Advertisement

Training in the Close Combat Tactical Trainer

  • Stephen L. Goldberg
  • Thomas W. Mastaglio
  • William R. Johnson
Part of the Defense Research Series book series (DRSS, volume 5)

Abstract

The ability of the U.S. Army to maintain combat readiness is dependent on continuous collective training of its units on their wartime missions and tasks. Collective training has traditionally been accomplished primarily through field exercises. Within the last decade escalating costs combined with reduced budgets, environmental, and political factors have severely limited the Army’s ability to conduct field training. At the same time, simulation technology has advanced to the point where networked simulators can begin to assume a significant part of the collective training burden. SIMNET, developed by the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) was the first network of simulators to use Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) technology (Thorpe, 1987). It demonstrated the capability of man-in-the-loop simulators to create a virtual battlefield on which meaningful collective training could be accomplished (Alluisi, 1991). In 1991 the Army assumed responsibility for the SIMNET program. SIMNET is currently being used for training at 10 sites in the United States and Europe.

Keywords

Training Exercise Weapon System Field Training Unit Trainer Collective Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alluisi, E. A. (1991). The development of technology for collective training: SIMNET, A case history. Human Factors, 33(3), 343–362.Google Scholar
  2. Bessemer, D. W. (1990). Transfer of SIMNET training in the Army Officer Basic Course (ARI Technical Report 920). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  3. Burnside, B. L. (1991). Assessing the capabilities of training simulations: A method and Simulation Networking (SIMNET) application (ARI Research Report 1565). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, A. W. (1991). The Army’s training revolution 1973-1990: An overview (Historical Studies Series). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  5. Department of the Army (1988a). Mission training plan for the tank and mechanized infantry battalion task force (ARTEP 71-2-MTP). Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Department of the Army (1988b). Mission training plan for the tank platoon (ARTEP 17-237-10-MTP). Washington, D.C.: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of the Army (1991). The battle-focused Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) (Armor TC 17-12-7). Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Drucker, E. H. & Campshure, D. A. (1990). An analysis of tank platoon operations and their simulation on simulation networking (SIMNET). (ARI Research Product 90-22) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AS A017 009)Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, Stephen L., & Meliza, Larry L. (1993) Assessing unit performance in distributed interactive simulations: The Unit Performance Assessment System (UPAS). In Technical Notice on Training Strategies for Networked Simulation and Gaming (pp 173-182) Brussels, Belguim: NATO Panel 8, Exploratory Group L.Google Scholar
  10. Hughes, C. R., Butler, W. G., Sterling, B. S., & Berglund, A. W. (1987).ite Sand Ml Unit Conduct-of-Fire Trainer (TRAC-WSMR-TEA-16-87). White Sands, NM: U.S. Army TRADOC Analyis Command.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, William R., Mastaglio, Thomas W, & Peterson, Paul D. (1993). The Close Combat Tactical Trainer program. Paper to be presented at The Winter Simulation Conference 93, Los Angeles CA.Google Scholar
  12. Kerins, J. W, Atwood, N. K., & Root, J. T. (1990). Concept for common performance measurement system for unit training at the National Training Center (NTC) and with Simulation Networking (ARI Research Report 1574). Alexandria, VA: U.S.Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. LB&M Associates (1992) Simulation Networking (SIMNET) training performance assessment (SBIR proposal). Lawton, OK: Author.Google Scholar
  14. Leibrecht, B. C, Kerins, J. W, Ainslie, F. M., Sawyer, A. R., Childs, J. M., & Doherty, W. J. (1992). Combat vehicle command and control sytems: I. Simulation-based company level evaluation (ARI Technical Report 950). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Meliza, L. L., & Bessemer, D. W (1993). Providing unit training feedback in the Distributed Interactive Simulation environment (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. Meliza, L. L., & Bessemer, D. W, Burnside, B. L., & Shlecter, T. M. (1992). Platoon-level after action review aids in the SIMNET Unit Performance Assessment System (ARI Technical Report 956). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Meliza, L. L., Tan, S. C, White, S., Gross, W. & McMell, K.(1992) SIMNET Unit Performance Assessment System (UPAS) User’s Guide (ARI Research Product 92-02). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Scott, T. D. (1983). Tactical Engagement Simulation After Action Review Guidebook (ARI Research Product 83-13). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Scott, T. D. & Fobes, J. L. (1982). After Action Review Guidebook I: National Training Center (ARI Research Product 83-11). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Shaler, M. (1991). Personal communication, December, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. TEXCOM Combined Arms Test Center (1990). Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) force development testing and experimentation. (TCATC Test Report No. FD 0200, RCS ATTE-3), Fort Hood, TX: Author.Google Scholar
  22. Thorpe, J. A. (1987). The New Technology of Large Scale Simulator Networking: Implications for Mastering the Art of Warfighting. In the Proceedings fo the 9th Interservice Industry Training System congerence (pp492-501), Washington, D.C., American Defence Preparedness Association, November, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. TRADOC System Manager, Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (1993).Google Scholar
  24. Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (Briefing). Ft. Knox, KY: Author.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Army Armor Center. (1993). Training device Requirement for the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (Revised), Ft. Knox, KY: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen L. Goldberg
    • 1
  • Thomas W. Mastaglio
    • 2
  • William R. Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.STRICOM Orlando Field UnitU.S. Army Research InstituteOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Integrated Development TeamIBM CCTTOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Army STRICOMOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations