle of . 25 o-tvr target WiIllthe shot groups be b)1gger, smaller, r tie .ame size

w'hen the trainee I tres at a targt-t ar 175 meters?

(Circle one)

A. Bigger at 175 metetrs.

I1. Same size at 175 met~rs.

C. Snaller i z,. at 175 meters.

10. A trainev In aiming At a 75 meter target, but makes

a Idistake and aims to the left. The picture belowshows tIe v .stak, . It th, fa llee fires th., rifle,

A ill the !uLlet lit Lthe targ.,t'. (Circle one)

y ES No•

11. S~io'.n below are tl,.d fire tairgets at 175, f",i, and

300 mueters. What I- the correct point uf aLen foreac". one?

A

A

C

175 meters 25(1 me tetl 300 meters

(C ireI,, ,ne ior ,.jrh target)

I,"' Mitve Larget: A It r 1) ( tr c )le

2A0 mn.,ter t.,rgot. A B C I) (Circle onv)

300 meter ta.evt: A H C . ) (Circle ,,le

45

- . .- -- --.. ,- -.. 7 .. ...'. .7..,- - .. ._ ~ .

Fj

12. 1 vw is .i f f I - t.1 1 a;a r at ' timet ;. A I iglhtto no:dium wvinl (l1) niles per liour) Is l, 1l.-tg fri'mthe "ight to I!e It.f! (;as to.n Iib the , i,.t). Wh t,"slhou id the front n ha i I pa -t nIf I1w ri I,. ,he r, 'ed

I it Ite targr t? (e li i a v lit)

A iR C r

A

Ii I. II

LI l)

250 met,'rs

I3. A t -.a nc i, ;lrring at a 75 not..r tar',et with a 4-l11-ze.roetd i!!l It', but is. p r l•sing th,. arget. hla ;-uldth.e train:,e do ? (C Ircle on)

A. A•ia more tk tie rig ht.

1. Aim wire to IIth I I t .

A. Aim a little Iu It lii;i,:r.

D. Aim a lIttI r hit I ,I .r.

14 A t r: a Imi nco I , fIr lutg at i ol met, I.r tart:' t Wili it w,'ll -•pver d rifle blit I. 'in!, . ,I i, the ','- .1 Whi.,. . '1-qI d

l i r it.l ,c i d io? I1 rC 1 *. 1- , 0

A . A|I P, Ina, I. t i, r i;It.

I,. Aim mi r t I thJ 1 f.

C. Atee ; l; tle lit li 'a h i'r.

I. A l a , . t . lIt r;' tI. t

46

U'

5. For vicli p Iv t it it I ')w di r tfie frint .t ,i r,.. r % I ghts iI •n-] up rIp;ht (ii Igntd), d

- hIcturý b.-low is the aII1Iluý point (O w

16 7 For a-arh I(l-'tu r e I o[tw I!; the' sightv pointr co ret++'

Irpe ly iv;•d tup (.olI, ln d) witI h, rl't :l, ~ '

1 / :.,/ 1]..!./ :/_. ,

/ . /

7 o .- wL 7'I ,. r r .,

UI :,.7 I-, .',17

S47

6-A,

APPENDIX B

AGGREGATION BY KNOWLEDGE AREAS OFQUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Zeroing Knowledge

SI'•f,~ I I i|,: r, pt1' {I ¢ttV i '. ,' Ih" . T',l • '"t . I T! I I

l~t. l.l , in. quest Ioll:ý

1.. A . V. 5:i It tiO, t Prn,,I, i i r itlt' v . . "t .' I ,

o:|,1 ; Ol " .l' 4• 1''

2, HO i. Shout. t Ch,. trait i,' h, '. ii, ,e. ,I,; is

m-k . sight c'ia n.. I I cl - I . )

'ittip A $'it. Groump

.. . . . . . . . . . .

* .* . .v : .I'':'.................. ... ... I.......,...

.... . ..................

.. ............. ' "

t

48

4... .

I .... 1, ,p ..

.

3. B ') TiNr', t~iriut• nr(' i,|clurti bt'1(• ' , s(r.•T ir Ci L rgt t a rC v C ai ' V I b k' 1 1!W t. n t

r II t" A (.It a IT ' et

A i

.. .. .. . . . -... ... ......

C . ' ,I ¶ C I e r

' ' i • i"' ' F - , i ' ' " ' ''÷_ ,' ' •''', . . ..:: '

-- 1 J'A '" 4, 1 t • - -

1 4,

~T . .. . .. . . .I .-

91 a 1 .g-

*, 'C ''.', 1 ' .C . ,

I' ¶ •' '•

t I -htA ' ', •..

1<4

"'i• . : : >:•",i, .. .

9/

S..... . .. "" ... . .. .... T " .... --. ....C

"S. I'icturi. > ,a ! v , 1hot q ,p. [:t, eis t;,rp et

AIll 00 Yti 10 JIti•l'.to *it•,,i

14 11 0 '1 10 f I I I 0 4A 3 I I1 4 1N 1 0 I to I 0 0 1 Ii

, • • I I. -'-| :

t . . t .. .: . f ,I I } I .j 2 • - . 4.. . f . .4 . to,

1 .i' l I 1 I " ' S

:I" "• . . . L Iz '. . ..i * l . .. .I •f ' , '14

0 j t •- t- - 4, o , t •- I-

ii- .... -.. . •-r , I I 'l lI " -¶- -r-* "-' -t

., - i- .- ,- ..- .

'.,, • • I . , ,

*41

A•.. - . .. -- t !.- -t. . 4 - t -I l . . . ' _ i_

1 ~ 4 1 4o,- t .- ,4 -- --. -14 -I 0 .- 3 .- SI-- 0 0 4,. ... • . ., -- •- , •

4,FSA ,ijo '. ov o ,h* tho ~ , UP or I) :N (ti , c on

,t.- . . ., ,I t , /0 I .

7 2I I '. to 1i , ' i I t o I i .t h . I t~o I , ~

tI- " - -i ,-t--t.i l n) 3 o 4 , o - I-' ., '. , . . .

9 ...... ,- --2- I o I I o d o -o t oo ;- - r -o l-* , k-t-'-n ..... ... ,-

14-

111' 'I,

4 ,,F S. l c i, h It... . . e- : ; t I t i- ,- I - ..) u .. r . , o .' 1) U P -ir .. ... .C IC, - -L it R, a r S• 5I Il h t •

"5 R S. .It, W h i c si h m o e w A- t i- r - •p R I .... o r C I.. . r... . 1 ,

7 .2 . . ..... .l -,-,d i , ... .. .t o m u n t h, I* • r t , It 1,• 4.... , v "d I.. . l , .c ho .. . . ! v ( C i r c l e "O.. ., . -• c o r r e c t i-• , j -. ,' . .. . . . .

8 . 3 o 4 ick, mw R,.1ý-rar bo t-;

Fr1, mt I f g~

9 . 2 1) I n w h I -ith d I rI'V , t I O ll lil t, , t t h e r, i_ r ,I'ijt ; ht ') u nmo v e ,d t o

-z(-r-, Ole r Ifle?' (ý:irc •, ih,,- , :r re ct a~i. %we

(ED

L, so

to~llw:'r the lo itwtig quios iis: (C 1 '- t i ti~i'vii f lriri

ii T

* * ft 1 t1il

tL" r ,,tJ4

71

" l I -t ; I i .

"I-t--- i lL-,.+. r;-, ,iI i.. -' .,toi

4i

" -- . . i .- - I. 4I i i M it 1 L t cI

, 0. iV, I.. he r I k- E lit roit. . . . .. L ( iF1 t.. .

l-., - . i Hi ! .. ...] H , i-l- l.- -.--. . ,~

Transitton Knowledge

1 1 ,. Y e It I t Nil- .. .tw. ..il..l "

12. NO 1 i V '+, ... . !lt ..... ..

"' -- 1 : ' ( , l e " : ' + "+ : ÷

51

lit .. _."_-_ _

•* . t, . • - -w+

,J

6. 1Licturtd below is a stitt group 1 i rc, at a 2 r v. vev

zo to. tfg target. U.:;L this target to itn-wer till

fllvwlrng quest 1utu

it t aI 'cl v ; t h f v t it " in, r i~ 1 l o I} I v .L a

,,it.!, t : i- t1'g a 1 Pr

71,-4. --. ,' I-

, I .." • ' 1 ' T:=

I t i t- C .. . .

If -.I .i,['teriO:M.1!1

522

-F' At L IS. .. . .. . . .

.. . . . .. . . . ................ , ..... , i

if" a trLtln•eeus'ii: the 5150r nut r ifle l ire .it 2"L

I ~ ~~~~~tlvt..'r target and "It11': vete(t~ r ol mans, t.h; ,ere witll t,

bullets hiit? ((ArnI' e 'on)

S13. E \. il,,ad,

• nf , little ghort' c-r, ce'Iu mftist

I'I * I itt It- |Ii .* . tO ti ,ii r1114:

i0 C" it' targe't

II

52 '

-I

-r ,.

7. iict . d ee 1.-4 is ,i ihot r,.ip 1 'irervd it -l rit.tvror o ing t -rget U:st. 1 this t irget i, a 4' n r t i,

foi . 1owinp q uest iot

**6' i ' 4

l 1 : ; i • , . . . . . : . , •

I j I

7iT ................. . ".... 4I t,'2 4..;. ;.!

If a trai nee tu vs tc nme ril fir at u 0meter tret v and a ims c, t on t e r, ohtrm w it', the ,

'i ....-u ,,lt ,C , ;;ie *{ .-u r&-.-L

14.0 A. o a d

i 1 ,.A li.tte a ve vcuntter uI. i :z.s

C te - : t t • ma.

D I, t L ttle Iolbw, e entvr of n sa.

I. : th, t:ur veI

*I .

01

53

4 ... .. y ... 4- -

L . ~~I ittnti I' In dt i h t-i a 2

r ii t a rg i nc ti r via ta 1 t t' .''.

o t r t ir e nd a m -c t- o ia~ , w 1

15.. B A.K . .(A liIvJ:VC c- t r of rz~l

n e ot'-

It.,,54

Effects of Range Knowledge

"A t re i n e pit s tIh f ro t Sight post ,t ti the 2 i. mt

,t a 'I 1 ' i,' f l lI. t. p , -LIt ro bo I -W I. if 1 v I t I 'I t vf I .,, Itb , i FI at IhIt. t,a I, wit, w vlIv wl, I l I 1.1" bu

1l, t '-

tit.) (Cii IIt 'I

14 '-7 -,--T - 01C11141I4 13 2• '4 II S! I s s 4 i 3 4 '• I e I 1 ii i , 1 ) ' 4

I. . . -I '4

i it,, ... -t , : + - -.r- -,- -, 4 °

II. L.. ..l•- .-.1 .- .-

d ~ -44 -.- 4..-.. .,32 . r - " - "'•€-

STTT

i÷ r _,I--. .. . .. , .. .-

' -4 -

-444,- -i

. .,. . . . , It

, .4 . , , . - 4 I" '4A

.• 16. B A The h11e11Li will hII insIde the t:irClc , bit t If to th' rioi..,.

C, the b tl ll r.I w ill h it low and 4uz 4 II I t v i

.1. The I',tll 4Iv wil 1 hit I L Iti ' t .iv ltitvr 'f vI" 'r cle.

55

A :, , , '

9. Using a weli-zt-r.)ed rifle, a tralnuu fires a shotP.roup within the circle of a "25 m eter target. Willthe shnt grouus be bigger, sr;al er, or tire same sizewhen tfie trainv.e fires at a t-irg(. at 17ý meters?(Circle I lie)

17. A Bigger at 175 meters

B. Sane size at 173 meters.

C. Smaller size it 175 met,ýrs.

18. Yes i0. it trainee Is aiming at a 75 meter tarpet, but makesa mistake and aims to the left. The picture below

shows the mistake. if the, trainee fire-n the rifle,will the bullet hit the target? (Circle one)

Q No

It. Shown below are field fire targets at '75, 2jll, and .1

300 pecters. What is the correct point of aix forea,'h one?

A

A

175 mt: ters 250 meters 300 m,.ters

(Crrcle ,ne 'or o-ichs target

19, C 175 meter target: A B I) (Lircle ,, )

20. C 250 meter target: A B 0 D (Circle .,1e)

21, C 300 rieter target: A 1 0 I) (Circle one)

56

r

I1o Blmit is a r lit fire target at 250 meters. A lightto medluI um ind (10 r. I mes per hour) is blowing fromthe r •'ht L' t i* l,'ft (a, shown by the arrow). tleroshould the fru:L salliht post of the rifle be placed tohit tie targ) t? (Circli e one)

22, G A P. 1: U. F

A

B C p

I I Ni

E F

250 metetrs

13. A trainee is firing itt a 75 mvter target with ;t well-zeroed rifne, but is missing the target. What should iithe trainee do? (Circle one) I

23. D A. Aim more to the right.

B. Aim more to the left.

C. Aim a little bit higher.

O Aim a little bit lower.

14. A trainee is firing at a 300 meter target w-ith a well-zeroed rifle buit is missing the target. What should

che trainee do? (Ctrclt. n,-)

24. C A. Aim more to the rihlt.

B. Aim more to th- left.

SAim a ltttl bit higher.

It. Aim a little bit lowe.r.

57

W..-., " .. A: ,,.. IS"•*;'• "• - "• • •" " .... ... ..-. -t,•:'•*' I•''"- 'v •. '.•.•

MI M

DISTRIBUTION

I US ARMY CINCPAC SJPPURT tRUUP PELRSONNJEL D)IVISIONI1H0OA ATTN: PMACI TAG/TAGCEN AT1N: UAAG-LUI H0, TCATA ATTN: ATCAT-OP-U2 HQr)A RESEARCH AND ST~UUIS OfCI mII.ITAPY OCCUPATIDNAL DLYLLOPMENI DIV UAPC-MSP-O, HM eA52C HOFFMAN bLo~G 1

4 OA'f) (mRA AND L)1 HO TCATA TECHNICAL LIBRARYI HQIA CHIEF, FlUmAN RESOURCLS DEVk.LOPMENT DIV1 HQ0A ATTN: DAMI-TSTI USA AVTATION SYSTEMS COML) ATTN: URSAV-ZilPI US's CORAUCOM ATTNJ: AMSE~L-I'A-RHI HEADUUARTLRS U$ MARINE COHi'S ATTN: CJUE MTMTI HEADUUARTERS9 US 4IARINE CORPS ATTN: COI)I. mP1-28

e US ARMY L.UROPE AND SL.VLNTM ARMYI IST INFANTRY DIVISION ANLI FT* RILEY ATTN: AAFZN-DPT-T1 CIIIEF9 SUHVEY BRANCH ATTN: UAPL-MSF-So HOFFMAN 8LOG 111 1JSý INTELLIGENCEi AND SLCURITY COMMAND ATTN: IAOPS-TNG,

e HU TRADOC TECHNICAL LIBRARYI NAVAL TRAINING FUJIPMLNT LE.N ATTN: TEC~rjICAL Llt3RARYI MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL ULVLýLOPMFNI UIV ATTN: UAPC-MSP-S, RH 852C, -OFFMAN BLDG I1 MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL ULVLLOPMFNT UIV ATTN: UAPC-MSP-l, RHM 852C, ý,OFFMAN BLDG I

1 MlILITAPY OCCUPATIONAL ULVL.LOPMF.Nl UIV ATTN: UAPC-MSP-T, HM 852C, 140FFMAN BLDG I

I NFIT INFANTRY DIVISIONI HQR)A TANK FORLES MANAGLMLNT OFLI HQ0A ATTN- I)ASIk,-;TH1 1230) USARCOM HFESERVE CENILRI FT. BENJAMIN HARHISON, IN 4621t)I USA FOQCtLS COMMAND) AFLO - DEPIJIy CHIEF~ (IF- STAFF FOR LOGISTICSI il5 ARMY AIR DEFE~NSEI D)IRECTOR)ATE OF TRAINING ATTN: ATZU-T

I o~E~oRTF OFCOHAT ULVLLOPMFNIS ATTN: ATZA-D1 HQ;)ARCnM MARINF CORPS LIAISON UtC

1 ~i'RT4ETOF IH RYU RYINTELLIGFNCL *Sk.CURITY COMMAND

I HitjOA CHIEF. RLiIREI) ACTIVITIES OR

I LISA MIS;SILF MAýHRILL RLAUINESS L01MMANL) ATTN: DRSMI-NTN1 ARTADS ATTN: URC~m-TUS-TUI. USA FORCES COMMI~NDI PH 7RAiOE/1 US MILTIARY DISTRICT OF WA!)HINCOUN OFC OF LUUAL OPPORTUNITYI NAVAL CIVILIAN PLRSONNLL (-OMU SUUTHERN FLU DIV

20 ART LIAISON OFFICEI TTH ARmY TRAINING CENTLRI ARIY TRAINING SiJPPORT Ct.NILR INUIVII)JAL TRAINING EVALUIATIONI H.o')As oCSOPS lp!OIVILiUAL THAINTW3I HQ0A9 iDCSOps TR:.4INING LIHIRCTopAIk.1 HQI)A9 DCSLOG MAI'JTENANLL MANA(,;.MLNT1 HU0A9 OCS STUDY OFFICE1 USACUEC ATTN: AIEC-.X-E HUMAN FACTORS1 SACRAMFNTO ALC/f)PCHBI LISAFAGOS/TAC 5S.NIOR ARMY ADVISOR1 INrER-iiNIV SEMINAR ON ARMLU FORCLS + SUC

I OASA (RUA) DEPUTIY FOR SC.ILNCE MMD TECHNOLOGYI OFC OF NAVAL RLSEARCH/1 AFHRL/i RII AF-1RL/LRL1 AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCLS LAB ATTN: AFHPL/TSRI 657o AmRL/H131 NAVY PFRSONNEL q AND U CENTER UIHLCT~R OF PROGRAMSI NAVIY PPRSONNEL H~ AND U CENTER/

eOFC OF NAVAL RLsEAqCH ,.LERSONNF.L AND TRAINING RESEARCH PROGRAMS

59

1 OFC OF NAVAL RLSEARCH AS5f. DIRECTOR P-ERS * TRAINING P5CM P-RUGSI OFC OF NAVAL RLSEARCH PHOJECI V~FFICE49 f-NVIRONMENTAL PHYSIOLO(,YI NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSCH LAb ATT'4; (COUE L!ýI)I NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSLH LAb AII.JURHE RANGER wESEARCHI BUqEAU OF NAVAL PEk-SONNLL SCIEN.If-IC AovISOH (PERS-OR)I NAVAL AEROSPACE MED ICAL H$CH LAb ALRJSPACE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENTI USA TRADOC sYSTE~MS ANALYSIb ACTJVIT'f ATTN: ATAA-TCAI HiEADQUAHTLRS9 COAST 'sUAHD CHIFi-, PSYCHUIOuGICAL RSCH sp1 USA RESEARCH ANI) Tf-CHNULUtY LAM ATTN; DAVDL-AsI liSA MOmILITY EDUI1IMLNT R AND U. CUMD ATTr'i* URI)ME-TQI NIGiHT VISION LA6 ATTN: UH5EL-NV-SUD1 USA TRAINING t3UAH')I USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: URASY-MI NAFEC HUMAN ENuANIEHINlG ORANCHI HATTELIE-COLUMtiuS LA80HAIUHLLS TACTICAL rECHNICPQ OFCI USA ARcTIC TEST CEN ATTN: AMSTE-PL-TSI USA ARCTIC TEST CEN ATTN: STLAC-PL-mII DEFENSF LANGUAI-ýE INSTIlUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENI HU WRATR D)IV OU- 14LUROPSYCHIlATRY1 USA ELFCIRONIC WARFARE LAO CHILti- INTELLIGENCE MATER DEVEL *SUPP OFFI USA RScH DEVEL + STANUARUIZA GP9 U.K,1 AFFDL/FGH (COIC)I USA NATICK RESEARCH ANLI DEVELOPMENT COMHAND CHIEF, 8EHAV S(ýILNCFS UIV, f-OO SCI LABI OAS0,p F AND L (t* AND LS) MILITARY ASST i-DR TNG V PRS TECHNOLI HQ!lA /I NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMANU ATTN: AIR-5.31.31 USACUEcEC TECH-NICAL LIBRARYI USAARL LIBRARYI HUMAN RESOURCES RSCH ORU (HUMHRR) L16HARYI SEVILLF RESEARCH4 CORPORATIONi USA TRADOC SYSII-MS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)I UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIT Of- THE HEALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRYI HU-4AN RLSUURCEb RSCH ORG 4HUMHRR)1 HUlAPRO WESTERN LIBRARY1 HATTELI E REPORTS LIbRARY1 RAND CnRPORATION ATTN: LlbRARY DI GRoNINGER L16RARY ATTN: AIZP--RS-L bUG~ 1313I CENqTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS

* I NAVAL HEALTH RSCH CEN LlbHARYI NAVAL PERSONNEL H AND U CELN LIHHARY ATTfl: COUE 9201L1 AIR FORCE HUMAN HESOURCt.S LAb ATTN: AFHRL/OTI HQ, FT. HUACHUCA ATTN: TLCH REt- DIV1 US A ACAUEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCLS bTIMSON LIBRARY (DOCUMFNTS)1 SCHOOL OF SYSTEMS AND LOGISTICS ATTN: AFTT/LSCM1 ERIC PROCESSINU ANJU RHfERENCL FAC ACJUISITIONS LIBRARIAN1 I)EPARTMENT OP- TH-E NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION UP1 NATIONAL CENTEH FDR HEALTH STATISTICS/I USMA nEPT OF bF-HAVIORAL !SCI ANLI LEADERSHIPI US NAVY CNE7 SUPPORT RESEARCH LIBRARYI OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY PLRF-ORMANCE. A$SFSSMLNT LA8ORATORYI U34 COMMAND AND bENERAL STAFF- COLLEGE ATTN: LIBRARY1 USA TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL USA TRANSP TECH INFO AND RSCH CENI NMROC PROGRAM MAIAULR FOR HUMAN PERF'ORMANCE1 USA ADMINCEN hLCHNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARYI USA FIFLD ARTY HUI NAT CLFARINGHOUSE f-OR MEýNIAL HEALTH 1'4FU PARKLAWN BLDGI U i0F TFXAS CEN HD COMMUNICATION RSCrII INsTITtUTE FOR UE+ENSE ANALYSESI USA TRAINING SUPPDRT CENTER DEVEL SYSlEmS TNG + DEVICES DIRECTORATE

'I I AFHRL TECHNOLOG3Y Of-C (H)I PURDUE UNIV ULP1 OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCESI USA MOHILITY EiUuIPMENT H AND U) CUMMANO aTTNt DRL)mE-Zc,

60

I D)A US ARMY RKTHAININk, BL.* RLSEAHCH E VALUATION OIRI HUMAN RESOURCE MAN4AGEiMENT LEN, SAN uIE'soI USAFA DEPT OF LIFý AND t3LH SCI1 US MILITARY ACAIILAY LIbRAkYI tiSA INTELLI(,ENCri CEN ANLJ hCH ATTN: SCHOOL LIt3HAHYI tiSA INTELLIGENCF CEN ANiO SLH J)LPT OF UNoi~jNL SL.NbOWSI MARINE CORPS INsIlTuTE.I NAVAL sAFETY CLNIPER /I US COAeT GUARD ING CEN ATTN: FuUCA(IJNAIg SVC;S OFFICERI LJSAAVNC AND FT. RJCKLR ATTN: AIZU-LSI UjS ARMY AVN TNUi LItiRARY ATTN: CHIEF LIMIPARIANI U3SA AlP DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN: AISA-DI1 tJSAAVNC ATTN$ ATZU-UI ,jS MILITARY ACAoEmY DIRECTOR (IF INSTITU71ONAL RSCHI USAAUS-LIt3RARY-iUOCU)MkNIS1 HO, USA SERGEANTS MAJOR ACADEMY ATTN: LFARNING RESOURCES CENTERI USA INFANTRY BOARD ATTN: AT1B-id-TS-riI USA INTELLIGLNCI- CEN ANU SLH FUUCATIJNAL ADVISORI USj ORD)NANCE CLN AND SCH ATTN: ATSL-ITEM-CI LISA ARMOk SCHOOL ATTN: AISt3-UT-lPI US/% ARMOR CENTLR D)IRECTORATE O& COMHAT nEVELOPMENTSI NAVAL POSTGRADUA1TE SCH AT TN: OUULLY KNOY LWH~ARY (CoO)F 14?4)I USA TRANSPORTATIONJ SCHOOL DLPtLJY ASST. COMMANUANT EDUCA. TLCHNOLotYI USA SIc.NAL SCHOOL ANU FT. O.ORUON ATTN; ATZH-LTI USA OO)ARrERMASIHR SCH ATTN: ATSM-UT-IM-FTI USA MiJITARY I.ULICE SCHOOL ATTN. Lltj4kAmyI IISA ARMOR SCHOOL LVAL 8HANCH9 UIHECTDRATE. OF INSTRUCTIONI CHIEF OF NAVAL FI)JCATIU"J ANL INk) /I USASIGs STAFF AN.) FACULTY UEV ANU ING 01VI HQ ATC/XPTD THA1I4NGNz SYSILMS OLVLLOP4ENTI iiSa IN-TITU-TE FUR MILITARY ASSISTANCE ATTN: ATSU-TD-TAI US ARMY ARMOR SCH)OL UIRLECTORAIt OF TRAININU1 USA AIo ULFENSE SC6HOOL AITN: A1LC01I4IUSA UOARTLPMAST,.R SCHOOL UIHLCTORATL OF' TRAININti DEVFLOPMFNTS

I 'iS COAST GUARD ACADEMY ATTN. CAULI COUNSELOR WDICK SLIMAK)A USA THANSPORTATIO'4 SCHOOL DIRECTOR OF TrPAININGI USA~ INFANTRY SCHOODL LlbRARY /II USA INFANTRY SCHODL ATTIN: ATSH-I-VI US ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: AISH-CJI USA INFANTRY SC~iUDL A1 TN: ATSH-UUT

1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL Al TN; ATSH-tV

I LISA Mu ITARY POLICE SCHOOL/IRATNINGj C.NTfR. OIR. COMBAT ULVLLolPMFNII USA MI ITARY POLICE SCHOOL/TRAiNING Ct.NTI-k DIR. TR-AINING PE.VELOPMt-NTI LISA MII ITARY POLICE SCHOOL/TRAININU cENfFI4. ATTN: ATZN-ACE NI US,'% INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION ATTN- RFSIUENT TRAINI~IG MANAbLMENII NYE LIHRARYHI USA ýI FLU ARTILLERY SCHOOL MORRIS SwElf L113HARY1 USA INSTITUTE OF AD)MiNISTHATiON ACADEMIC LIt3RARYI USA WAP COLLEGE ATTN% LlbHARY1 kIS~ LN~jINEER SCHOODL LIHNANY ANU LLAR~4IN(, RESOURCES CFNTEH1 USA ARMOR SCHOOL,. (USARMS) ATTN: LIBRARY1 OS COAs;T GUARD ACADEMY LIbRARYi USA TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL TRANSFPORTAIIO,~, SCHOOL LIBRARY1 OR4'AN17ATIONAL EFFECtIVLN~bpS TNLG CLN + SCH ATTN; LIHPARIAN

1 US ARMY lNTELLIOLNICE CL14TLR + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TI)1 US ARMY'INTEL.L16Ei4cE CENTER + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-RM-MI US ARMY lNTELLIl4ENCE CENIER + %CHOO)L ATTN-. ATSI-D)I-SF-IMI US MARINE CORP!) EUUCAlION CENTER1 USA FIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL UWlLETORAIL OF COURSE 0EV *TRAININU

4 BRITISH EMBASSY 3RITISrI ULFENCL STAFF2 CA~NADIAN JoINT -lAýFF

61

I CotlS (w) L111HANYI FRINCH M4ILITARY ATTA AH AD INA*.CtI ALJTHIAN LME§AS!)Y MLlN N L TA

.3 CANAUIAN L)FMNLC LIAISUN blAVF ATTN: (,OIINStLLLOH, 1AFF+~CE R ANu o)

I ROYAL NJETHEHLANS kLMtASSV MILITARY ATTACHE

F ~I CAIAL)IAN i-ORCfr.. 1ASE. COHNOALLIS ATIN: PF.WSONNLL S~LLLCTIUN-e CANAL)I&N FORC~b B)ERSNNLL APIPL WbCt1 U1411[I AWA4Y PFRSONNLL NLSLAHCH LltLbMNI ARAY PFRSONNFL lLtSAHCti rLb1.ýt1bMkNT AP-I S(Ak.N1IFIC COU')NINATION OtFILL

t0 LIt4RAHy OF CONbHý55S EXCtANbG. A14U bl~f 0)IV

I DLEFLNSF TLCHNICAL 1NH)HMA1ION CLI'4 ATTN: iT1C-TC

153 LI~HAHy UI* CON6ANSS UNIT UOLUmt.NTS EXPL~ITIN04 PI40JtCT

I FUTTOR* R ANI) U MAbALINt ATTN: UNCUL-LN

I I US GOVFRNMLNT P"ITING )Id. Alh4NAI4Yq PUrLIC UUCUME.N1S (FEAHlMfrNT

I US (iOVVNNME.NT $Pk41INki UF4; LItH$AHY ANUL STATUTORY,, Lhi4 Dv (SLL)

I TI* ANmY LIHMN~tY

62