Man-Machine Evaluation.... M-60 Tank

hs.urch Pro W.. levIow 74.
MAN-MACHINE EVALUATION OF THE M60A2 TANK SYSTEM

: i . ~~
FORT HOOD FIELD UNIT
~~~~
HIS DOCU~~~T IS 1 ~
TECOP Y F NT
T C)UflLTTY P A TT ABT ~ ~ ~ ~~~ O .T ! D / ~~~ A ~~~ ~ ~~ IGNI FIC fi ,I I~UiE E~ OF F~~ L~ ~~~~~ DO NO ! S~
~~~~~~
.)T
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D D C
79 22
~~~ U. S. Army
4974 A ugi 4~
5 Or ~4
Research Institute for the Behav ioral and Soc ial Sciences
Approved for public release; distribution unlimi ted.

-
--- I ~-.
. ~ --
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
-1 ~
L j ~~~~~~~
! L .
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AN D SO C IA L SC I E N CES
A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief of Staf f for Personne l
E.UHLANER 1.
cOL. GS
L A. ROOTh
reclinical Director
Comfllotldlf
NOTICES
DISTRIBUTION: Primary distrIbution of this ,,vcrt h bun ms* by ARI. Pis. aiiiits.. ~~~~~~~~~~~ concemln distribution of mports to: U. S. Army i and Socisi Idsoocs. ~~ i ~~~ Institute for the Sthutor.J ATTN: PERl e. 1300 W Ilson Boulorard.ArIIn son,Virginis 22205.
FINAL 0l OIlTION: This report ipsy be dsstroysd v.flsn I t Is no longer i s d. PIsus de not return I t to ~~ tile U. 5.Army Rsussrch Institute for the Ssh jtwaland Social $elsziaus. ~ ~
The findings In this isport sic not to be construed Man official D ep. . i . ,., n hs Army pocu s,,. ~ of ~ unluss de,lgnstud by other suthoriced documents.
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r ~ .
_ _ _ _ _
~~~
.
-~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~~
4ag. y Prqj~1*~_)~~~~er , l62lP6A72lJ Q~ ~~~ 4
_ _
MASSTER
Research
~~~
Revi ew 74-4
~~~~~~
N-~~~~~~~~~~~UATION OF
6~~~~~~~~~TST\
~ and John C fBrad l e~ ~~~tomas B ./Ma loner An~ eio Jj Mi cocci 7
George M .I Giv iden Chief Fort tiood II eLd Uni t
41
AC OOSSicn For NT ~
_.
? ~~~
Approved by
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
! Joseph Zeidner , Directo j i ~ Organizations and Systems Research Laboratory
J . E. Uhianer , Technical Director U. S. Army Research Insti tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Research Problem Reviews are special reports to military management. They are usually prepared to meet requests for research results bearing on specific management problems . A limited distribution is made-primarily to the operating agencies directly involved .
.
. -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOREWORD
~~~ .
The Fort Hood Field Unit of the U S Army Research Insti tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARE ) provides human factors field experimentation support to Headquarters , MASSTER- -Modern Army Selected Systems Test Evaluation & Review Equipment , doctrine , a nd con cep ts a r e test ed at MASSTER within the context of total systems in an operational environment, usu ally for the first time; the total system includes the soldier as the human factor component. Therefore, all MASSTER tests involve evaluations of the interface between the human being and the other system component s, and as Such require the support of personnel trained in behavioral science. A primary role of these personnel is to determine whether specific test resul ts are the function of characteristics of the item being tested or of characteristics of the men
using that i tem .
In the specific r~ search reported in this paper, a humari factors evaluation of the M60A2 tank system was conducted in conjunction wi th an Intensified Confirmatory Troop Test of the system, in order to identify man/machine interface problems of the M60A2 tank and to identify ways to reduce or eliminate such problems. ARE research in this area is conducted as an in-house effort augmented by research contracts with organizations with unique capabilities for human factors research; The present task was done jointly by- personnelfrom the Essex Corporation and the Port Hood ARI Pield Unit , and is responsive to the special requirements of MASSTER as well as the objectives of RDTE Project 2Q1621O6A721, PY 1974 Work Program.
-
~r1
_
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~
MM~ HACUINI ~ EVALUATION OF TIlE ?4 .OA2 TANK SY J.L f ~ ~ ~

RRI
._ . ~~~~~~~~
v-
p ~
Lemen : Requ4 ~ research requirement specified that a human factors evaluation of the M60A2 tank system be conducted in conjunction with an Intensifled Confirmatory Troop Test of the system. )
..
-
ti
The evaluation was directed a ~ 4 pr . ~ ersonne1 selec tion, training tenance P~ocedureg ~~eratiorua1 and M~ln 1( anuals and publications . pinnt design o . .. . . . 4 tqui Cbemtunications
-
The objec tives vei t T j ~~
/mach ine interface) problems of the M60A2 identify human factors (man tank systems a-%-li4. . ~ formulate recoiiunendatjong for actions that would minimize the number and/or impact of these problems on system efficiency,
-.
Procedure : As a prelude to the introduction of the M60A2 tank into the weapons inventory of the US Army , Europ e , an Intensified Confirmatory Troop Test ( I C TT) was conducted under the auspices of Hq. MASSTER , Fort Hood , Texas. The human factors portion of the evaluation was conducted by Essex Corporation under contract to the Army Research Institute,

p-..
I..
The test cycle consisted of evaluating the tank system during three phases: Phase I Phase II Phase III
..
Crew and maintenance personnel training Gunnery training Field training exercise culminating in the completion of a battalion Army Training Test ( A T T)
. -
The human factors evaluation team participated in all phases of the ICTT and vozked in close coord ination with other tank sytem evaluators and test personnel. Data collection procedures consisted of: Observation of man/machine interaction by human factors analysts Measurement of quantifiable factors underlying identified problems, e. g., work station envelope dimensions Administration of questionnaires Conduct of interviews
~~ . I
~~ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-~~--u- -~
~ ~
~~~~~
-- _ _
- - - - -. - .
- -
~~~
Due to the noncomparative nature of collected data , descriptive (r ather than inferential) statistical techniques were employed. A list of findings and reco endations for_solutions to human factors problems were formulated by a joint team composed of armored officers and human factors psychologist .. Their findings and recommendations are based upon the team s interpretation and analysis of the study data.
Principal Findings: Personnel Selection

-
Loader entrance skills should be reevaluated.
Crew Training The training program requires standardization and organization. Course content coverage needs to be expanded. Training methods, instructor skills, and tests need to be standardized.
-
Maintenance Training Only minor problems were identified and these were attributable primarily to deficiencies in manuals, lack of suffi ien ~ I t spare parts and lack of sufficient instructor personnel. -*
formalized , standardized and disseminated to a greater degree.

Manuals and Publications
Operating Procedures
Certain jrocedures need to be reexamined ,

.
deficient,which impacts on mission accomplishment and system availability.
Both operations and maintenance manuals are
n Equipment Design Duty s tations are cramped , uncomfor table , and i some respec ts , hazardous. (Reco mmend ed solutions for specific design problems for each duty station have been formulated only for problems which directly impact on crew safety.)
Selected communications equipment needs modification. Communications Communications procedures should be changed for optimum efficiency.
Utiliza tion of Findings :

The incorporation of recommended specific changes to proc edures , policies , and system design will improve N60A2 training effectiveness, w i l l reduce existing safe ty hazards , and will improve the overall effec tiveness of the M60A2 tank system.
ii
.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
__ .___ ____ ___ ___ - __._~~&*~ ~ ~~
, .
~~~~~~~~~~~
, ~~~**. ~~~~ 4
-- .
~~
~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TAHI4L OL ( Or I ILNL S
Section
j
H
1.0
INTRODUCTION
. . . . ... ... . , .. . . .. .... 1

........ . .. ........ .. .. ... . ... ... ... . . . .. . . . ...... 6 .. . .
*
_ _ _ _
11
Test Overview .
1.2 Human Factors Evaluation of the M60A2 Tank System. 1 2.1 Objective 1 22 Scope. 2 . 0 METHODOLOGY
3 3
. , , ,
1 2.3 Human Factors Evaluation Guidel,nes.
2.1 P h a s el T r a i n in g 2.1.1
TaskTimeline Analysis
2 . 1 . 2 Operability Analysis 2 . 1 . 3 Safety Analysis
2 . 1 . 4 Maintainability Analysis 2 . 1. 5 Documentation Analysis 2.2 Phase II Gunnery

-
2 2 1 Tank Gunnery Evaluation
s 2.2.2 Continuation and Update of HF Analysis a Required Phase III Battalion Field Training and ATT
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . ... . .. .. . ...... . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
7 8 8 8 9 9 9 1 0
. .
11 11 12
2.2.3 Analysis and Interpretation of Phase I Data 23
. ....
. . .
2.3.1 Battalion Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. 3.2 Continuation and Update of h uman Factors . . . . . . Analysis . . 12 12
2.3.3 Analysis and Integration of Human Factors Evaluation Data.
...............
iii

~~~~~~~~~~
- - - -- -~~~~ ~~ ~~
----
- -
---~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
--
3.0
~~~ ------ .
~~~~~~~ ~~-
- -
~~~~~~~ . - -~~ --
--
NTS , Continued TABLI~ OF CONTJ~ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .
16
15 15 16
3.1 Personnel Selection Evaluation

-
3.1.2 Results and Discussion 3.1.3 Conclusions 3.2 Problems
... ....... ... ......

. . . . . . .
.
Training Evaluation . . . . . . 3.2.1 Introduc tion
3.2.2 Tank Crew Training Evaluation. 3 . 2 . 2 . 1
General
3.2. 2.2 Results and Discussion . 3 . 2 . 2 . 3
.. ....... ...... .... . . ... ........ . .. .

.
. .
16
18 1 8 19 57 60 6 0 6 0 63
64
16
~~~
Conclusions and Problems Tank Crew Training. . . . . .
3.2.3 Maintenance -Training Evaluation. 3 . 2 . 3. 1 General 3.2.3.2

-
.... . . ..
. . . . . .
Results and Discussion.
Problems Identified 3.2.3.3 - Conclusions for Maintenance Training. . . .
3.3 Crew Procedures
. . . .. . . . .. . . . . ..
3.4 Evaluation of Manuals 3 . 4. 1 Results and Discussion
. . .. . . . .
-
3 . 4 .2 Conclusions Problems with Technical Manu als . . . . . 3.5 M60A2 Tank Systems Human Factors Design . Evaluation . . . . . . . . .
. . . ,
. . . . . . . ... .

. . . . . . .
. ..
73
-
7 ~
76 77
77 78
3 . 5 .1 General.
. . . .
. . . .
3.5.1.1 Design for Operability. 3.5.1. 2 Design for Safety
. . ....
. ....
.
98
iv
~~~~~~ ~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~
TAflLE OF CONTENTS , Continued
3.5.1.3
Design for Maintainability
.....
102 102 1 0 4 107 107
Problem for Hunian Engineering 3.5.2 Conclusions Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. 6 Human Factors Evaluation of Communications Systems and Procedures.
.... . .. .......
.
4 . 0
RECONMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . 4 .1 Personnel Selection. 4 . 2 Training
:j
4 . 3 Procedures 4 . 4 Manuals. 4.5 APPENDIX A

APPEND IX B
. . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . .. .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... .

~
-
107
114 1 1 6 118 121 1 31
Design
. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
,
-
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . .
PRELIMINARY TASK ANALYSIS

OPERATIONS
M60A2 TANK CREW
GUNNERY QUESTIONNAiRE
R E SU LTS OF THE M60A2 TANK COMMANDERS SEAT ASSEMBLY EVALAUT ION
-
APPENDIX C
-
166
-
APPENDIX D
I APPENDIX E
WLL COMBAT LOAD M60A 2 TEST

DRIVER SAFETY STUDY
-
179

186
. -~~~~~~~---

- - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
; -
- - H~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i.\ ~ ~
~~
- - ~~ ~~
-, . ., ---,---s-_
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- -
LIST OF FT CUI tES
/
23
Figure 1
Percentages of Tank Commanders and Gunners (N= ]OO) - Who Indicate Reclutr enients for more or less time on Cadre Course Subjects Percentage of Tank Commanders and Gunners (N 100) Who Ii~dicate Requirements for More or less Time on Cadre Course Gunnery Exercises As Evaluation of Loader and Driver Individual Training I n terms Estimated by TC & Gunners and by Loaders and Drivers ( of Percentage Who Respond Unfavorably) 75 Loaders and Drivers , s and Gunners 35 TC
-
Figure 2
. (
24
Figure 3
32
Figure 4
-
N 47 53) Areas of Loader Skill and Knowledge Which Loaders ( s and Gunners ( N 50) Felt Were Not Adequately Covered and TC in the Individual Training of Loaders
33
Figure 5
Figure 6
Areas of Driver Skill and Knowledge Which Drivers (N =68 76) N 43 50) Rated as Not Adequately and TC s and Gunners ( Covered in the Individual Training of Drivers Evaluation of Ad equacy of Subject Hatter Coverage in Gunnery Training by Representatives of Each Duty Station Percentages of Responses for Each Crew Position Which Indicate that Additional Time is Required f-or Each Phase of 8 Gunners, 40 Loaders, and Gunnery Training ( 5 1 TC s, 4 4 0 Drivers)
;
34 39
Figure 7
40
e 8 Figui~ Figure 9
-
Percentage of Responses for the Each Crew Position Which Indicate that Changes are Required in Gunnery Training Content and Coverage ( 5 i TC s, 48 Gunnera , 40 Loaders, and 40 Drivers by Loaders (N =43) and by Ratings of Loader Skill Levels 100) at the End of Gunnery (Phase I I ) TCs and Gunners (N= Proportion Rating Loader Ability as Borderline or Worse

41
50
100). who Figure 10 Proportion of Loaders ( N 43) and TCs and Gunners (N= Feel that Loaders Need More Training Time to Successfully Transition from the M6OA1 to the A2 By Drivers ( N 5l) and by Figure 11 Ratings of Driver Skill Levels TC s and Gunners (N=l00) at the End of Gunnery (Phase II) Proportion Rating Driver Ability as Borderline or Worse
51
.
52
vi
.
_________ _____________
_________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -- ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
N=Sl) and TC s anSI Cunncrs (N=lO0) Figure 12 Proportion of Drivers ( who Feel That Drivers Nci~d More T r a i n i ng Tu ne to Success fully Tran sition from the H6OA 1 to the A2 Figure 13 Percentages of TC s and Gunn e rs wh o rated their Abilities on Cad r e Cou r se Subj ec t A r eas as Wo r se a f te r the se (Phase II) (N=]O0) Gunnery Plu~
-
-i
53 55
Figure 14
Percentages of TC s an d Gunne rs who r ated thei r Abilities on Cadre Course Tank Gunnery Exercises as Borderline or Worse after the Gunnery Phase (Phase II) (N=lO0)
56 79
Figure 1 5 Gunner Ratings of the Physical Parameters of their Station (N 48) N4 8 ) who rated Gunnery Operations Figure 16 Percentage of Gunners. ( as Borderline or less
-
8 1 83 85
N 5l) Figure 17 Tank Commander s Ratings of Their Workstations ( N 51) Figure 18 Tank Commander s Ratings of Gunnery Tasks ( N 5l) Figure 19 Tank Commander Ratings of Weapon Delivery Aids ( N = 4 0 ) Figure 20 Loader Ratings of Workstation Parameters ( =40) Figure 21 Loader Ratings of Main Gun Loading (N Figure 22 Driver Ratings of Workstation Parameters (N=40) Figure 23 Noise Ratings by Duty Position Figure 24 Reasons for Message Repeat Requests Figure 25 CVC Condition and Operation Phase I and Ph~se III

86 8 8 90 91 94 95 96
vii
--
---- - - - -
\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
- -
--
r ~~~~~~ ~~~
iI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.flS TM~ LIST 0!
-
TABLE 1
Crew Rcspon~ es ta Ceiumunicatini~ rroccdures QL~eSttOfl! ~ at the ~nd o f Phases I a n d II
66
viii
~~ :-~~
----
-~~ -- - - - - - - - ~ .---.-
-a ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ aw ~
- --- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10
INTRODUCTION
- -
As a pre lud e to the introduction of the N60A2 tank into the weapons
inventory of the U. S. Army , Europe , an Ititensified Confirmatory Troop Test st Battalion 67t,h Armor (1/67 Bn), 2nd Armored Div. at 3. ( I C r r ) was conducted by . Ft .Hood , Tx. This ICTT was intended to facilitate for the recipient European units the transition from the M6OA1 to the M6OAZ tank system. The ICTT was conducted by issuing the M60A2 tank to the 1/67 Rn which was at a training level of Combat Ready in the N6OA1 tank. The training and transition in I-160A2 tanks from NonCombat Ready to Combat Ready was monitored and evaluated by personnel of the Ground Combat Directorate of Modern Army Selected System Test, Evaluation and Review (MASSTE R) of Ft. Hood, Texas.
-
f I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.1 Test Overview

The test was conducted through three distinct calendar and unit activi ty
I , I, and III. periods identified as Phases I
1 .
Phase I consisted of crew and maintenance personnel training on the
N60A2 tank. The phase began with individual 1/67 Bn cadre training at
-
Ft. Kno x , Kentucky, for the gunn er s and tank commanders . The MASSTER
military evaluators als o attended the Ft. Knox t r ainin g which was modified for them by the elimination of m os t of the live firing portion of the course. Maintenance training was held at Ab er deen Proving Ground ,
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _: ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---- --- . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - -
-- ------ - - - -
_ _ _ _ _
_ ,- - - ---- ~ ~ ~~ ~ p
--I
- - - _______
(
-
_ -
Maryland , for limited numbers of 1/67 Rn personnel in Military Occupational

: ~
Sp ~ cialties (MOS) 41C (Fire Control Repairman) on the M60A2 Fire Control System course of instruction ; and MOS 45K ( T a n k Turret Repairman) on the M60A2 Turret and;Armament Course. Personnel from Ft. Knox conducted training at Pt. Hood in maintenance of the Closed Breech Scavenger System ( C ES S ) for MOS 63C, Tracked Vehicle Mechanics. Upon completion of the tank commanders and gunners cadre training at Ft. Knox, these 1/67 Rn personnel returned to Ft. Hood. There they conducted individual ttalning consisting of classroom and
-:
practical exercises for the tank drivers and loaders. This training was preliminary to the field training exercises.
The field training exercises were conducted to prepare the tank platoons to take their formal Platoon Army Training Test ( A T T). The Platoon ATT was the first formal evaluation step to becoming M60A2 Combat Ready. As each platoon completed the ATT , they transitioned to field training for the Company ATT. In the Company ATT the
-
platoons demonstrated the ability to operate effectively as a

-
company sized unit for all required types of activity. The completion of all formal Company ATT s terminated Phase I.
2. Phase II (Gunne ry) comprised the span of activity required to
train each crew of the battalion in gunnery operations to the point of

(
-
formal live fire gunnery qualification. This necessitated periods of individual and crew training in duties and gunnery procedures by means of the dry fire technique. The dry fire period preceded deployment to the firing range. During Phase II activity at the firing ranges each crew proceeded through the eight formal tables required to complete
~~~~~
~~~~~-~~~~-- ~~~~~~~~~~~
_ I;
--- -
--
~~~~~
Combat Ready ~ uu n e r y q u al if i c a t i o n
- _ - ~
----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- --- -
- ------ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- _ - - ~ ~~~ ~ ~
Succe sful completion by all crews
of the gunne ry qualification course (Tank Table VIII) signified the
completion of Phase ll. 3. Phase III activities involved the completion of the final step to qualify the 1/67 Bn as Combat Ready. This phase consisted of field training exercises where the three companies interacted as a battalion sized unit. The training terminated in the completion of a formal Battalion Afl. Completion of the Battalion ATT was the end of Phase I I I with the 1/67 Ba officially design~ ated as M60A2 Combat Ready. 1 2 Human Factors Fvaluation of the M60A2 Tank System 1 2.1 Objective
-
The technical objective of this e f f o r t was to evaluate the man ! machine interface within the M60A2 Tank System.
1.2.2 Scope
_
-
Man/machine interface (human factors) problems with the operation
and maintenance of the M60A2 t ank system were ~vakated in a field

-
bperation environment with the 1/67 Bn , 2nd Armored Division.
This evaluation was performed concurrently with and in close coord i nation with the M60A2 ICTT . Human factors problem areas were to be identi fied in the following specific areas:
Personnel Selection
Training
Operational an d M a intena n ce Pr oced ur es
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
Manuals and Publications
Equipment Design Communications
When it was determined that changes were required in the above areas, recommendations for change were to be formulated. An exception to this
p r oce dur e inv olved eq uipmen t design prob lems , wh ere no recommendation
for redesign was to be presented except in those cases where the design
(
defi cien cy directly impacts crew safety.

1.2.3 Human Factors Evaluation Guidelines
Guidelines for performance of the human factors evaluations included the following:
The human factors evaluators participated
-
In all aspects of - the ICTT which could provide information on human factors problem areas, including field exercises, special tests, and classroom instruction. Participation by human factors evaluators was always on a noninterference basis. Noninter1~ erence meant that the evaluators did not intrude or interfere with ongoing crew or maintenance activities. Human factors evaluators worked in close coordination and cooperation with other tank system evaluators, to ensure that manmachine problems were viewed in the system context , and to provide other evaluators with current findings and implications of the manmachine evaluations.
-
L
I t
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-. ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ---
- .-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
Close liaison was maintained wi th other evaluation personnel by human factors evaluators to promote maximum data use and minimize redundancy of questionnaire s administered
All data acquired was available to all
evaluators . The results of these questionnaires were reviewed for data of use to the human factors evaluation at the close of each test phase.
-
The human factors evaluation involved the area of doctrine of employment and tactics only to the degree that require meats in this area had an impact on , or are affected by crew performance and safety.
__ _ _7 __
~~
- - ~
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
-~~ _
- t
~~~~~
2.0
METIIOI)OLOCY
The essential. human factors. evaluation activities conducted during this three phase program include data collection , data analysis and integration, and report generation and publication. The data collectiou procedures con
sisted of:
Identi f ication : Of problem areas through the, application of standard human factors analytical techniques
-
Observation: Of training and of tank crew performance Measurement: Of quantifiable factors underlying identified problems,
su ch as wo r k station env elope dime n sion s, noise environment , etc. Qu estionnair es:
-
To be ad m inist ered to participating tank crews
at the conclusion of each phase Interviews: With tank crew members and organization personnel
5
(company commanders , platoon leaders, etc.)
Data collected during -Phase I was directed toward the evaluation of M60A2 tank crew training, and toward evaluation of the tank system man/machine interface including design factors, procedures, communications , and docu mentation. Data co llected du r in g Phase I I w as tailo r ed t o the eva luation of

-gunnery training and crew performance as well as continuing the evaluation

of tank design, procedures , communications, and documentation. During Phase III data included evaluation of maneuvering performance, both single tank and tank unit , and completion of the evaluation of tank design, procedures, communications , and documentation .
., . ~~~
____________
_____________
_.
Data analysis and integration activities generally involved :

data validity checks
~~
identification of potential problem areas verification of problems determination of problem criticality for crew performance and safety development of recommended solutions to problems
f
-
identification of causal factors and contributing conditions The principal methodological p r oblem a r ea was the limitation placed on Essex personnel in actually riding in or on tanks to observe opera tioris at firsthand

For safety reasons, no one is allowed on
the exterior of a tank when it is in motion. Due to severe workspace constraints, there is simply no room in a fully manned M60A2 tank for an evaluator to observe crew operations and performance in an unobstrusive manner. A description of human factors evaluation activities in each of the ICTT phases is presented below: 2.1 Phase I Training
-
In conjunction with the evaluation activities specific to each Test Program phase , a human factors analysis effort was initiated in Phase I and carried through the remaining two phases of the program. This effort essentially involved the application of specific analytic me thods and the integration of information resulting from Phase specific evaluations and prior anal yses. The specific analyses conducted during this effort , and the activity involved in developing evaluation criteria , are presented below :

P
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-,
- -- --- ----- -- - -~ -~~-. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ _ _ _ _ _
- -- _
- - --
- - -
, ---
- ~~~ ---~~
2.1.1 Task -Timeline Analysis Based on reviews of documents, walk throughs of procedures, and discussions with personnel familiar with tank operation, a task analysis
time line was generated for each significant operational mode (Appendix A). pre/post operational check
carry mode operation
These modes included :
conduct conduct conduct conduct
of of of of
fireconventionalall modes firemissile engagement fireCOAX engagement 5 0 caliber engagement fire .
The analysis identif led the tasks and task sequences for individual
crewmen as well as interactions among crewmembers . The results of this

C
analysis provided the operational requirements which served as the baseline for the remaining analyses. 2.1.2 Operability Analysis: The assessment of M60A2 tank system operability Involved :
-
specifically design aspects of the design for operability man/machine interface, including controls, displays, optical aids, workspace, console layout and arrangement, communications equipment, seats and restraints, handholds and footholds, hatch d imensions, etc.
adequacy of operational procedures and operational sequences adequacy of crew workloads
both physical and mental
adequacy of crew skills and skill levels
2. 1.3 Safety Analysis
An assessment of the safety of M60A2 equipment and procedures was performed in conj unction with the operability analysis . The data acquisition
methods used in this analysis were the. same as those identified for the

operability analysis. The safety analysis stressed identification of p0

tential ha z a r ds , including :
-
8
_ _ _ _
_
. ,
~~ \~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
4i
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- ~~~~~~
mechanical hazards noise hazards
electrical shock , etc . moving parts sharp edges , corners , etc. structural hazards atmospheric hazards to x ic fumes , et c. electrical hazards
-
. 1. 4 Maintainability Analysis ~.
-
The essential activities in this analysis included determination
of equipment accessibility for removal/r eplacement , and problem areas en countered in the conduct of such maintenance activities as resupply and refurbishment , cleaning, in spe ction , fastener or connector activation and verificItion , actual removal and replacement of components and modules, and use of tools and test sets. 2.1.5 Documentation Analysis Tank system manuals and documents were reviewed in terms of their readability, content, and physical characteristics. 2.2 Phase II
-
Gunnery
The primary activities performed during this phase included the conduct of the huiaan factors evaluation of gunnery training and crew performance , the continuation of human factors analyses as described In Section 2.1 , and the analysis and interpretation of data obtained in Phase I . As the ICTT progressed , it became apparent that some special studies were required . These studies included an evaluation of the Tank Commander ( T C ) seat assembly, a study of the effects of a fullcombat ammunition load
on crew performanc e and on the tank system itsel f , and a study on driver
Bafety problems.
9
H
_ _ _ _
. ~~~~g
~~~~~~
_a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F.. --,-
~~~~~~
-~~~~
- ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, - ~
---
------ ~~
- - - -- --~
- -----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ --
The TC sea t assembly study was p erformed by direct observation with stop watches and schematic diagrams used as aid s in data collection. Du ring the full-combat load test a human factors evaluator participated as a cre~ ncwbcr , making direct observation and conducting interviews with crewmen of the other tanks used in the test. For the driver safety test , a study of the problem and review of poten tial solutions were performed . An approach was selected and an empirical
-
evaluation was made through the fabrication of a mockup to determine feasi bility.
D, and E of These three studies are reported in detail in Appendices C, this report . The findings were submitted to the appropriate authority for review and possible implementation.
-
2.2.1 Tank Gunnery Evaluation The activities performed in the Human Factors evaluation during Phase II include the following:
-
C
* --
Preliminary Gunnery Evaluation
During the Initial segment of the phase, Essex personnel observed gunnery training exercises and the conduct of the Preliminary Gunners Ex am , and conducted interviews with trainees and evaluation personnel. The factors of particular interest during this segment include the following:
1 ) 2)
Adequacy of instruction , training aids, course content , etc .
as conducted in the Training Phase.
Adequacy of equipment design , information flow, communications, procedures , and operational sequences as they affect performance and safety of indiv idual crewmen during gunnery exercises. Adequacy of the above items as they affect integrated performance of the entire tank crew.
3)
. ~~~~~ - -
._
Jo__
iLZ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
i ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ :
_ _
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _
--
~~~~~~ -
- -
~~
------ ~~~ - -
--
Tank Firing The f actors of co n cern for this phase included: 1 ) Adequacy of gunnery controls and displays while stationary and while moving. 2 ) Adequacy of procedures and operational sequences. 3 ) Adequacy of communications techniques. 4 ) Adequacy of information flow , within the tank, in terms of target information, gun status, feedback, and decision information. Phase II Questionnaire The human factors gunnery question~ taire de~e1oped b~ Essex and adminis
-
tered to all tank crewmen at the end of Phase II is presented in Appendix B. 2.2.2 Continuation and Update of HF Analysis as Required Activities included completion and modification of human factors analyses as described in Section 2.1. During Phase II particular atten
tion was given to those aspects of the analyses which are related to gunnery requirements. 2.2.3 Analysis and Interpretation of Phase I Data During Phase II, the reduction, analysis, and interpretation of Phase I data was undertaken. The analysis included : Compilation and analysis of data obtained from the Phase I human factors questionnaire. Compilation and analysis of data relevant to the human factors evaluation which were collected using questionnaires developed by other evaluation elements.
(
Enumeration of problem areas identified in the training evalua ~ tion with indications of the magnitude and severity of the problems.
~~~~~~ -
Integration of problems identified from the several sources enumerated above.

I
o Assessment of potential causal factors and development of

candidate solutions to identified problems.
Iden tifica t ion of areas wher e addi tional informa tion or clar if ica tion are needed from Phase II and III evaluations
to resolve inconsistencies , incompatibilities, and gaps in the data base obtained in Phase I. Battalion Field Training and ATT
2.3 Phase III 2.3. 1
Battalion Evaluation
During the conduct of the Battalion Field Training and ATI~ the primary human factors evaluation activities involved acquiring additional data on problems identified in Phases I and II, and collecting information on crew and crewman performance with individual tanks, platoons , and companies comprising an integrated fighting unit at the Battalion level. A good deal of emphasis was placed on communications problems during this phase, due to the nature of the activities. The techniques used to collect information during Phase III evaluations
-
were the same as those described for Phases I and II. 2.3.2 Continuation and Update of Human Factors Analyses
The human factors analyses were continued as described for Phase II (Section 2.2. 2) with the exception that in Phase III particular attention was given to tank maneuvering and coordination with other elements. 2.3.3 Analysis and Integration of Human Factors Evaluation Data
In this step all data obtained during the evaluation were subjected to analysis and integration . The problem areas investigated and the methods implemented in their solution include:
-
12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-_---
_ - --
Personnel selection analysis techniques
ments, and training problems identified for specific crewmen.
questionnaire and interview data with performance measure
correlation of
comp ila tion of tra in ing problems iden tif ied in Training each phase . Correlation of training problems with per
formance problems . Review of trainee and instructor corn ments , opinions , insights , and attitudes. Development of
recommend ed changes in the training program with indica tions of the impact of the changes on training effectiveness.
Manuals and Publica~ inn s evaluation of document readability , organization , and use readiness. treated only to the Doctrine of employment and tactics extent that they are affected by human performance capa
bility and safety.
adeq u a cy of techniques and sequences Operating procedures given the operational and environmental conditions existing during the test , and the hardware design configuration pres ent in the tanks during the test.
for operability , maintainability , and Equipment design safety. Particular attention will be given to identif i cation of problems and causal factors, and assessing the degree to which problems can be circumvented through changes in procedures, training, selection, or tactics.
compilation of equipment design problems, Communications standard procedures , message readability , etc., as they affect conrounications effectiveness. Determination of causal factors for problems and development of recommended solutions.
entify dependencies Interrelation of the above areas to id

and interactions existing across them. Developmen t of changes in each area and determination of the effect of these changes on other areas.
_ __ ~~ .
I l I k ~~~I
_*_._____* __1
_ .
~~~
---
- -_ ~ ~~~~
---
_ _ - _~~ ~~~~ ~~ *
~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~
~~~
_ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C
This section will describe and discuss the results of the human factors
evaluation of the M60A2 tank system . The results are presented in the
-
following categories: 1. Personnel Selection 2. Training
Operations and Maintenance
3. Operational and Maintenance Procedures 4. Manuals and Publications 5. Equipment Design

6. Communi ca tions
The following subsections describe the find ings and conclusions forinu
lated during the M60A2 evaluation for each of the above listed categories.
(
-
14
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --
3.1 Personnel_ Selection Evaluation 3.1.1 General Personnel selection criteria usually include such factors as physical
and mental requirements , and required skills , - skill levels , and knowledge
--
associated with a designated position.
No attempt to directly measure test
subject skills and skill levels was made since general agreement was not available regarding just what skills and skill levels were required for each t ank crew position. 3.1.2 Results and Discussion
The only app licable informa tion ob tained during the M60A2 ICTT for
questionnaires. Company commanders and tank commanders were asked
assessing personnel selection criteria were derived from interviews and (during interviews at the conclusion of the Training Phase and the Gunnery Phase) to describe special physical , mental , and skill requirements associated
w5th crew positions in the M60A2 . Representative responses included the

f ollow in g :
Physical
due to confined workspace crewmen should be small (See page 29) crewmen should be tall en ough to h av e v isu a l access th rou gh h atches and pe r isc op e s (See page 29 )
-
- .
Mental
crewmen must be intelligent and motivated f or the lo ade r position , the average loader with an MOS of
ilElO does not understand what he is to do
loader needs to he at least an 11E20 due to increased skill requirements
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ -
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ ~ _ _] _ -,- . r -~n ,&_
____
r - MUT _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cr ewmen n eed to be saf e ty co n scious
Skills
current aptitude areas seem to be adequate
no crewman needs a strong background in electronics gunners should have a higher skill level than drivers generally the skill levels authorized for each crewnember should be maintained with the possible exception of the loader position (some TCs recommend upgrading the position to an E4 and designating it assistant gunner).
3.1.3
Conclusions
Problems
The only problem areas identified for personnel selection were that larger soldiers had difficulties, and that current loader skill requirements may be insufficient. The magnitude of the problems has not been specified . 3.2 Training Evaluation 3.2.1 Introduction
-
The objective of the evaluation of M60A2 personnel training was to

estab lish the gen er al ef f e c t iv en ess of su ch t ra in ing an d to identify specific
problems associated with training courses. The evaluation was conducted for tank crew training and fot maintenance personnel training.
-
The information used in the evaluation of training was obtained through
questionnaires, interviews, and direct observation of training classes and exercises by human factors evaluations. The structure of the training evaluation included the following specific evaluation dimensions:
Evaluation of course content or the quantity and quality .of training information presented , in terms of:
course comprehensiveness or breadth of material does course content include all inforamtion which a trainee needs to know?
16
~~ ~ -~ _ . . _~~~-
~-- ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
-_ -~~
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~ L__
----~
~~~~~
--
- -~~~~~~~~
course coverage or Jt !vel of specificity of ,nat:eria j. does cour s e content include materi al at the depth required by
trainees?
course clari t y unambiguous?
arc instructions and information clear and
are training methods and p r ocedu r es cou r se, consistency consistent and standardized ? course compatibility is the level of detail consistent with the progression of the trainee in the course?
-
Evaluation of instructor skills and knowledges
do they have technical skills and knowledges? do they have requisite instructional skills? are skills and knowledges consistent across instructors?
Evaluation of training aids and materials

are they well organized and meaningful? are they in sufficient quantity for the number of trainees? are they consistent across courses?
-
Evaluation of training measures and criteria
are criteria (standards of performance) well defined , attainable , and quantified ? are measures of training defined and quantified ?
- -
~~~---- - -a~ e measures structured to enable identification of weak
are measures applied ~ nsistent 1y across crewmen , crews, platoons, and companies?
Evaluation of training effectiveness
is remedial training directed to identified weak areas? is remedial training consistent over all trainees, crews, pla toons , and companies ? is the Ind ividual trainee confident of his acquired skills and knowlcdges?
.
17
_- ~~~ ~ - ~ ~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
- -
~~--
_-
what is the de gr ee to which personnel possess required
skills and knowledge at termination of training?
what is the degree to which each tank crew represents an integrated and well coordinated unit at the conclusion of training?
The following sections contain the results of the training evaluation and
the identified problem areas for tank crew training and maintenance personnel
training. 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 Crew Training Evaluation General
The data collection methods used in this assessment of crew training included observation, interview, and use of questionnaires. The observation entailed having human factors evaluators observe and assess crew training activities in classroom situations and in the field . The evaluators observed t raining in all areas listed above with the exception of the cadre course. Interviews comprised discussions with instructors and trainees throughout the training program. Interyiews were largely informal since noninterference w ith ongoing activities was a constraint placed on all data collection activities throughout the human factors evaluation program. Interviews were structured to the extent that the information sought by the evaluators had been identified as the basis of analysis of data from observations, questionnaires, and training program plans and protocol. Several formal inter(
views ware held during the training program , specifically with company commanders and tank commanders. These interviews were set up by MASSTER personnel who invited the human factors evaluators to participate. Questionnaires were administered to tank crews at the conclusion of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ - _
, -. -- ~ ~~
---. ~~~~
Phases I and II.
These interviews were developed by MASSTER evaluation
elements and by human factors evaluators . The primary obj ect ive of the interviews was to sample the views, opinions, attitudes , and insights qf tank crews concerning the training they received , their own learned levels of skill and knowledge, and the M60A2 tank system itself. A fourth evaluation method used extensively by human factors evaluators consisted of gathering data from the other evaluators participating in the ICTT. Human factors personnel attended daily meetings of all evaluators where the status and problem areas identified ~n the ICTT were discussed. a jeep either with or directly behind the company evaluators. 3.2.2.2 Results and Discussion
-
They also accompanied company evaluators in all field exercises , riding in
The segments of M60A2 crew training which were subjected to a formal evaluation included :
-
1 . The cadre course for TC s and gunners at the Armor School , Ft. Knox.
-
2. Individual training for drivers and loaders at Ft. Rood , conducted by the TC s and gunners -wh o had participated in the cadre coUrse.
-
3.
Gunnery training , specifically during ICTT Phase I I .
4 . Overall training conducted during the three ICTT phases which consisted of field instruction , familiarization , onthejob training , and practice for unit ATTs ( platoon company, and battalion). The evaluation of overall training will not be treated as a separate subject but v i i].be in cluded in segments 1, 2 and 3 above.
-
The results of the training evaluation for the first three segments are described below.
-
~~~~~ -
19
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ -
~1
1 .
Ev alu at Ion o
Cadre T r a i n i n g at Fort Knox
Tank commanders and gunners attended a cad r e t r ai n ing cou r se at F t . Knox

where they received 51 hours in instruction and another 51 hours in gunnery
excrcisbs on the M60A2 tank systems. The major course subjects included :
armament , con trols , and equipmen t
-
1 1 h ours 4 hours
-
mechanical training
machine gun
missiles and conventional ammunition ~ con duct of fire
2 hours 8 hou r s 4 hours 8 hours 8 hours

4 hours
-
auxiliary fire control instrumentation and range cards

-
prepare ,
to fire procedures
target acquisition
-
M42/43 conduct of fire trainer operator maintenance
2 hours
Th e gunner y ex ercis es included : preliminary gunnery examination
8 h ours 4 hours
I-
sub caliber firing
stationary and
moving targets day
night
-
4 hours
8 hours
stabilized gunnery exercise ma chine gun ex er cise
7 hours
day night
8 hours 4 hours 8 hours
crew field f i r i n g
_ _ -_
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
20
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _
-..--~
~~
~~~~~~~~~~
_LJ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~ T
~~
The general op inion of ta n k cr ewmen (as indicated in following paragraphs) who participated in the cadre training at Ft. Knox was that it was satisfactory . It is difficult to determine i this was due to the experience levels of the crewmen , the level of handson training which they received , or the quality of the training itself.
-
Course ContentComprehensiveness
One problem with the scope of the cadre course was identif led by company B TC s who stated in the tank commander interviews that the TC does need instruction on turret maintenance which he currently does not get in the cadre course. Another problem area associated primarily with the scope of the training related to the use of passive night sights. This sight is included in both the gunner s periscope (M50) and the Tank Commanders 51) when used on the 10 power setting. All Company C platoon periscope ~ I Knox because of maintenance problems with the available H60A2 tanks. These vehicles began to experience failures (not in the passive night devices) and were unavailable for training . This situation carried over to the other company B , which attended the Ft. Knox school. Training on the passive sight system was limited to classroom instruction on how to turn the system ON and OFF. The C Company platoon leaders interviewed stated that the platoon learned how to use the passive night sights by reading the Operators Manual, TM9 235023210 and following the instructions. night sight training is twofold : The problem with the passi~-e
-t
leaders stated that their crews did not receive sufficient training at Ft.
21
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
_ _ _
1 . 2.
Lack of training in the formal school setting Pattern or form recognition
The two are interrelated , but it should be noted that successful operations can be conducted if personnel utilize training periods effectively ( i. e., handson training during periods in the field). According to the platoon - leaders interviewed , the best method to learn use of the sights is to use them against a known target by scanning the aggressor area at the horizon to obtain optimum contrast. That is, obtain a target against a light or dark background or to look for a discontinuity against the horizon. It is apparent that the operator must know the general form of his target In order to minimize detection or search time. Also , the best method for training would be to place a target at a known location and allowing all tank personnel to scan the target area, acquire and identify the target. This allows everyone to become familiar with the system . Course Content
Completeness or Depth of Coverage
When asked if they had received sufficient training at the Armor
School to prepare for their duties as tank commander and gunner , only
-
17% of the 75 TC s and gunners questioned responded with an unequivocal yes. An additional 76% ( 5 7 individuals) answered yes with the stipula tion that additional onthejob training was required . Only 6 percent responded that they had not received sufficient training at Ft. Knox. Each TC and gunner was asked if they felt that they needed more or less time on each major subject and gunnery exercise than the time allocated in the course. The results, as percentages of responses for the subjects and exercises , are depicted in figures 1 and 2 respectively.
22
--
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ---~~- - - - - . -
$4
_
o (j
( -I
_ -
iU r j
I L
$1 ~~~ J
ocu
CJ 1 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d cJ . i I .
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
OOFi
_ _ _ _
~ r~ a 44 14 O
1 .r4
,.
0
0
03
0
J 1 J~~~~ 0 r ~~~I~~~~~~ -.
U I
_I _
-
Ii0 4fl~~ 1 4 ~~ . ~~~, I

-
co
1 .
~~
14
03
00
4.4
iI
. ~
I I
-
14~~ A.
a, -. cu g .O 1.i~~ co. 1-4

0 J r 4 ~~~
4.4 0
C,
0$
z
1 .2 r4
-4 0
1 4 1 4 03 0 ~ U
14
I I
. -
. ~~ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~ if $ 0
X 1z 4 0 4:
c~
C)
14 1 -~
I -
0 .
~J
. -. 1 . 2
-
~ 0
f 0
0$ . 1.4 , ~ f 0 .0
( i~
1.2 0) 014
_
I
I
-
~~~~~~
oo
c~ -I 0 ~
~~~ r4
~~ -
~~
-.
U 0)
r~
0 . 1 .03
4 14
C) 14
0
00
0 T . h ~~ ~~~~~~
U
F r 4 ~~~~~~ t9
I
_ _
t
_
~~~~~~~~
E 0 3 O~~ -
p H ~~
1.4 0
4-f
~
~
I i
_
, ~1
_ 1 g
I _
bO ~~~
0
1-4
~~~~~~~~~
-~:oia
2
~~~~
1 ~~ ~IL~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ . ~~~~
. ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
--
- --
I I-
_ I
0 00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L_
~~~~~~~ CO
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.4.2
C,
U
I~ -:: ~
zoco
_ _
._% 03 03 1.1
1!
p 0 Z
C ,
I .
i :.

I I

..
~~~~~~~~
~~c r
1~ 4
-. :
i-I
0 0)
I
1.2 0$ $ ~
14
0 0)03
03 03 1.4 1 4 0 3 0 ) . U I ~~~~~ .
0 ~i
~~
03 1.2 0$ 00
I
C
-
~~~~~~~~
.:
00
0
0) 0) .,.4 0
0)
E-I
0 1 4 M . ~ P
O 0 0 3
IH~: ~~~~~- -
_ _ _ _
$4000
-~~~~~ ~~~
_ _
.4-I
w r ~~
_
IC
-
1-1 00
4.20$
0f f
w 0
a)
-I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-4 00
A.
C)
24
_ _ _ _ _
- _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_________ -
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ --
~~~~
. -. _----- -~
~~~~~~~
, approximately 30% of the 100 TC As indicat ed in f i gur e 1 s and

gunners felt that they needed more time on 8 of the 9- subj ects taught in
the cadre course. The subjects receiving the highest frequency of responses for more training were: a ) b) c) d) e ) conduct of fire trainer conduct of fire operator maintenance prepare to fire, armament , controls and equipment
-
Prom figure 2 It is -evident that of those who felt that a change was necessary, TCs and gunners felt that more training was required on 5 of the 8 exercises. The exercises receiving the greatest proportion of such opinions were: stationary and moving targets stabilized gunnery .
night, and
From these results it is concluded that the primary areas where TC s and gunners feel that additional training coverage is needed in the cadre course are those which apply directly to zunnery (specifically conduct of fire, prepare to fire procedures , armament , stationary and moving targets, and stabilized gunnery) and to operator maintenance. Course Content
Clarity Consistency
-
No problems identified Course Content
No problems identified for the level of progression of course mentioned and for standardization of training procedures. Course Content
Compatibility
No problems identified Instructor Skills and Knowledge No problems identified
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
i---
~~ ----- -
- - - -- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
- -
--
~~~ ~~-rr :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
--
___________
Training Aid s and Materials Tank Commanders and gunners were asked a t the end of the tra in ing phase to indicate their opinions of the cadre course training aids and materials. The summary of three opinions is as follows:
93% ( 7 0 ) stated that training aids were helpful and easily understood 46% ( 3 3 ) said that the amount of handson equipment time was adequate 59% ( 4 4 ) felt that the number of training aids was sufficient so that all students could benef it from them
There is, therefore, no problem with the training aids themselves, in terms of crew opinions. There is a problem with the adequacy of handson equipment time at the Cadre School. This problem is probably due to the distribution of classroom instruction and practical application. When asked how the cadre course should be structured in terms of a mou nt of classroom instruction or practical application , the TC s and gunners were strongly in favor of a greater allocation of time for practical application , which would include handson equipment time ( 6 9 % wanted two thirds or more of the time spent on major subjects in the course given over to practical applications,
while for gunnery exercises the proportion who wanted two thirds or more of the time given over to practice was 8 0 %) . This problem should not be resolved at the expense of classroom instruction time , since only a very few
of the TC s and gunners requested less time spent on any course area (figures 1 and 2 ) . Additional time should be allocated for practical application of information learned in classroom instruction , and added to the time currently scheduled for the course.
-
26
- - . ~~ - -4-,---_______ ~ .
---~ -- --- ---- ~
~ -,~ ~____ .___i_ __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_-_ --- _---. ; __--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ r- _ _i ____e_ ~ ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
__
-- \ ~~~~
._ ~~ ~~
- -
IT
__
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_--. ___________ _______
________
Th~~
The finding that 59% of the TC s and gunners who had attended the cadre cour se were satisfied with t h e nu mber o training aids, at the end of Phase I , is contradictory to a finding (from Phase II questionnaires) that onl y rated the number of students per training aid as ~5% of 79 TC s and gunners 6 3 ) adequate. When asked to identify an adequate ratio , the respondents ( were highly variable in their opinions , as indicated below : Number of S:udents per Aid Number Selecting % f Total
two three four five to seven
31 5 14 1 ].
50 8 22 19
-
One half of the TC s and gunners favor 2 students per aid , and 41%
favor between four and seven. No explanation for this bimodal distribution is currently available.
Training Measures and Criteria
No detailed research information was obtained on the testing which terminated the cadre course. This testing is primarily directed at determining if the student possesses the skills and knowledges required at the conclusion of the course, and his performance is scaled in terms of pass or fail. Con ~ideration should be given to identifying weak areas of skills and knowledges for each student , even if he passes and especially if he fails. Feedback of weaknesses to the student should serve to direct and focus his efforts toward improving his skills.
-
27
L-
----
___-4.__ _______ . ---.----- 4 ~~
- --- ------,-,,.
~ ~~~~~~
- 7 -zr ~ = ~~ ~
-~~~~~~~~~~ ----
--
Overail .ffcctIvcnc ~~ of t h e cadre course

-
A group of 9 evaluators and platoon le aders who had participated in
5 % ). Tank comma nder s the cadre training rated it good ( 5 5 % ) and very good (1.
4 6 %) and borderline and gunners rated the course as very good (5 1%) , good (
-
(3%) .
A total of 24% (24 of 99) of the TC s and gunners who were t rained on th e A2 did not take the . cadre course. Of these , 2% received A2 training
d A2 t raining elsewhere , and 10% had no A2 training at all. at Knox , 12% h ~ A total of 93% ( 6 8 of 73)of the TC-s/gunners reported the classroom
instruction in the cadre course to be adequate , and 93% also ind ica ted tha t the amount of time spent in individual study and review was adequate. H
-
One
potential problem area was in the amount of
handson equipment time , where
only 46% reported that it was adequate . This was probably due to the shortage
o tanks and training aids during the course ( s e e training aid evaluaf ion) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the training given at the Armor
School was made by evaluators and platoon lead ers when they were asked to rate the need for the cadre training. The question , presented to 11 ind ivid-
uals who stated that they had the opportunity to compare performance of Ft. Knox trained personnel with those getting OJT only , was , what was the relative effectiveness of each type of training?
-
A total of 55% of evaluators and platoon leaders stated tha t t he need for cadre t rai nin g w as demon st ra t ed in
that Ft. Knox trained personnel consistently outperformed ho acquired the same skills through OJT. ti
The re m a ining 45% judged the need for cadre trai ning to be marginal since people who attended the course initially ou t perf ormed thos e r ec e iv ing OJT , bu t after a few weeks the performance of each group was about equal.
28
F
H
~~~~~ -
Ti ~~~~
_ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No evaluators and platoon leaders reported that OJT people consistently outperformed cadre trained people Two items in this finding remain unclear. First , how did the evaluators TC s and gunners trained at Ft. Knox took the cadre course , 14% stated that course , and at other locations), and 10% stated that they had never been trained in the M60A2. Was the OJT group composed of all those who had not taken the cadre course (but some of which had received formal training), or only of those who had not received any formal training in the tank. The second point which is unclear in the reported comparison of cadre trained and OJT trained personnel is, how was the evaluation conducted?
-
and platoon leaders define OJT trained peop le. -~-Thile 767,( 7 5 of 99) of the
they had received M60A2 training elsewhere (at Ft. Knox but not in the cadre ~
Was it based on subjective impressions? made on an established schedule or at random? or was it based on objective performance measures obtained on personnel of the two groups during platoon and company ATTs?
-
It is interesting to note that all evaluators and platoon leaders rate
the cadre course training as either good or very good (no person gave a rating lower than these two). However , almost half of -this group stated that the
-
need for cadre training , as comp a r ed with OJT , is marginal. One additional factor not accounted for in this finding is , to- what degree is OJT eff ectiv e insofar as it is conducted by instructors trained in the cadre course. When all tank crewmen were asked at the end of Phase II to r ank the importance of several factors in making a successful transition from the
M6OA1 to - the A2 , the highest rated item was OJT ( 3 9 % or 58 of 198 responses r anked it first). The second ranked factors were special training, specifically cadre , and ph ysic a l si z e , both of which were ranked as most
29
_____________________
:-
--- _
- -_ -_ ~
-_ -
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
im po r t a n t by 27% of the crewmen .

2. EvaluatIon of Ind iviclual T ra~ nin g~~ f Loadcr; ~ and Drivers
-
The indiv idual training of loaders and drivers was conducted at Ft. Hood , by TC s and gunners who had attended the cadre course. A total of
8 0 % of the loaders and dr ivers trained in the M60A2 IcTT ( 6 2 of 78 ) repo r ted
that they had participated in the individual training.
The duration of the C company
t raining varied by company due to test scheduling difficulties. received the largest training period , almost 3 weeks .
The evaluation of the individual training is presented below : Course Content
Comprehensiveness Coverage
no problems identified
Course Content
Load er s , driv er s , TC s and gunners , were asked to determine if the individual training given to loaders and gunners was sufficient. The qu estions were asked along four dimensions :
-
time in classroom instruction time for practical exercises handson time

-
coverage of all subjects
Figure 3 depicts the responses of the two groups In terms of the percentages who reported that coverage along these dimensions was in adequate or insufficient. Generally the two groups (loaders/drivers
and TCs/gunners) were ~n close agreement on classroom time and subject coverage. The loaders/d rivers were more critical of the time for prac tical exercises and hands on time than were TCs/gunn~ rs. The over-
all result is tha t 4 of 10 tank crewmen arc of the opinion that the t ime for exercises , the hands on time , and the subj ec t coverage in the in
L
~~~~~~~~~~
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
30
~~~~~~
- ~~~ ~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _
~~
dividual training was inadequate. A breakdown of just where the inadequacies were , in terms of course coverage inadequacies, for loaders and drivers, is presented in figures 4 and 5 respectively . As seen in figure 4 loaders were consistently more critical of the coverage of subjects in the individual training for loaders than were TCs and gunners. The only area where TCs and gunners exceeded loaders in terms
-
of the number who viewed the training coverage as inadequate was crew drill. The main weaknesses (at least onethird reporting inadequate coverage) of the individual training, according to loaders, were in: basic tank gunnery reduction of weapon malfunctions o prepare ammunition for firing o identification, stowage, and maintenance of ammunition crew maintenance loading tank weapons Figure 5 presents the reported areas of inadequate coverage for drivers, reported by drivers and by TC s and gunners. As indicated in this figures, the drivers exceeded the TCs and gunners in terms of number who report inadequate coverage, on 8 of the 11 subject areas.
-
31
___________
T -
~~ ~~~~~~ -$ ~~~~~~~~~ _~~~~
-~~ ~-
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--V ---- ------- -_--_-_ - - - _- - - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
--
/ .
w
I
I, : .
~~~
p. ,
0
- .
~~~ I4
. , l (lj , 3 ~~~~ 0 1 . 1 1 ~l W~~~~ rf
~~~O)
4 Ju
I-1
OU
b $-a i I . Er ~~ E-4 W- ~ ca
0 r ~~ 1
r-~~~~~~~~ II-I t l .i
.
~
~~~~
S
~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5r I 1 I . E-4 U
I-I
I-I E-4
aj ~~- W
rI~~~
~~
14 11
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U 5 ,-4
_ _
I4 .u ) ~~ p.m U . 4 ~
w
I I
_____
:-
4J C) ..-4 ~~~ C~~~C)
C) lJ u
I l
c c ~~ Ir~
14 m
~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S
I-u
mU ~~~ 0
1 1
-s
od m o
- 5-4
0 , I
o
-
0 1-u
S ( ~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 0 1 -4 w *1-l
I ~
I
0
1-4
4 ~1
32
_ _ _ _ _ _
-L
___________________
_ _ _
_ _
~~
-_
~~~~~
,----
--
_ _ _ _ ___
_ __ _ _ _ i _ ___ __ ____ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
II
ta
4 . 1
p .,
U)
U I-u
F I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~
[-4 0
0~~~
p.
rl~~~
11
-
W
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~ 1 -J d ~~ ~~~~
_ _ _ _
U) 4.5
-
014
I-I
U)
-- _ . ---_ _
C X C) 0 ~~~ . ~~ 1-.
5 1 10 r 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
140
Cl
-I
0
S
0
Cl Cl
U)
U)
F I
1 .)
1-4
o su 0. .4
~~~~
14
I
-
I
0
5
I
0 . 0 0
I
0
I 0
I 0 0
0 0
33
~~~~~
--L
________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
I
1
_ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ __ _
x
U )
~~~
I-4~~~ .1 I
1 i ~~~ Cl i .
I
I
0
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
iS
o p . r4 I I ~~
I - 4 p . f~
os
Cl
~~
. UC) ~~
_ _
r-l
-I -, 1- sC
r~ w I
p.4_
II
0 Z
-; H:
_ _ _ _ _
~~ o
.)4 .rl
E 4 0 S
L. . . _
r I
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
_ _
I 1 ~
1 1 0
- ---
U)
U) , ~~~ s-u -u
-
r4-
mI-u U .t-l
I I I I-
-I-I I-I
p .1 . 1
i I
-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U)
5
44 0
o O tn
m -,-s . ~
~~
-d
I oi l I-u~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0
0
I
0
0
I
0 CO
I
0 ~
I
. 0
0
I
0 iri
I . t ~
0 0
I
~ -
r r i ~~~
~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~ . -~~ ~~~~
r w~ ~
-.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -.
_ _ _
~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
- -
~~~~~~~
- ----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,- ~~ 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
The major problem areas for subject coverage as reported by drivers ( a t least one third reporting inadequacies) were : techniques of fire adjustment range determination . operation of firing mechanisms
clearing of misfires
:
I
tank loading
characteristics of ammunition
tank nomenclature
-
tank operation and functioning
One possible explanation for the large proportion of training
areas judged inadequately covered by a relatively large percentage of drivers and loaders has to do with the orientation of instructors for the individual training. The instructors follow lesson plans developed
by the company but it must be recognized that , since these plans are generated by line troops , they are apt to reflect those thin gs that ar e considered essential by the person preparing them. Personal preferences Also , are highlighted which do not alway s encompass the situation.
the r e Is a. tendency for the person(s) preparing the lesson plan and
for the instructors to assume tha t the personnel being trained were
S
knowledgeable on all aspects of the system with the result that certain items do not receive sufficien t coverage until they discover these
du r ing handson training .
Course Content _ Cjarity No problems identified Course Conent Consistency Lesson plans for individual training are generated at the company 35
5-
Ti~~
level.
It is not apparent that any coordination among companies
existed to ensure that subjects presented to loaders and drivers in different companies were comparable at least in terms of content, Course Content
Compatibility
One problem noted in informal interviews of loaders and drivers was their feeling that subjects were being presented to them in a fixed order and at a predetermined degree of detail without any consideration for their requirements or deficiencies. They felt that in some cases too much time was spen t on things which they understood
leav ing less time fo r the ar eas where they needed more instruction.
I~~~
Instructor skills and knowledges No problem areas were identif led in terms of the level of operational and technical skills and knowledges on the part of instructors . The primary problem was seen in their instruction skills. They had received little or no guidance on how to instruct the students in the individual training segment. Some were prepared while others were not .
1 j ~
Somc used training aids while others did not. Training aids, materials and media Training aids used in individual training were limited to items construted of wood , plexiglass, or cardboard .
-
The aids which were used were judged too few for the given class.
Visual aid s (vuegraphs) were not consistently used and usually reflected
hasty preparation. Training Measures and Criteria It seems that no measures were taken of the degree to which loaders and gunners had comprehended the training presented to them in the individual training.
I
S
36
~~~~~ f-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5---
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
I L
. ~~~
--
. -
_ _ _
----
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~0
~~~~~~~~
-- _ - _-
--
--
_ _ J ~~ _ _ ~~~
--
Training Effectiveness At the conclusion of Phase I (training) , which included individual training and platoon and company ATTs, each loader and driver
was asked to r ate the quality of the overall training . A total of
34% rated Phase I training as either bad or very bad , and 7 67. rated it as bord erline or worse. Loader s and drivers were also asked to assess the degree to which they were trained to perform their assigned duties at the end of Phase I. A total of 44% felt that they were sufficiently trained and that no additional training was necessary . Another 29% felt that additional onthejob training was still required , and 26% stated that they were not trained to perform their duties and that additional individual training should have been provided. Drivers and loaders were therefore not overly impressed with the t raining given them in the training phase of the ICTT. One in three rated the training as bad or very bad , and one in four stated that they were not sufficiently trained . About 4 out of 10 stated that sufficient time was not given to practical exercises, hands on equipment time, and coverage of subjects.
-.
3 .
Evaluation of Gunnery Training After completion of the company ATT the M60A2 tank crews began the
Gunnery Phase of the ICTT. This phase consisted primarily of pregunnery training, the preliminary gunnery exam, and range firing on tank tables I through VIII . Most of the phase was given over to training in gunnery specific ficiency. operations with two test periods Injected to measure crew proThese tests comprised the preliminary gunnery exam and tank
-
table VIII.
37
0 ~~~ 0 ~~~~ _ ~
I L
~ --~~-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________________
- - - ~~~~~~
0_ ~~~~~~~~ -5S_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ ~
1 ~
Course Content
Comprehensiveness
1 4 4 ) tank crewmen attended at least 80% of the gunnery A total of 63% of all ( training and 88% attended at least half. Course Content
No problems were identif led . The scope of training was adequate. 0
Completeness, depth of coverage
Figure 6 presents responses of each of the four groups of crewmen concerning the adequacy of the coverage of gunnery training, As indicated in this figure a sizeable proportion of each crew position felt that gunnery training was borderline or worse. That the train in g did not prepare the crews for the tank tables was expressed by more TC s than any other duty station. Loaders were more satisfied
with training than any other group , while drivers expressed the most dissatisfaction. TCs and gunners were fairly comparable in their response frequencies .
-
The specific areas where additional training coverage and time are required are Indicated for the four positions in figure 7 and 8 respectively . Figure 7 presents the proportions of cr ewmen who r epor t that t raining content and coverage must be improved in certain selected areas. Nearly all areas are cited as requiring changes by about one half of each duty position group . The itetn receiving the greatest pro portion of reported, needs for change is overall quantity of training.
When asked to- identify areas in gunnery training where additional
) a good proportion of -each of the four posi time is required (Figure 8 tion groups responded that additional time is required for all areas. Time was spent in actual range firing and time spent on tables VI and VII received the highest proportions over all four groups.
S
38
I
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
~~
------
- a ,
~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
u-I
C) .4
5.4
C)
U Cl 5 C)
CC C) 0 .0
-1 ~~~~~
5-.
Cl
4.1 54
Go
il
_ _ _ _ _ _
1
_ _ _ _
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
54
I
I J I - 0 4-I
I
S
~~~~ 4J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- -:
r- -
t1 ~
u44 ~~~
WCO
. , C.
0CC
-j I. ~ 44 0 0
S- - - S-
--
( lI U) 1 1 ,
-
0r4
p.
O U rI p
f -
4.10
_ .
I
~~ -
~~~~ .i tr ~~ ~ O ~~ 0 ~~
~~
SW
cC n .
p.0
-
i -I
I 0 I 0 C. I 0
00
I 0
5 ~
I
0
. 0
I
0
I
~~
I
0
I
0 0
-4
Lr)
0 m
C,
39
~~~~
-~~
_ : -
_- c _ r ~
~~. :
_ _.r c; _ :rr : ~ ~~~~~ ~ -z:
-.
~~~~~
~~~
- .
~~
LS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
f-I ~~ 1 . 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cl
0 -
FS
I .
~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -_
C)
~H ~ E .O
,2
,-
0CC
---- ------ ..- --. -
I-4 E-4 ~~~~~~ ~~~
_ _
C CH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S
~~~~~~~~~
0
. 1-4
p.
~~
4 J 0 5 4 O n C)
CC~~~ CC CC
I--:
_ ~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
.--. ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~
W o .-a~~~ i
. ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
z to . r ; 1 C, ~ 5,
I
r I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -_ _ -
0 H H - -o i . . j - ~~~~~ -.-I 0 14
Os
to H
4-4 0~~ 1 .0
$-~
OtJ
U)
U) 0
U) ~~~ 0 0 C)
. ~~~~ -~~ -~~~
I-i CI
CC
5
I . _1 1
I-
-s
----r
~~~~~~~~~
~~--------_--~~~ ---.~~~~~~~~ - -- --
---
1-4
. . ~- ~~
- ---- ---- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~ -~ ~
- - ~~~~~~ -
11E. ~~ 4 ) f - 4 U ~~~ )
1 . I 1-1 1 U t) C) S CC
r4d
(II
c~
~ 5
O H CO f-I -~~ U)
C)
u-I
C)
r-I
0 ) 0 p4
i
_
O0 r4
C,
J
_ _ _
_ _ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cj S) -4 1.14) 1 ~ 0 0 CCCC
~~
1 . 10 0
-.-I
Sr-I C..)
I
0.
0
o 0
1-4
CO
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~- _ ~~~~~ ~-- ---
-.
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ : - - ---~~~ - ~~ ~ . - -- .---- -
--,--- - . . . .4 ~
0
N-
0 .
0
I f l
~~
Cl
0
0 C4
0 i-I
V
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
40
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~ ~~
~~~~~~
0~ ~
. --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ ~~~~~~~ L~~
~~~~~~~
5 ~ 5
IL--_ _ _ _ _ _
- --_ --_ -- - - - - - - - -.---. ----
--_
_ _
4 1 I I ~
-- - - -- - .
_ ---
_ _ - - _ _
_ _
4 1 0 ) 0 0
_ _
W . t
(05
4-I
. 0 1-4
_
Cd
_ _ ~~
P4
1 1
0CC O s-i .1 lw 00
4-ICC
0 ) 0)
. i -. -
-. - -- . -- - - --. -
415 U) CC
II
(A
U)
I. : ::: : : . . : . : .
.. - --~~
_ _
. . - .-: :- - :
-~~~~
:- - :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~L ~
-. -.
::: :.: _ _ ~
~~
--
Ox
0 . 0.
-
4 ~
. 1-I CC ~~~
. 0 ~~
C:I
-
0 -s-I
-.4
~~~ - -
CC
-u-S
g) .5
uS
-u-I
4 . 1
-
CC
.:. .: j - : E : ~~~~~ ~~~~
- -
::
-: : ~ ~~:: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~
--- .
C)
, I . 0 C)
U0 ~~~ -.4 0 U) 0 0 b O - )~
1-
. . ~~~. . . ~~- -. : ::. . -. - - . - :: - : -~~~ --
--
4 . ~~ ~~~~~ . . .;. -: . .):~~~~~: - -
. u-4~~~~~ C) .105-1 1-4 1-~
0 5 4 5 5 0. 0
L - -. ~~~ .. . : - -
- - - : : -:- -: : . : . .: : ; .:. . :.. : . : . : : . - .
II
t o5~o o
U
P . .
C)
1-i
Il.lC,Q
-~~
140CC ~ 0 0 5 C) r4
U W 0~~~~ 11.0
. ~~~
L
5-.
I
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~ ~ - - - - - - - -------- - - - - --
---
. 0
11.0
01 CC
0)
t 1 .-I C) 0 .4 0 s~~ o
I -. 11-0 P4
to a)
to 0.0 $-. 0 0 0
t o -u-I 0
(4~ 4
5 5
(0
.4
0)
5-1
0) 1-4
C)
0) 0)
, tC I J C) 0
It
_ _ _
1 ~~~ 1
-
41
_ _ _ _ _ _
. ~
-~ ---~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
*-
- --
______
-~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Course Content
C la r it y
NO problems identified Cou rse Content
Consi stency
The problem s arising f rom non standardization of course content fo r individual training were also identified in the gunnery phase. All tank crews were not presented with the same materiel at the same rate. The materiel and instruction procedures were not standardized .
-
An additional problem for consistency of training was the fact that 30%
of tank crewmen proceeded through gunnery qualification (Tables VII and
VIII) in two or more different tanks , which may have had an adverse effect on crew Integration. Course Content
-
Coinpatability
The gunnery training of tank crews was structured such that required skills and knowledges were developed in a logical and orderly
S
manner , however , additional formalized structuring -of training is required . One interesting finding was the decline in the proportion of loaders and drivers who felt that they still needed additional training at the end of Phae II as compared with their op in ions
-
~it
the en d o f
Phase I. After Phase II (Gunnery) 13% of loaders and 5 d r ive r s in dicated that they needed additional training , as compared to 26 % at the end ,f Phase I. This could be explained In part to the increase in level of
sophistication these crewmen experienced with the tank system during
Phase II.
However , it al so may in di c ate that the structuring (and content)

-
of Phase II was superior to that of Phas e I.

Instructor s Skills and Mnowledges
While no crewmen explicitly identified it as a problem I n Inter views or via questionnaires , it was concluded based on direct observation
42
_ _ _ _
. -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _
_____
~~a S
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ -~~ ~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~
___________
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
1)1 S
I l~~I UI i i i ~~~ I Is . sI
t1I- I%I
.
Ls- - t r I i i n ~
- L i i
I :~
s.I
iP$
~~ I
j u ir t t ir ; iIsiriu ~
~~~~~
I~u iI4u1 * EY
I.! cIti i rS~ I I i l P F~~ V t -
Tiic
I 1 ; i III
i IIf ~
r I sd ~i~ It ~
sIiii - 1 isg tim

[cc
g~ui~t it-iy
III
PIIa~;C
C O I ) ~ [ t s
~~
J;irgol y of iu
IIle -js b I 1.1
i.islisg , I)r:Ir~L
-
COI ) ( IU C t
-
in I i~; , and pract id of fire (
-il I iring . in ;iclu .
day of forma3 training , either In classroom There is little in the
inst ruction or in t h e f iel.d briefings .
Wh atever instruct ions there
were came from p latoon leaders and tank commanders who had attended
S
the cadre course at F t . Knox .

-
Consideration needs to be given to developing more structure Into the gunnery training, Including expanded use of skilled instruc tors. This is more cri tical in the early stages of the training since ,
-
if cr ewmen were to develop an incorrect understanding of their require
ments , responsibilities, and procedu r es , they will spend much of the t raining phase
i i i
practicing these inappropriate procedures .
Training aids, materials, and media In line with the problems associated with instructors sk ill
an d knowled ges , the mo re general problem of a lack of structure - in
the training program is also reflected in the absence of lesson p lans and standardized training procedures and methods .
-
The need for stan
dardizcd and formal training aids and materials is ~iost pronounced in pregunnery training, prior to the preliminary gunnery exam. The exam
-. -
itself identifies the skills and knowledges which each crew member must possess in order to pass the exam. The period between initiation
of the gu nnery phase and the p r e l in in a r y gunne ry exam should be dedicated to administering classroom instruction followed up with onthe job training and concentrated practice in those areas addressed in the exas , In a more formal manner.
and rate, of presentation.
Lesson plans need to be developed
and used universally to ensure standardization of material presentation Visua l aids , includ i ng slides , vuegrnphs ,
13 ~
L.
\~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~
~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~
- - -T ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ t
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
--
~~~~
~~~~~
------ -- - -~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -_ _ - _
(
and even motion pictures should be developed as part of a standardized
-
training package. In each classroom instruction period or day , trainees

must be -provided with handouts reviewing the material presented in the
period , f o r
r eview and r e f e r e n c e d u r i n g follow up practice and du ring
per iods allo ca t ed for study and review . Tra in in g Measures and Cr iter ia
The principal measures of training implemented during the Gunnery
Phase consisted of the preliminary gunnery exam ( P G E ) and Tank Table

(
VIII on the range.
The PGE was primarily concerned with testing crew
knowledge of gunnery procedures and practices . The crews reported to
eigh t test sta tions sequ entially and were tes ted on d ifferen t aspec ts
of gunnery operations at each station. They were tested and scored
by TC s and platoon leaders from within the Battalion but from a

different company . Cenerally the testing consisted of scoring a crew
~~
member as either passing or failing the individual test conducted at a station. Specifics concerning performance on each test item , such
as what the response was when it was an incorrect response , or wha t

-
th~t crewman did wrong in following a procedural sequence , were not recorded . If a crewmember failed the test at a station , he reported to an additional station after leaving the eighth and last test station , where he was briefed on the material involved in the operation which he missed. He then went to a retest station where he was tested on
-
the same material.
Philosophically there Is nothing basically wrong with this retest procedure since the purpose of a test of training should be to
impart additional training as well as to examine the trainee on what he knows and his level of skill. with the general approach . However , there are two bas ic problems
r--- 5~~~~~~~~~~ .
---,.-.~~~~~ ~
~~~_ ~ __ _ _ ~_~~
-5---- --5----
&___ _~~ _ ~ __ _ _ _ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5--
~~ _- ~~~~~~ ~~~~
r ~~~~~~~- - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_- -- - . - ~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~
Under the current procedure , a crewman could be wrong,
or a t
least unsure of certain procedures at a station , and still pass the test at the station. A better app roach would be to provide remedial
training on all items missed or where performance is doubtful or in
correct. This remedial training should be administered immediately , at the same station , prior to moving to the next station.
S
In this
procedure, there would be no grading of performance in this initial testing sequence. It would be conducted for purposes of identify ing where additional training is required and for providing that remedial
training immediately. After sequencing each crewmen through all
stations, they would then return to each station for the formal test.
The second problem area is the short time period between remedial training and final test in the current approach . In order to
ensure that crewmen have indeed learned the procedures which were
scored as weak or failed during the test , at least one day should elapse between remed ial training and f i n a l testing . If personnel
fail the retest they should then retake the entire course , or they
should be washed out .

Training Effectiveness
An indication of the effec tiveness of gunnery tra in ing ca n be

- .
obtained from opinions of crewmen who went through the training for gunnery.
As ind ica ted in Figure 6 , about half of the TCs and loaders
stated that gunnery training was adequate or very good . About 4 of 1 0
gunners so ra ted gunnery training, while only onethird of the drivers

were satisfied with the gunnery training. The TC s were most critical of gunnery training, with 29% of them stating that it was not sufficient for beginning range firing on the tank tables . 45
S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~
~~ ~~~~5-
~~
-~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ -~~- - -
When asked specifIcally if gunnery training was adequate , in interviews after termination o Phase II, all tank commanders from all three companies answered definitely and emphatically in the negative . The significant weaknesses of the training cited by TC s included : main~gun firing
-
All A Company TCs
o unavailability of the conduct of fire trainer companies

-
B and C
insuffjcient time to gain understanding of procedures B company training on specific operations inadequate

C company
laser range finder operations boresighting fire control procedures burst on target operations
-
( -
In addition , all Company TCs objected to -the structure and format of fire commands as presented in the operations manual
-
. 5
Company commanders were also asked in an interview , for their opinion
of the adequacy of tank gunnery training late in Phase I I . Their opinions were unanimous that the training was inadequate. Their views closely parallel those expressed by their TC s.
Representative comments were :

-
There is a need for more time for gunnery training six months
-
up to
o There is a need for improved familiarization of all aspects of gunnery, especially crew drill and stabilized gunnery Gunnery should receive the highest priority in the allocation of training time. This should extend throughout the, entire training phase and not merely begin after the ATTs. Company Commanders didn t have sufficient flexibility in scheduling and administering training exercises to their crews The TCs and company commanders were also asked in the interviews if crew members had sufficient knowledge of the tank systems to enable them to
-
46
-
--5
--
-- 5 -
- -
---
-- -
5--
_ _ _ _ - - -
- ~~~~~~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. a ----- ~-. ~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_______________________________________________________________
5--
perform their duties . Tic responses iudicat;ed that while drivers and loaders dge of tltetr own positiOns, they need more trainseem to have adequate knowh~ ing on other positions. Tank Conimanders were a good deal more critical of the skills and know]edges of TCs and gunners than wcre company commanders. The ~~~~ stated that TC s and gunne r s need more
S - .
gunnery experience ,
-
more training in conduct of fire , procedures in gene ra l , and identi fying malfunctions. One CO stated that not all of his TCs and gunners vent to the cadre school, and that they generally need more classroom in-. struction. Tank commanders, in evaluating the levels of skills and knowledges of TCs and gunners after gunnery training , were more emphatic in their assertion that they were not adequately trained , and were more explicit 160A2 tank. tha t TC s and gunners do not have adequate knowledge of the } in citing weak areas. Tle TCs of each company stated almost unanimously ~
The two main problems which they identlf led for training were insufficient gunnery training and a need for more and better crew maintenance training.
Company B TCs stated that TCs need to go to school for training on turret maintenance. C Company TCs indicated that a need exists to reallocate
maintenance tasks to give the tank crew more responsibility in making the tank function.
-
Tank commanders reported that weak areas in the knowledge and skill possessed by TCs and gunners included :
stabilized gunnery techniques
S
-
o fire control instruments

*
transition from active light to passive light engagement

o
troubleshooting
boresi.gh t in g
o
f i r e com u an c is
47
--.
~ ~~~ -
--
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
---------~
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~~~~~~
- -------- - --
-- -
__
__ _ _ ~~ ~~~~~~ S~~~~~~~~~ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
night firing
-
crew drill turret operations

-
TC s also reported that some part of the training problem was due to
-
the inadequacy of available checklists and manuals. They felt that check lists are too long and complicated . They also reported that, in most cases , the manuals simply are not used. Loaders and drivers had been asked on a questionnaire to give their opinions of overall tank training at the end of the Training Phase and at the end of the Gunnery Phase. Their responses were as follows: n8l n82 I) After Gunnery ( I I ) After Training Phase (
S
Training good or very good Training borderline Training bad or very bad
-
23% 42% 34%
407. 4 4 % 16%
-
The pattern of responses indicates that first of all the proportion . of loaders and drivers who viewed training as borderline in terms of ade-.
quacy at the end of the two phases was about equal. Furthermore, the aumber
-
who judged the training to be good or very good almost doubled in Phase II as compared with Phase I, while the proportion viewing the training as bad or very bad at the end of Phase II was about half that of Phase I. Still in all, 76% of drivers and loaders judged the training in Phase I to be borderline or worse, while 607. were of the same opinion at the end of the gunnery phase. An attempt was made to identify areas where crewmen viewed their abi lities as borderline or worse, and where they saw the need for additional
training. Figure 9 presents ratings of loader abilities by both loaders ,
48 T ~~T ~~~~~~~~~
5-
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ -~~ -~~~~
~~~
~~~~~
--------~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
--
- -
and by TCs and gunners, in terms of the proportion of each group who rated loader capability as borderline or worse on each of the areas requiring loader proficiency. As indicated
-
by this figure , TCs and gunners generally had a higher
opinion of loader skills than did the loaders themselves. Significant problem areas as seen by both groups include: alignment of laser range finder recoil mechanical check M73M85 mechanical training grenade launcher operations emergency fire procedures system self test and verification missile misfire procedures The two groups (loaders, and ~~~ & gunners) were also asked to identify which areas require additional training to successfully transition from an M6OA1 loader to a loader in the A2. The results are presented in figure 10. As seen in this figure- TCs and gunners generally think that loaders need more training than do the loaders themselves. were:
S
Areas receiving the highest ratings for additional training requirements

(
-
system self test a~ d verification grenade launcher operations
alignment of the laser range finder
Similarly , driver skills and additional training requirements were rated by drivers on the one hand , and TCs and g .in ners on the other. The results are contained in figures 11 and 12. a poorer opinion of their own abilities tb- n did TC s and gunners (Figure 11). As t) ~e case with loaders, drivers had
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
~~~ ~~
-- -
. .- ~
s.
Ji_
__ . _ -~
~~~
~ ~~ - ~~~~
.-- ~~~~~
-5
Nr
-- - - ~-
- -
~~ -- --
-. --
-
n-.
-
----~ -~~~-
--
~~
- -
- 5 - - - ---
--5
- - ----
---
1 . 1
1- I
-
-j
--
- -
~~ -~~~~ -
1 . i -d
-
:.
3 I-~4 P.I ~
CI 1-4 0 E~~r4 I.4
CI
I __________________________________
C
-~~
~~~1Z4
.I 4 ~~~~~
~~~O
, . ~
.-4
CI
I I
I -
-,I I I
1-400
m om
,-4 1 . i d
Ix ~~~~~
CI
U I
CIGI
-
4 . 1 r1 ~~~ i-l
~~~~~~
r1
_ 1~
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 1 . 1
~~~~~~~~ ~ti
II
S
IIU
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 *( j~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S$ ~~~W ~~~~ ~~~~ -
________________________________
__j__I__ ~
~~~ T -~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5 ---- ~~-.--~~~~~ ~~~~~
5-
S
_ _ _ _ _ _
4O ~~ t~ I-I
_ _
W I - I CI
p. .-4 u ~
_ _
1.4
1 I
I
t__
_
~~~~~~~~~
O 4 ..4 ~~ ~~~
-~~ _
.2
CI
4
U CI
4 . 1
1 . 1 41
I
_ _ _
4141 I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
5-4
0
I
I
41W 1-i~
0r 4
1l1
4)
.5 4.
I_
I I
: 1 4 -rI
o : :
_
CI. 1- i S
W
0 ) 5
~~~~~
..
10
CCCI
L
I
F
Z c.)
S
-
1_ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~
_ _ _
OS
S
CI
4I
H
S -
I
. . I
F I
L
-.1 ,5 0 0 0 41
0 4 1 . 5
0 0) E-4 ~~
CI
G ) > ~~0
I I I
I
__________________________
I I I I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
________
I-J E-4 r4 CC 1.-I Cl) u~~~~ C)
I 1-i W . ~~~)11-I 414 )-. 4-1 4)
U,
41
140 Cd 0 0
1 . 4
4.
L_ I
I
I
4-4 0 )
_
4) 5
oP
4 .
*4
0 . 4 00
S E -4
51
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- -~~~~ -~~~~~~~~ -~~~ - - ---5 -- - - - 5 -5 - - ~ S -- - -- - ---~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r 4j ~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S -
04 )
05
U ) Q i
5
0 .-4
-4- 4 1- 4 5 1-1
014
- S
I I I
I
O C d U o
1 40
4 1 5 1 4 0
C f l C d. CI
S 50)
S -rI
IL
--
4-l Cd , 5 14 0 ~~~ 0
1-1 1 . 1 4)
4) -d O
5 4 O . ~~
0 14 14
0 1-1
co.o
- 4
--
0
0)
-~~
S -
541
5-
~~~~
I.-1 ( )
1-i S- -d 0 05 -4 14 0 0)
,-I 1 -1
mc d
S
- S
1 41. 1
500
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>0
14 0
~ 4
I
-
- -4-414 >
_
0 c U .-4
1
-
W 1 - i 1-i -rI
> C d 4 1 1 . I
4 .
II I
1 4
0 )
I 1-4 CJ ~~
I
I
~~~ _ -
OO-d O ~~~ 1 I
04)
0. 1-1 5 00 W C ~~ t ~s . d U) 41
_ ,-4 .4 > s ~
U)
-
1 4
UI
41
- S
(0 5
4)
I
I
0.0)
-
4 15
115
(1) 5 u-s 4.14)

1 40
1.114
0 I
I
I 0
-i
--
52
. ~
- -
-----.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r~~~~~
i i~~.
______
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ -
~~~ ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 fl -
~~~~
_. ~
--5
5- -
i r, 5 -: 5 ~
~ S
~ I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 5 - - ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
-:1-- :7: ~ ~~
. ~~_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
. 4 1
z
UI I-i
4 )
S ~
3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
L
H ~~-
~~~~~~~~~
~ -
:~
~ ~
~
~
~
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-~~~~~-
~ 6
~~~
41ca u
I-I
~~
u
) ~
-~~
0 .1_I 5
1 ~~~~ 1.
~~~~~~~~~
~~ - 0
-S 5 5
~ ~
5 - -
__
1 I~ L
I_II
w ~~~~ 0 0 -. s
)-4
,I 1 40 5
~~~~~~~
c O O) 5 I-i .
4 10
.1
I I -r - :
I
I
- -
1
~ -
_ _ _ _
.4 4 ) C d - d Ci . 4 14 14 1- r1 ~
I 4 1 - .-4 5
. r I 0)4.1
-I-I
0 )
---
. ~~~~~~ I d
g
_ _
I
I -
5 5
I----
- - ~~~~~~ -
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O~~0 H 04 )
4)
0 )0 5 . 4
554 )5 oo -s s
4
_ 5
m S
4
Q (/)
5 ( 0 . ( 0
1 1 .4
4) 0 )0
0
I I 4 ) S S ~~~ 1 -4 0 I
I~~~~~~~
I
I
1-4 ~
1-1
L_
-4 1 40
1 1
- ~
-
_ _ .
-
4.114
0 41
I5
GE 0
4)
1 40
0 14
so
5 1-. I4 -.-I
. 4
-. 4 t , 0 05
53
_ _
- 5 - - -5
-- - S - ~~~~~~~~~~ - -5 - -
.-
- -~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5-- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5-
--
--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S~~~~~~~~ _
-
. (
- -5-- -
---5-- --- - - 5
- ---i--- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ S r~ ~~
_ _ _
~~~~~~~
i ~
~
The reported weakest areas included :

use of operators manual and lubrication order after operations check
,
bef ore opera tion s check
Areas where the greater percentage of drivers and TCs/gunners reported additional training requirements included :
~ ~
~ -
performance as ground guide response to ground guide signal startstop procedures

0
S S
bef ore opera tions check
af ter opera tions ch eck
Finally, TCs and gunners rated their own abilities at the end of Phase II on the course content subjects taught at the cadre course and on the gunnery exercises presented at that course. The results are presented in figures 13 and 14. The areas where at least onethird of the TCs and
-
gunners rated their capabilities as borderline or worse included : use of the M42/43 conduct of fire trainer
o conduct of fire procedures and techniques
auxiliary fire control instruments o operation maintenance

-
stationary and moving target operations
nigh t
prepare to fire
stabilized gunnery target acquisition
-
arman ent
.
-
controls and equipment
I
-
4 ~~~~ ~~ :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-. ~~~~ ~
--
-r- j -: =----- -: ~~ ~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- -~~~~~ -~~~~------~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -
j .__________
C) I
.rI
I~ -1
0
14
-4
- -- ?
0 : i ~ 1-4 0
S
1-1
_j
~,
I
0
i 1 :
: 1 4
>-
a)
-
L
L
_ _ _ _
\ ~~
1 ~
1 . 1
U 4 ) -
1-i
0414 )
0
r~-~ _~
j 1 4 - d cd
S - P -
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ 5
~~~
( 10 0 ) 1-i
~~~~~~~ H
ci
I
I -
-5 -
- 0 0 I - ~~ ~ 0 - - 4C 1 I
I 1-
~~
~
OH
oo
-4
~ ~ ) ~ 0 0 ~~~~ 14 -4
-5-5,
H D~
4 ) 5 1
<
,4
1 . 1 -. 4
rI ~ ~~~ 4
41,5
4 )
( 0 ( 4
Cl)
- -I
tO
1-i
Cd
a)
< .5
- 4
-__ --
0 .0 1 - 1 4 ) 1.1 -rI 14 Iii

Ci
0)
. 4
1-4 4)
1- 4 5 . 4 1 41-0 4)4) : 4 . 5 . 5
_ 5-_
4 . 1
- 1 4 v - 4 .
So
11
4~1 1 4
1-I
S --5
~~~~~~~~~~~ <
50 5
s4 ) ~ 4-, 144: 5 1-4

0) 11 -4 4 ) SC) 50)
1 . 1
1-4
SO - r I rx4 - 0
_ __ ~~~~
41 ~~ 5 4~1 1 4 5 1
00 -41 514
(do
0)4 )
r-I --4
4.1 41 4:
I-4 v-4 1-i
8
bO G) l)I
1-i
00
I~ I
I
1
-
I I
F
, 5. r4 - d
5 5
41 1 -I C) 411 -i
L
4
________________
L ~~~~~
0 1 0
.- . C d
(i- d U O
1 . 1
___
_______ L flq
I I
-I
~~
~~ ~~
--
~~~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
5 -- -
~~ ~~~~
-5
___
~~~
4)
-f-I
-
1-1 : 1 4
. 4 -41
0 0
I I
5
-4
4 )
1-1 0
: 1 i
0 0
1 1
~ -. I I >-
4)
1 1 r4 1 1 O 1 x,,. , -4 x4 ~
4) 4) -f-I
4)_S l I p i
ii .
4) _S ( 0 : 1I _ -
Cd 0
4)
L b S
_ _ _ _ _ _
44.1
_
0 .
-.4 11
4-_I 1-4 <
4 )
. 4)
c_I
. 4 4 ) 4 ) .5CC
( 4 S I
H I -I
0
P 1- i
1
C)
1 .1 - i
~~~~
a a) I . ~ 4 ) 4
C) 05
1-i
)
:j H
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4)
1 4_ S
-
0 1 .4
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
so
:~~~~~~
I
_ _ _ _
U I - i-I
C )
U )
0 1-i
1-4 41
Cl) 0 )
4)4)
1
S
_ _ _ _ _
U6
-
~~~~~~
4 1-i
_ _
5 ~~~
zI
I
0
0
I
O.
I
U )
I
0 . F
I
0 4) ~
I
0
1 r ~
I
? -.
I
0
I
0
I
0
v-I
c~1
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
56
-5
_________________
~~~
- -: : -L : ~ ~
- =. _ :~~
- --
_-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3.2. 2. 3 Conclusions and Probletns 1.

j j
Taak Crew Train~~~
Cadre Training
.Insufficient time in the Cadre Course was allocated to instruction and practice in areas di~ ect1y related to gunnery and operator maintenance.
0
Additional handson equipment time is inadequate in the Cadre Course. Practice time should be added to the course rather than simply reallocating time from classroom instruction to practical application. Training aids should be of sufficient quantity to enable an allocation of two students per aid . Tank Commanders required but did not receive instruction on turret maintenance in the Cadre Course .
2.
Individual Training of Loaders and Drivers

S
practical exercises, and handson equipment.
Insufficient training time allocated for classroom instruction , Inadequate coverage is provid ed for all subjects.
The training of loaders was inadequate in the following areas :
bas ic tank g un nery

reduction of weapon malfunctions ammunition preparation identification , stowage , and maintenance of ammunition
crew maintenance
tank weapon loading
The training of drivers was inadequate in the following areas :
techniques of f i r e a d j u s t m e n t range determination operation of firing mechanisms m i s fir e clearance tank loading
.-
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~
_ ~~~~ S ~~~ _ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ I ~ ~~~
__ i 4 ~ . ~~~-5 5-ft
-5
-5-
---- - : ~: ~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--5
-5
5 ,
ammunition characterisUcs tank nomenclature tank operation
The sequencing of course material and time allocation to subject matter was not flexible enough- to accommodate different requirements
of different trainees.
0
S
Instructors ( T Cs and gunners) were not trained in how to effectively plan and conduct instruction classes.
~
j
There was little consistency across instructors in terms of in structional methods and use of visual aids and handouts.
S
~ ~
Training time was directly influenced by tank availability. Consideration should be given to development of trainers which would enable early crew training independently of tank status.
No meas ures of performance were made during ind ividual training. Thus the loaders and gunners were not informed of their progress or of their weak points.
S
3.
Gunnery Training
One of every two crewmen (n=179) uere of the opinion that gunnery
training was inadequate
: ~
5
~ ~
Insufficient time is allocated to all gunnery subjects ~ Gunnery training prior to entry into tlie tank tables was not formalized or standardized Crewmen were not trained as a crew throughout the gunnery phase
0
Instruction during gunnery was inadequate. to be formalized and standardized .
Such instruction needs
~
I
. Lesson p lans are no t s tandard Insufficient use was made of handouts .The preliminary gunnery exam was not an effective measure of crew sk i lls , nor does it effectively assist the crewmen in identi
fying weak areas.
0 4 ~
Emphasis should be placed on gunnery throughout the training program

and not merely after the company ATT s.
~
- ---5 --
58
_ _ _ 5 _ -~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~ S
__
\ ~ 5-
k c : : ~~ ~ T
i : : : ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 - ,~~~ ~ 4
~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
! t~
-5-5
~~~~~~~~
~ ~5-
-5
5 - -- r ~ -------~~ ~
-5-
-5 5
~~~~~~
_-_ _ _ _ _ 5-_ S-_; _ ~ _. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The conduct of fire trainer was generally not available insufficient to effectively train loaders :
The course coverage and time allocated to the following was
range finder alignment recoil meci-tanism check M73M85 mechanical training grenade launcher operations emergency fire procedures
system self test missile m i s f i r e procedures
For drivers the areas of inadequate course coverage and time were:
use of operators manual

before/after operations check
ground guide operations

startstop procedures
For TCs and gunners the inadequately covered areas included :
- 5
use of M42/43 conduct of fire trainer conduct of fire procedures and techniques auxiliary fire control instruments operation maintenance stationary and moving target operations at night
prepare to fire procedures
stabilized gunnery target acquisition armamen t con trols a nd equ ipmen t
~~~~~
L~
_ _
59
_ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~
: : : : ~~:
.-
--5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _
~~~~ T: ~~~~
_ _
T_
~~
~_ ~~~
~ &~~~~ c
-r--5--
TiiiiI ~ ~
S
--5
-~fl - -5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --
-5
~I
~~
:
(-
3 . 2 . 3
Maintenance Training Evaluation

. S
3.2.3.1 General
H 5
The primary problems noted with maintenance training involved de

-
ficiencies in manuals, availability of personnel, and availability of spare ~ parts and supplies to a greater degree than problems with the training as such. A total of 66 maintenance personnel were surveyed at the conclusion of Phase II of the ICTT concerning their opinions and insights concerning ~ M60A2 tank training. The MOS distribution of these personnel was as follows:
~
~
! ~ H H
Si -~~ t~
41C Fire Control Repairman 45K Tank Turret Repairman 45R Turret Mechanic 63C Tracked Vehicle Repairman Other
-
~~
Number of Respondants
Zof Total
8 9 12 21 16
12% 1 4 % 18% 32% 24%

5
3.2.3.2 Results and_Discussion. j

~
~
S
A sampling of the opinions of these personnel concerning the ma in tenance training they received on the M60A2 tank includes the following : The training coverage was borderline or worse for :
50% (3 of 6 ) of the 41C personnel

3 30
/s ( 2 of
8% ( 1 of 12) of the 45R personnel
) of ~
the 45K repa irman
A total of 42% ( 2 7 of 6 4 ) of the maintenance personnel rated their own ability to accurately and quickly diagnose malfunctions as marginal or poor , at the end of Phase II.
~
~
~~~
5-
60
--5 -5 - - 5 -5 -
~~~~~ 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ _
: : : ~~~~~~~~~~~
_ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
_; ~~--_
--5
_~ _=: . ~ ~_::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.T
- - ~ -~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5
- :- : :~ ~: ~~~::
- S--- --- -_ _ S 5 _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ = ,~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~
__
S-------
~ ~
~
Manuals are seldom or never used during a repair operation by 4 4 % ( 2 8 of 6 2 ). 34% of the personnel ( 2 1 of 62) reported that a sufficient
number of manuals was not available to support maintenance - activities .
Based on responses to questionnaires at the end of Phase I, the over

whelming opinion of maintenance supervisors and technicians was that the training at Ft. Knox, Kentucky was very good or good ; however , additional handson training was seen to be required to really familiarize personnel
with the system. This was further borne out by the response of the super visors to one of the questions concerning improvement of the technicians
5 -
performance with experience.
Thirtyeight percent ( 3 8 % ) of these super
~
~
visors stated that the improvement was considerable while ( 5 2 % ) stated that
some Improvement had occurred . This would seem to indicate that while the
training provided was satsifactory, it did not go far enough. Some improvement
S -
is to be expected as personnel become more familiar with the system; however , additional training, especially on portions of the system which are entirely
new , should be cons idered .
-
: ~
~
-5
This training could be conducted on mockups
designed specifically to- perform this function or as handson training prior to releasing the technician to the field. Ten percent ( 1 0 % ) of the supervisors stated that no improvement was noted with experience. Twenty percent ( 2 0 % ) of the supervisors stated that CBSS training was
..
I
very bad or bad , while 38% ( 6 of 16) 63C personnel rated the CBSS training as borderline or worse. Early in the M6OA2 test program , an Evaluator at Fort Hood strictly to familiarize personnel on rem oval of the tank power pack with the CESS attached . There were no handouts , training classes were large (e.g., company size), personnel constantly left the classroom to attend
S
Comment Sheet was generated which stated that the CBSS training was conducted
61
-
L _
a_
5
~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
_ _
5 --
~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _-_ _ -5 -5
- ~~~~~ -5.-. _~ _ .S.__,__i___
-5
__ _ _ _ _ _
-5
5 S____
5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~ -5
. --5-5 ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ,
-5,
~S
~ I
to other duties , etc. The negative remarks are most likely based on these
I
m
~~~ ~~
conditions.
In order to be effective, classes should be organized to
optimize the instructor/pupil ratio, instructors should organize their

-
materiel and have handouts available,and personnel attendance should be scheduled to eliminate or minimize the impact by other duties on training. When asked if 63C mechanics had an adequate knowledge of the closed breech scavanger system, each CO answered in the affirmative. One elabor
~~
~i
I -
ated that more training time than the current eight hours are required on the CBSS.
S
~
, .~ ~ (
New training aids should be available where required , and in sufficient

quantity to allow all students in the class an opportunity for use. One
of the more common responses to the questionnaires was that the training aids used by personnel at -Fort Knox were adequate but there was not a suff i
(
cient quantity of these available. At Fort Hood, the quality and quantity of training aids were insufficient to meet the training requirements. Interviews with company commanders indicated that in their opinions
; -_ ~
turret mechanics (MOS 45R) had adequate knowledge in their area of speciality . One commander stated that while his mechanics could identify that something
S
5H
is wrong, they need a troubleshooting chart to isolate the malfunction . A survey of maintenance supervisors at the end of Phase II revealed
that motor sergeants were not trained in the M60 A2 and that they have ex
. ~
-
perlenced difficulty in supervising maintenance. The sergeants feel that

(
forma l ma in tenance training on the A2 systems is mandatory.
The mainten
..
S
ance supervisors also observed that the special training on test and
( diagnostic equipment was insufficient and inadequate. In addition to training
62
L
-, ~~-----
-5
- -L ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S~ -5~~S~~ ?
5-
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
- ~
r_
H~~ ~
_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S . ~~~~ = ~~~
. _ _
__
~~~
-5-
-5
S ~
-~~ : : : ~
problems, they also cited difficulties with the manuals , which they feel
~
~ (
are incomplete, and with the test equipment which they think lacks the sophistication required .
.
3. 2 . 3 . 3
Conclusions
Problems Identified for Maintenance Training
~
i-
-i
. Manual availability to support maintenance training was inadequate

S
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
Personnel had to perform routine military activities as well as attending maintenance training exercises, which impairs their attend an ce at courses and r educes study t i me
S
. Tank unavailability interfered with handson time

0
: ~
CBSS training was not formalized or standardized
. The number of training aids was inadequate
~ I~
~
63
_ - ; -
- - -- S ~~~ --
~~~~~~~~~~~~
SSS ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ :
~
~~
- S
-5
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~S --~~~~~ S ~~ ~
-- S------- ~~~~
r T : : -5__ I= ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t - -- ,- -~~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _
r5
S -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
-5 -5 ~
-5~~~
,
~
3 . 3
Crew Procedures
3.3.1 General
One general problem area of interest in the human factors evaluation of the M60 A2 tank systems involves the operational procedures used by the tank crew. The evaluation of procedures is closely allied to the evaluation
: ~
of tank systems design (the hardware associated with the procedures), tech nical and operations manuals, and training (wherein procedures are learned). Problem areas identified for procedures involve the following:
(
a Commun ica tions procedures

I
S
Preventive maintenance procedures Safety procedures
. Ammunition loading procedures Operational procedures .
Communica tions A copy of the Field Standard Operating Procedure ( S O P) was ob

-
3.3.2. Results and Discussion
tam ed and reviewed to determine what the procedures are for pre
combat operations, tactical road marches, air attacks, ground attacks,

S ~
~
-
occupation of assembly areas, night defensive positions (NDPs ) , de laying actions, etc. The intent of this review was to compare observed (including monitoring of radio networks) operations against the SOP.
S
One of the primary items noted was that there is no specific coinmuni cations procedure other than that the platoon leader is required to report crossing of checkpoints, phase lines, enemy contact, including
air and observation.
Also, loss of vehicles and changes in the tacti
cal situation are to be reported during offensive operations. There is no SOP designating acceptable terminology , identification or authen
(
tication of commands , intratank communications , etc. Frequently , experienced T.C. s communicate within the platoon and company adequately ,
64
_ ;-
5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=-::z-T z ~~ ~~~
--- 5
--
~~
-\
r- : ~
~ S
- 5-
5- 5T -5 -5 ~~I ~
- 5 -
- -
S.
however , there are frequent lapses in proper communications procedures.

Sometimes required communications are not transmitted to the proper
c ~
authority at all; other times transmissions are late.

-
It has also been .
noted that adequate and rapid transmission of data or information is necessary for satisfactory completion of a mission.
A~ questionnaire was administered to all crewmen concerning communications system design and procedures . This questionnaire was
given at the end of Phases I and III in order to identify crewman know ledge of procedures as well as to determine changes in this knowledge from Phase I through Phase III. The responses to questions from the communication questionnaire which dealt specifically with procedures, for the two phases, are presented in table 1 . As indicated in this table a large proportion ~
~(
of crewmembers are still uncertain of the existence of SOP s even af ter
~
S ~~ -
Phase III of the ICTT. No changes were observed in the use of standard
communication procedures from Phase I to Phase I I I, and in both phases
S
~ (
more than half of the crewmen sarpled stated that a standard procedure
S -
r ~
-
~~~~~~
for communications is not used or only sometimes used. The crewmen were also uncertain of the source for a standard
o f 1 5 3 ) stating communication procedure after Phase III, with about 25% (
believing that it came from cus that they didnt know, and almost 307. torn and from SOP. About 25% of the crewmen at the end of Phase III were still uncertain if checklists were available for standard modes of operation. Only a little less than half said that they were.
-.
-I
~~
~~~
5- -
5 -
s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~~~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5
: : ~
SS
~.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L ; ;:5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
-5S~ 7
-5
5- 5--
- 5 5-
-5-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~-
- -5 ~
- - - 5
r.~
-5 -5 ~ ~ -
. . - 5 -
-5
5S i
-5 --5
S--v--- ---- _____ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~
-5,
TABLE 1 Crew Responses to Communication Procedures Questions at the end of Phases I and iir
:i ~ 1 ~ I
~
: ~ ~
S -
S~ ~
I ~
i
~ I
Question and Alternative Responses c Do units have voice communication SOPs regs, etc.? No Yes
Don t know
Proportion of crew men responding (%) Phase I N=l45

54
Phase III
N=153
45
39
1 0
45
procedure used in your tank?

I S
Is a standard voice communication No Sometimes Yes

.
48
20 32
47
20 33
Wha t is the source for the

S -5
procedure?
Don t know Custom Regulation SOP
32 30 15 25
24 32 15 32
Are checklists available for all standard modes of operation? Dont know No Y es
S
28 39
33
26 48
26
_5 L ~
- - - 5 - -
----5
;.T::J;: : ~~ ~
~~~~ ~~
\ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5-
. 5- ~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
__
--5 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ S _ _ _ _ c - 5S~~~~~~ ~~~~~ -,
Preventive Maintenance Procedures

~ K
Minor problems and breakdown have occurred during the test vhich have led to speculation that daily preventive maintenance procedures such as ~ checking oil and hydraulic fluid levels, etc., were not being used or being used Inadequately . This has shown up in daily maintenance logs and status forms. Lack of daily or periodic preventive maintenance or maintenance poorly or inadequately performed by the tank crew will lead to unnecessary down time. It may also deadline a tank on a battlefield. Additional problems for crew maintenance are more attributable to ~
S
~
S t~
~
~S -
~
~
deficiencies in training and manuals rather than to procedures as such.

S
S
S
One problem is the inability of tank crewmen to isolate malfunctions in the field. The tank commanders from each company were asked how often were they able to determine the cause of a problem . Their unanimous response was, never, The TCs further indicated that crew members generally know how to use manuals for operational checks but that they seldom do , mainly due to the inconvenience associated with using the manuals. When asked how
~ -
~ k;-;
-
;
~
~ -
I ~ ~
i_ ~
S
long would it take to perform a PM check as outlined in the manual, the TCs estimated up to 8 hours. They state that the manual is cumbersome and that it is hard to find things in it. Some checklists used for PM checks are too long and complicated . Some of the checks cited by the manual
.
as being required on a daily basis are not so required , in the opinion of the tank commanders.
-
Tank commanders also recom m end reallocation of maintenance tasks to give the crew more responsibility in troubleshooting and simple field ad justment and repair.
Another item to be reported under procedural problem areas concerns reinstallation of equipment after testing. A test performed on the gunuer~s
I I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5_ _ _ _ _ _ -5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
67
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~
-~~ ~~
, ~~~~~
--
--5
l, w . ~c
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5
- --
-51
:~
periscope required that the cable to the periscope be disconnected and later reconnected . It was not reconnected and the connector subsequently be came enmeshed in the turret drive gear and was destroyed as the turret ~
rotated . It was not determined if there are specific procedures to cover
these maintenance operations; however, one must assume that they existed
(
and were not followed nor were adequate postmaintenance checks performed . The requirements in the preventive maintenance area therefore are a reallocation of tasks to give the crew more responsibility ( and attendant skills) in field maintenance, and standardized PM procedures structured in an easy to use checklist.
Safety Procedures
Tank commanders interviewed at the end of Phase II stated that adherence
to safety procedures need to be Improved , and that more emphasis must be given to safety during training. The objective should be to make the crewmen ~
S
constantly safety conscious. As an illustration, it was reported during a MASSTER briefing that safety procedures were being violated during removal of equipment; specifically the gunners periscope. This violation occurred at battalion level when the periscope was lowered from its position onto
S
the lap of one of the maintenance personnel rather than with the fixture provided for this purpose. I njury to personnel could result from such
actions. Ammunition loading Procedures The failure to use the appropriate procedure to load am mu nition revealed
problems during the full combatload test. In one observed case , the TC loaded all his missiles and then began load ing the conventional rounds . When he attempted to load the ready rack near the gunners foot, he discovered
that the rounds could not be loaded . This necessitated unloading
--
68
_ _ _ _ _ _
- -
5_ S~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
. I h I ~
5 - ~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_~ __S
_ __
~~~~~
___
~~~
_ S___
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5-
~~~~~~~~~~
5 ~~~~~~~~
: ~
~
S
three missles before another attempt could be made. The TC never referred to the Operations Nanual Th92350--232lO pages 419 through 422. These pages indicate in pictorial fashion as veil as text where ammunition is stored in the tank. This manual does not indicate the appropriate or most
.
L:~
~~
efficient sequence for stowage .

The problems of maintenance and ammunition stowage, as well as som e others, could be minimized by the use of checklists or decals displayed
~
~
prominently in the vehicle.
If used , these should be brief and concise and
very clear. One line reminders with the task and expected display or result
would serve well. Where a giv en sequence is optimum , the steps should be
~
S
clearly numbered . For example, in stowing ammunition a checklist could read as f ollows : 1 Remove missile pods
right ready rack
( 2 or 3) in front of lower
2 Load ready r ack

3 Re p lace mi ssile pods , etc.
:
The correspond ing numbers on the checklist should appear on the dia grams as an aid in indicating the appropriate referenced location . Operating Procedures
-
~
~ _ S~
The survey of communications procedure problems indicated that voice communication SOP s are either non existent or non available to a large pro
S
portion of crewmen.
This situation was observed thorughout M60A2 operations
and was not confined to the communications area. Tank commanders , gunners, and loaders were asked to what degree does
their tank interact with other tanks to spread the number of targets among
the tanks. The responses , by duty position , in terms of percentage giving
L~
I
S - S
69
_
S
____ _____ _____ _____ ______
~~~S - 5~~~~~~
--
-4 4
__ _ __ 5_ , - 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _
5--5 ~~~~~~~~~-
~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--5,-_c,__ _ ~~ --5. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5- ----5---
. - -w,-S----- - 5- -
-nfl.----
SS--,n ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
--5
each response were:

-
Response Nev er
S
Percen t Res pond in g
! S~
-
Gunner
41 27
Loader
50% 33 8
-
r~
L
5 -
-; ~
Occasionally
47
28Z
17
25 7.
Whenever Possible
Always
The results indicate at least two deficiencies In standardized proce :he frequency with which a dures. First of all, crewmen do not agree on ~ tank attempts to interact with other tanks to allocate targets, since pro
portionately twice as many loaders felt that it was never done as compared
~
~ (
with gunners. Secondly, it seems that a standard procedure does not exist , or that the crewmen generally are no t aware of it , or they are awar e of it but do not follow it. Crewmen were asked to evaluate the procedure used for alerting the
I
~
-
TC of a target when that target is detected by another crewmember
(other
than the TC). The responses of TCs, gunners, and loaders were as follows:
! . ~~
(
-
Gunner
17%
Loader
53%
~
-
Procedure not available

S
27%
~~
Procedure available but in adeq ua t e
1 0 14
22 27
1 3 24
22 24
1 3 1 3
1 1 11
~
5; I
Procedure is of borderline adequacy
Procedure is adequate Procedure is very good
-:
S
Once again a proportionately greater number of loaders are not aware

( that there is a procedure as compared with TCs and gunners.
~
I
TC s and gunners were asked what is the procedure to be used when they suspect a laser range finder malfunction . Responses were as follows ;
70
\
- kh~~~~
a. r , ~ 7
. -
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~
5-
~~~
- --5-
~~~~~~~~~~
-5-~~~~~~
-5 ~~~~~~~~~~~
i c.
Gu nner
~
.
Rely on visual ranging 16% TC repea t rang ing Gunner repeat ranging Cheek circuit break erssystems 40 30 12
~
~
31 33 36
6%
S
~
I
These responses indicate that either no clear standard operating pro cedure exists or that crewmen arenot aware of an SOP to assist them in making decisions of what to do next in the event of a laser range finder suspected
malfunction.
In interviews after Phase II, TCs and company commanders were asked ~
S
to identify what procedures, if any , sho uld be s tand ard ized and in corpora ted into an SOP. The list of identified operations was as follows: s tab iliza tion . sys tem opera tions
when to use it , etc.
~
~
require that the engine be running when turret power is required . a s tandard ize the freq uen cy of CBSS che cks
a use a d ipstick to check turre t f l uid levels ra ther than a

:
visual estimation of fluid quantity
y
S~
~
S
a target engagement techniques
carry .
position
simpl ified and s tandard ized prepare to fire checks .

~ -
standard ,
V
uniform
~
~
minimum acceptable crew size for training (should be 3 rather than 2 crewmen)
-
restrictions ,
C
on wearing binoculars around the neck
provision for using a hand microphone or loudspeaker
~ ~ C
ba tt le sigh ts
precombat checks .
frequency . missile .
of system exercise
subsystem checks 71
-S -5-
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
h~
-5
- --5
-5 -.~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ S
______
- ~ ~~~~
==
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
Si
_ ;
S
S -
Summary _
(
I
The primary problem for procedures
is the lack of standard
ized procedures. Ancillary problems include problems with manuals and check lists, dissemination of SOP s, and procedural training.
. S
3.3.3. Conclusions
Problems for Crew Procedures
. There is no standardized communications procedure Maintenance . procedures in the field are inadequate
,(
Adherence to safety procedures needs improvement , possibly thro ugh
increasing the safety motivation of personnel

S
Expanded use of improved checklists is required

~
~
~
Standard iza tion of all opera ting procedures and techn iques is
required
S -
~
~~~
5 - - --
72
5- - -
k~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~
: -
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
-5- -5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---
5- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
:
. ~~
3 . 4 Evaluation of Manuals
I
( ~
3 . 4. 1 . Results and Discussion

Questionnaires presented to crewmen at the end of Phase II attempted 4 % to determine the frequency of use and adequacy of manuals. A total of 8
~ f
-S
( ~
of 178 crewmen sampled indicated that they used the operator manual
( T M 23502321 10), with 71 percent claiming that they use it daily or weekly.
~-
A predominance of answers to the questionnaires Indicated that the operators manuals are frequently or constantly used . Actual experience based on direct observation reveals that this was not necessarily the case. There has been historically, a struggle to get personnel to use or refer to a manual for operations and/or maintenance tasks. The full combat load (Appendix D) test shoved that most crews participating did not use the operators manual nor follow the proper procedures listed in the manual. Further, the tank crew survey responses stated that the illustrations in the operator s manual were not adequate for usage. This is also true of the method in which the manual is bound . The binding is standard for paperback manuals. These are difficult to keep open to the appropriate
) ~
:
_I
,
S~~
_ S
-5
55
~ ~
( ~
S~ -
-~
~
.
page withou t b r ea k in g the spine of the manual or back.
A spiral or similar
binding with end tabs or markers would
prove more useful to the crew.
This would save considerable time spent searching for a particular proce
(
dure or sequence of operations. Often used and critical crew operating

S
procedures should be on separate moistureproof checklists.

Three maintenance manuals were rated as generally being inadequate across the board including clarity , completeness , accuracy , indexing , illus
:
-
trations, task sequencing , and task allocation. These manuals are:

S
1 TM9235023220/l Organizational Maintenance (Hull) 2 TM9235023220/2 Organizational Maintenance (Turret) 3 TM9235023220P Organizational Maintenance (Parts)
( ~
~~~
_________ -
-5-
73
~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5-. -
--5
~~
- -5
~~ ~~~ - -
~~~~~~~~~~~
r 2-~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
4 ~~~~~~~~~~~
r~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5 - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - -S---------
- - - -S~
S____S__ ,
Concerning availability of manuals, onethird of both crewmen and maintenance personnel reported that sufficient copies were not available. An additional 31% of crewmen stated that the full allocation was not avail
able at the end of Phase II while 23% stated that while the full allocation was available, more were needed .
The significant problems with the manuals include their size, indexing, format, illustrations , and binding . Numerous crewmen and maintenance personnel stated in interviews that use of the manuals was inconvenient and ( generally not worth the effort. As an example, the organizational maintenance
S
manual forTURRET, Elevating and Traversing Systems, Cupola, Gun/Launcher M60A 2 TM92350232202 (April 1973) contains 700 pages of instructions,
procedures , troubleshooting decision aids, and schematics for maintenance activities. The volume is difficult to use due to its size and the fact that the only index ( b y subject) is contained at the back of the book. Con sideration should be given to breaking it up into several smaller documents, organized by functional requirements and by tank systems. Better methods of indexing must be developed which should at least include the use of tabs.
Illustrations are usually difficult to find and , when in photograph form, difficult to interpret. Troubleshooting aids consist of a sequence of steps where, for long sequences, it is not unlikely that a user could overlook a
step in the sequence . Consideration should be given to development of graphic troubleshooting aids indicating what should be done next on the basis of information obtained at each test point. The current method of indexing is inadequate not only in its location but in its structure. If a technician wants the troubleshooting sequence for a grenade launcher and looks up grenade launcher in the index , he w ill
not find any indication of troubleshooting procedures. He may at this point
: & : ~~ -:
- 5
, ~
-5- 55-- - _-5__4_ ~~~
_ _ -5
__
74
_
~
_
~~~~~~~~~~
_
S -5 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~
_
~~~ S
-S ~ ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=- _ _ _ - ~ ~~~~
: :
1 ~
-
_____ _ S-5_ _ _S _ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~
S ~
5-S~ S ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that the manual contains no sequence for decide (with some justification) troubleshooting the grenade launcher. However, if he were to persevere,
I
~
and look under Troubleshooting in the ind ex , he would find grenade launcher troubleshooting and the page number for the procedures.
. -
~
~~~ i
This brings up a problem of organization of the manual. The document is structured by maintenance function and then by system descriptions. Thus preventive maintenance, checkout procedures, troubleshooting sequences, and electrical schematics are given in four different sections across all systems. Then separate sections are -devoted to system descriptions and data. If a maintenance technician wants information on the CESS, his initial
problem is that he must flip a lo t of pages of the index to find the desired
S
S ~
~~ S
S ~
-1
section of the manual. No page numbers are associated with any subheading of the CBSS in the index. The indexing, as presented in the manual, is presented below:
. -
i ~
S ~~ _
~~
Closed breech scabenge system Block conn ect or ( see conn ecto r ) Data ( s e e data)
k~
I
S , ~~~ ~ S
Hoses (see hoses) Inject promimity switch (see switch) Inject proximity switch actuating magnet ( s e e magnet)
Inject solenoid valve (see valve)
~~
~
C
Inject solenoid valve mounting bracket ( s e e bracket) Low pressure warning switch (see switch)
(
-
Main gun inject plunger assembly (see plunger) Swivel joint (see joint) Tubes (se e tubes)
S
C ~
,
If the technician wants information on the CBSS proximity switch, he is
~
-
75
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ ~~ :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~
r ~~~
S
-~~~~~~
---
--- - 5
_ _ S
sent (from the switch listing) to page 2655. If he wants CBSS troubleshoot
~~~~
~~
~~~
ing procedures , he goes to page 2142. For qualification procedures on the CESS he must go to 2118, and for the schematic of CBSS electrical connections
C
he goes to page 2 431. ( f o r which no reference exists at all in the index) The manual would be more useful
S ,
usable , and meaningful to this technician
jf all CBSS material was located at one place in the manual. 3.4.2. Conclusions
Problems with Technical manuals
Problems with manuals included :

S I
The unavailability of sufficient manuals for individual crewmen , at Pt. Knox and Aberdeen schools, and at Ft. Hood
S
Inadequate binding of the manuals

S
The large size of the manuals Inadequate structure and location of manual indexes
,
Inadequate organization of material in the manuals
Inadequate illustrations , in terms of quality, content,
and location with respect to relevant text
(
5I
-S
76
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S%~~~~ S~~ S
~55
-~
-\ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . 5-
-5 - ~ ~~ l.
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5
T ~~~~
~ ,
~ ~~~~~~
~~~~~
; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
r- -5 - -- - ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 5
-5-
--
--5- - - -
- S
S_SW
55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5-5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 55 S 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5 i 5,
3. 5 M60A2 Tank Systems Human Factors Design Evaluation

S
3 . 5 .1. General The M60A2 tank systems were subjected to a number of human factors analyses to identify specific problems with system design for :
design for operability
which includes evaluation of system ease of operation and effect of system design confi guration on crewmen performance.
design for safety

~ S
the degree to which the tank system design

configuration produces hazards to personnel
L~
-
safety. design for maintainability
the degree to which the tank was
designed to be easily and quickly

S S
maintained by crewmembers and main tenance personnel. Due to the pro

blems encountered during the ICTT
~:
~ ~
with maintenance supplies , only a minimal evaluation of design for maintainability was conducted.
:
S~ -
~ ~
As indicated in the study guidelines (section 1 . 0) , while problem

a.
areas related to manmachine interface design were identified , recommen dations for ~hanges or redesign were fornulated for those problems related to personnel safety.
I ~~~
~~~~
~
~~~ - . - ~ ~~~~~ -~~~ -~~ ~~~ ~~ -- -5 ~~~~ ~ -5 ~-5~~~~~~~~~--~~~~ c -5 5 - - - ~ -
-.
r ~
-5 -~ ~
---
- - 55 - 5 - - - - -
-- - 5 -
-5
5-- -
--
~~~~
3 . 5 .1 . Results and Discussion

3 . 5 . 1 . 1 .
-
Design for Operability
1 ) Gunner s Station
General Arrangement: The gunner s workstation was
generally acceptable for the arrangement, layout, and accessibility ~

,
of controls and displays within the station.
This was the most compact of the four crew stations. In that light, the station was down rated by the gunners with
U
regard to workspace, seat comfort, seat adjustment, ride quality, ease of ingress/egress, and hand and footholds for standup oper ation ( s e e Figure l5). The grouping of seat comfort, adjustment and ride quality was rated poorly because of the small amount of free volume in the station around the seat. The seat itself has been, in several interviews, stated to be the only crew position where the seat occupant is comfortable enough that he can relax. The poor ratings were more due to the space encroachment by structure in the gunners seat area. For example , there are
~
St
ammunition racks close by to the left; a long handled screw driver
on the right that rubs the leg; the manual gun elevation pump
S
handle and assembly under the left leg; and various protruding
I-
exposed bolt heads on controls. It is probable that it was those things in the seat area that were rated and not the seat itself. The compactness of the station helped the location and use , of the telescope and periscope to be rated acceptable. An item that could be a problem under certain conditions was having to view the elevation bubble through a mirror arrangement. The mirror became obscured by dust or b y fogging. The manual operation
IS.~
78
_ _
~ S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --. . - - -.-- - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ -5 : ; 5-- SS& S ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~
~~
5r. 5~ ~ 5 ~S 5~~~~~ S
~~
__________
- --
~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~
:
S
1 .)
u~ 5 4 a~ ~
~~
I fl~ - ! ~
I
I
I
~ ~~~ , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 14 Id $.
r 4 ~~ I
1 4
s_I
I ,
~
~
55 ~
S 5 5
: ~
u . 1
~~~~~ ~~~~~
C) -v4
~~ 4 1
.LI
S
~ t :
0~
a;
P4~ U U)
~~ S
1 4
~j c~ , , J U )
-
r.4
~4 . ~~
~~ S S
S S
;
S
1 l u)
. u
a-I
C,
rl
S~
U )
:
-
) 4 P 4
CJ
~
,
_
c~
~ ~
- SS
- u )~~ u
~~~
~~ n -) W
4
I i l-1 ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ S ~ ~S S 4 ~
S S S 55
1~ ~
;
~
4 . 1
14
k : -
_ _
( no
I~~ 4-4
-!
-
~~S ~ S ~S ~ S
S S S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~
1-4
.
I
s-~~ o . ~ C , )
a
.
-
j( ~ gi
&~~
5--
I I
~~~~ t_ 0 E_l
t
i 0 j
E
o~
.
:
S ~
zF c ~ ~
I
f-I
0 0
I
0
I
0
i n
I
~~
I
c9 ~
0
r~ -
, o
( ~1
79~~~
-5S
, ~
~~~~~ -S -S- ~
~~~
: -~~~~: ~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
_-
-. : : : -_ ~
-~
5-
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- -~~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S S
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
S -5 ~
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S.
power controls are not optimally located, but were considered Main Gun Conventional and Missile Operation: The
adequate for their very occasional use under abnormal conditions.
t
~
gunners were confident in their ability to perform the tasks necessary for them to locate, track, sight, range and engage
. ~ -
S (
target. (See Figurel6). This was validated by their gunnery range performance. Some difficulty was experienced by gunners in (See Figure2 . ) . This difficulty
nulling the drift from the turret.

~~I
was not reported when either the target, the tank or both had movement which required the gunner to continuously track the target. The null control task should become easier as more opera ting experience is gained in use of the relatively delicate controls , and as maintenance personnel became more experienced in maintaining the system. LaserRange Finder : The laser range finder gained
_ S
~
-
: ~
acceptance from the gunners. Gunners agreed that if the laser range finder did not agree with their own visual range estimate, they would range again with the laser rather than use their visual
~
-
estimate. Because of the location of the laser digital readout

S
it was necessary for the gunner to remove his eyes from the target in his signting device to read the range. This required reacquisi
.
tion of the target through the periscope. It was suggested that the
,
digital range readout be displayed on the periscopes reticle display . This would do away with having to reacquire the target after ranging. 2 ) Tank Commander s Station
~
~
s) General Arrangement: The Tank Commanders ( T . C.
(
5- - -
:~ p S
-~~ ~ ~ ~ 4-5 S . .~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
80
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
5-
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ _ -
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~
S S~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~
---
- - - - - -- , .
. .
-----,~~~~
- ----5
:--- - -
-- - - -
S .
~
S
ff4 f-I
u ~ $4
~~
~ s_I
s_I
C )
~~
p4
0 0
s-i
p ~
0 0
~~~~~ s_i
. ~~
. :
I L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
. I -
rh ::
FJ
~~~~
~
~~~~
~~~
~~~
;:;
~~
E 4
. r & ~~ : ~~~
o ~~ o ~~
~~~~~
~. ~~~ ~~ a S
41
~~~
Ow 00 >-. 1 4
~~~~~~
~-I U t ~
F.
~~ ~ ~~
I I I I
I
I
! . :
~:
~ :
~
~ -- ~~ S S
~ S
LL
1 ~
~ j
.
c ~~~ ~
4 4
1 ~~~~~~ I
-S
~
S.
;:
s_I
U) ) ~ f-I
: ~
z
U)
l . a U
0
~~
I_
I I
5 5
u c)
~
~~~ . .
bO ~~~~ . . i . l l
00
s I . I
r1 ic~ ~ E-4
U I_I
U U
.
~
. S
p.
5U ) f s ~~ U ) ~~~ U . I , S S
~ _ i
5-
1J~~ ~~~~~ o.
I4 0 r-I
~~~~~~
I 11 .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S
81 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. S S~S
is
S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5 . ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
. .
. -. -
~ ~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~
r ~
---- - -5 ~~~~~~~~~
5 -
--
~~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
;j
workstation was generally acceptable for the arrangement , lay . out, and accessibility of most controls and displays.
S
I
S
The physical parameters of the T. C.s station are more ~ thoroughly covered in Appendix C, Test of the M60A2 Tank Commander s Seat Assembly, and Subsection 3. 5.1.2. (Design for Safety) (Also see Figure 1 7 ). These references make it unnecessary to discuss further the T.C. station from that view point.
, ~
~
I
~
The one notable exception to control location accept ability was the T.C. communications contro].s. The preset communication selector and intercou~ ~
flation selector boxes ~
are mounted as a pair on the tank hull proper . As the T.C.s cupola is rotated from the 50 Cal. MG straight ahead position these communication controls become less and less accessible to the T.C., to the point where he cannot reach them at all. This Is less than optimum for any tank commander.
In the cases
of the Company Commander , Platoon Leaders , and Platoon Sergeants,

1
this becomes somewhat more serious, as it is routine for them tobe required to switch radio nets. The alternate preset frequency control box is at the loader s station behind his head and to
th e rear of the seat back.
With these locations , the loade r is
frequently required to get up and switch frequencies for the T.C.

(
The T.C.s machine gun assembly and operation received

some negative ratings by the users. The gun was mounted upside
down and at the point just before the belt fed into the gun there
?
was a two to three inch gap between the ammunition feed tray and the gun. At the end of a burst , the ammunition belt links, due
82
L ~
-- -
~~~~~~~~~
: . ~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5-,
T5-~__
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S _S___s_ sS___ _S ~~ ~~~~~~~~~
5 -5_ _ S
55-S ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
S ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
-5 - -
! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S
- -S
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~
~~
2~ Z
S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S
~~~~~ S-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
55
-5
~~~
1
S -S
f-I
.
. 4
c2
I .
l . a S
0
:
j ~ ._
p.
1-4
; ~ ~ S
I
. ~~~
0 cp
-.
5.4
~
~
5 S
I
I I I
t
-
P-.
0 0
54~
-
I f-I
I
; ~
. ~
t S
I
I
I
I S . -
~
S _ S
)( i-1
514 1 - E -JU o~~ u 0 ~~~ 0 0
0 0 ,-s
. 1-s o
U)
0
1 . J
(I)
I I
S ~ I
15-
I
~
S
S
0
--
_I
~
-
:
-5
L
~~~ w
4-) 4 Jp ( I , ) , _ ~~~ 14cc
U O J
~ l . l
~
I I I I
I
~
S ~~ 5 S~
I-
~ S
S S ~
cn
I I
1~
~ ,
-- 5, r . S
-5
~~~~~
~~~O 0 U
O 1- t
a,
o f-I
1 4 ~ U - 4 4
O~~~ I ~
r I
I 1 . )
~ -
~~~
U) 1-4
~ -
U P .
~
S
u ~~ , -4 5- .
0U )
~~~~~~~~~ . ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 1 I
r 4 ~: U
1 I U)
U 0
_4 _
~ -
~~~~~
a.,
_______________________ _ _, - S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
( I N . f-s
j
S S S
1-)
i.J O
1-.a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-. _
v)0 U
U M-4
,.
F
I 0 l 0
a O~
:
:
. .
I I
i
1
i
_ ~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ ~~~~~~~~
-4
L
I
~~
~
.
on.
5
C . l
I
0 N .
I
~0
I
u ~
I
~~
1
C~
0
rI
~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ - - S5i--,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
83
SSS S ~~ 55 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5 - 5-- -
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~ - -
SS--~~~~ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S-r5-- S5-~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: -5 ~ ~
to inertia, tend to try to buckle into this gap . For some unknown reason short bursts in particular tended to make the ammunition
S
belt break at this point. This created higher than desirable

number of 50 Cal . gun stoppages. Half of the participating per
sonnel rated the reload after a stoppage as difficult or worse

S
(See Figure 1 8 ) .
S
Cupola Control:
S
s reported the Almost half of the T.C.
task of nulling cupola drift as difficult or worse. This figure almost exactly matches the number of gunners who had some problern with the drift phenomenon. The task should become easier as operational experience increases. It was also believed that nulling the drift influenced the ratings received by the task of laying the cupola on the target.
Weapons Delivery: The acceptability of the new weapons
S
delivery aids was quite high. The use of the laser, its worth and the target designate system and components were all rated well by the Tank Commanders (see Figure l9). As with the other
S ~
crew memebers, they were confident in their ability , and demonstrated it, for both conventional and missile engagements. The
number of things they had to do and their order was quite accept
able.
3)
Loaders S tation The loaders station a nd h is p roven perf ormance of
S ( S
duties show how the man s adaptability can compensate in a work station with less than optimum conditions. The loader was required to handle large , heavy ( 4 8 to 60 pounds) objects with speed and cons ider able prec ision and h and/ey e coordina tion for successful p reparation to fire the main gun. This was not always
an easy task.
84
_ i _ __._~~ ~~~~~~~~~
_ S_ _ . . I . ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~
_ -S SS . _- ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
ki
~~ rI
1 . 0 P4 0 0 P4
-4
1.4 C)
14
1.4
14 U)
1.4 1 . 1 C.) .
U) -4 .0 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
. ~~
1 J
.
1 ~
. . I I
I
i
.
S.
~~~ 0 1 4 E-4 ~~
I W
0 JJ U)
U)
C.)
-
I
I
r I r 4 1H ~ 0 4 r-4 ~~ t
~
U)41
0 U) CO
L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
. 1-I
1 . 1 U) 1-i
_ _
$4
F-.
0 $.. CO 0 i J c~. P~
0)
0)
1 . 1 U)
0 U
1 4
U)
. 1:
U) U
_ L - -. -~
I -
0 0 1 1 0)
. - -
U )
. 1 I
i
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
0
I
0
I 0
~~
I
o
0
I
0
I
-U
0 0
. 4
o ~
c1 ~
-4
85
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- - - -, .- ~-~~~-r
S~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
- _ ~~~~~~ _
_ ~~__ ~~~ ~~
_~~~ S _____~ _ ~~_~ S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. -
U,
.1 1.4 14
0 0 P4 I . . 0 0 P4
1 . 1
1.4 01
-
I
I
4 1 . 0 )
0 ) 0 0 0.
14 0) 41
.
_ _ _ _
4 .
14 ~
1 S -
I I I
41
[
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0) r l oO oo . i l p . ,i
U)-
0 0 ) 0
0.
., 4 m
1 J
~~~
L
[ I
. -
1 w
0) 1 i . 0r 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:1 ~- 4- . I
I I
~~
.
I.,
-
1T
L J~
I
86
ft
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
General Arrangement
-i
The general arrangement of the loaders station was rated unsatisfactory. He complained of being hampered by a lack-of work space, and an uncomfortable seat with inadequate adjustment. The seat back/pan angle is acute and it is not possible to sit comfortably due to this. It also makes the seat backrest contact the back in a single, narrow pressure line. These may have influenced the mixed rating received by the ride quality of the tank. The standup operation hand and footholds were rated inadequate or unsafe by about one fourth of the loaders. They also report some
d iff iculty en te r i ng and leav i ng the tank under varying conditions.
The radio and intercom controls were located behind the loader s head and above and to one side of the seat back . This location required the loader to twist his body on the seat, or tand up and turn around to change the frequency selectors ( s e e Figure 2c1 ~. Coax Machine Gun (MG)
-
The coax MC received negative ratings on the way it was mounted , the coax ammunition feed system , and reloading if after a stoppage. Some of the rating was due to having to reach and stretch to load the gun with complete access impeded by some fixed r equipment installations. Main Gun, Conventional and Missile For a main gun conventional ammunition engagement the loaders were satisfied with their adequacy to operate the gun breech; peel the barrier bag from the round; the number of things they had to do; and the order in which they had to be done. Their adequacy was reflected by all crews successfully complet ing gunnery qualification, and a minimal number of very poor or poor loader ratings of them by their gunners and tank commanders
87
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~
~~~
--~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~
~~~~~~~
LI ~.
\ S ~ ~
W-S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---
1 -
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,C~~~L ~~~~~ S
* ~~ b- .
- -
~~~ . - l
5 -
S . .
43 0) U,.r ~ 14
U)
1 1 .
o 1W. o
- - - , ~~~~~~~~ - I ~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -~~~~~ -~
1-4
P4
E~~~
-)
--
~ -
; -
SI S
I.
- -i ~ ~~
~~~~~~~
-: . -~
1 . 10
U)~~~~
4-I 1 4
1 1 .
1 1 .
U)
0
0
~~ -
~~~~~~
0 0.t-4 0
1 z.
0, . ~~
0
-
$4
F
I
I
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
A~~~~~ .

:
S i --
~4
1 . 1 U )
~~~~~~~~~~~
,-.-
-S.-
0 .
CO
U -. _ _ _ -
I
0
I 0 0
I 0
I 0
I
-~~
I 0
I 0 0
0
-4
0 0~
I n
88
-5----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
- -~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(see Figure 21)-. A main gun missile engagement evoked the same general response pattern from the loaders as a conventional ammunition engagement . The peer ratings by the
~~ -
gunners and tank commanders also showed general satisfaction

0
s e e Figure s performance of their duties. ( with the loader
9 .), 4) Dr iv er s Station
General Arrangement: The arrangement of switches, displays, circuit
br eakers , etc., was rated as adequate or better by 78% of the

drivers. The layout of controls and their accessibility was rated adequate or better by 57% ( 2 2 ) of the drivers. An additional segment reported having a problem only with some tasks , but these did not preclude mission completion. The location of the intercommunication control pane]. was rated as borderline or worse by a majority of the drivers. This location could be improved , but i s not considered a serious problem as once the driver places the position selector to the
-
desired receiving mode, it is not necessary to change the control

S
for the remainder of the mission. The ride quality of the tank was rated as borderline or worse by many of the drivers. It is believed that much of this dissatisfaction is due to the problem discussed on the drivers seat (see Figure 22). Comport The driver s Seat assembly was rated by nearly all of the drivers as uncomfortable at least some of the time. The seat was continually uncomfortable to some degree to the major- .
89
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~
-p
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
F-
- .
-555
_ S ~~ ~~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5 -S
-~~~~
14
t ~~~~~~I
.-
-ri
S
_ _ _
0) 4- I ) ~~~ U
0)0)
p .
0 . 4.
T
~
z
0) 0. ~~~ O Q) ~~~5 4 3 0 U) O ~~~~ 00 U)
-.
_ _
-, I ~I
I-
-~~ -
CO
~~ 03
1 -1
I _
I I
- - ic r ~~~ ; -
F .1 ~
E-4 -rI~~~~
~ 9o
1w 0
0) 00
U)
~~
r4
U) 0
-
--
-- U
_
- 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~
43
I
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I -
U ) 1 4 U)
I I I I I
4 . 1
01
U)
$ 40 ) ~~~ I 0 ri 0
0) 01 P. 14
I 0 0
I 0 0,
I 0
I 0 0 0 I n I-k
I 0
I 0
I 0
90
__ L :
-
i5 ~
~~~~~~
-S ~~~~ ~~
-.- - . ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ -::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
S- -S ~~~~~~~~~~ L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I .
~~~~~~~~~
~ -. 4,
~~~~~
- S - - -_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I ~~~~~ 5 - -
4-
0) 0 , -i
0 P~ 0 0
r4 4- 10
4.1
01O
ii
U)
1 W
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~ -
1 . 10 1 0 1W
14
00
T
L
~
_ _ _
_____________
--
5- -- - -
5- . -
-~
ity of the drivers. Investigation of these responses led to the conclusion

I
that much of the discomfort was due to the small size of the seat back support and the lack of shock absorption by the padding material of both the back and the seat pan. The size of the back support is of particular importance to the drivers comfort due to the amount of pressure he generated against it in the routine performance of his duties, i.e. , changin g from accel-
S S
erator to braking. Without support from a generous sized support , he quickly developed pressure points and discomfort. This was esp ecial ly t r ue i f the small back pad did not supp or t his back in the lumbar and thoracic region due to ind ividual differences in anthropometry . 5) All Tank Crew Stations Environment
S
The internal environment of a tank during weapons

firing was unpleasant, h owever , more than 85% of all tank crew
--
personnel saId that the environment was at least bearable for

-
a short time. Insofar as the norm for weapons firing is generally short with interludes of no firing, the environment could be tolerated by the crew members. Noise The tank crew personnel were asked several questions for subjective ratings of tbe internal noise on the M60A2 tank . These ratings were to have been compared with objective noise data . Unfortunately, at the time such measurements could be made the local MASSTER noise level meter was inoperative and
-
92
.k.1
~~~~~~~~
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---_ - - -S~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~ _j_ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5~~~~~~~~ ;- . ~~ ~~ _
_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _______

I ~
-S5-S5~ S. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S S
5 5-5555--S_S ~_ _ ~
-~~
awaiting maIntenance. No objective noise data were therefore obtained With the exceptfon of the drivers , the genera]. response that Noise made communication difficult or worse, was selected by about 20% of the responding personnel.
cS
( s e e Figure 23) .
Because the interphone must be used for nearly all intratank communication , even this is less than de8irable . A total of 60% of the (40) drivers reported tha t tank noise makes communication
difficult.
(Figure 23)
It is essential that each crew member
be able to c ommun icate quickly and understandably to the others
in the crew.
-
When asked Wha t is the reason you asked to have
an interphone message repeated? the response of Noise level in

-
the tank was too high was selected by almost 38% of the personnel. This was almost 9% higher than the next most frequen t response , which was that the crewman was busy with other duties . The thir d most fr equ ent response dealt with the intelligibility of the transmission. Intelligibility has soi~ ie component of noise
which r elates to the lack of un der standing when the commun i cation was loud enough. (Figur e 24)
S
Th e pr ote ctive Combat V eh icle Cr ewman (CVC) helm et was intended to provide three function. Those functions were to
protect the head from blows; to provide a mounting for the commun
S
ications earphones and microphones ; and to prov ide noise attenuation . Thr oughout the test many of the CVC s we r e observed to be carelessly handled , dirty, and in less than optimum condition. The results of sampling at the end of Phase I and Phase I I I are shown in Figure 25. The general trend of the answers showed
93
I S ------- 5----- --- ~ _5-S5~~5~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _
--
- -
-5---
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
: ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~
v 4 S ~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______________________
r
-5-
~~~~
TIT
~~~~~~~~~~~ -
.55------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-S
1 4 0)
~~~
1.1
r1
p4
ri
S -
o
0)
I
_
0) 5 1
0
_
-Fl
0)
o s
_ _ _
4-I
I I 1
I
I .
i I
-
D-.
I. ~~~
0) 1
~~~
f-
~~ D ~.
r ~ ~
~~
~~
00
4.1
-I
U)
T I
r I
(3
I
I
-- - T
. - -
1 L
14
-~~
U)
~~
14
0)
~~
a
. 4-
01
.b U)
I 1
I I
---
. -
I
I
- . - ~~~ ~~~ . -. 5 ~~~~~ - --
-c
- - .
-
I
-
. -
55
1
-
S 1 ~ 3J~~~~~~~ J
I I
J ~Tn3TJJfl 0U1W0
3 0 . o ~
& ~~
a~ qjrsodui~
lSottI flJ 0
C~
J
0 v-I
r1 14
0 I Z
C!
-~~~~~~
0 v-I
a.
0
~~~
0
S
-~~
C4
I-k
94
~~~~~~~ ..
_ _
--
-.
- --- -- - --
- S
-.
- ---
....IL
- _ - - _ i -
- 5 -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
F---. _
S.--- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-:1
A
-
C . .
a.
U
L
I
0)
1 0 r 4
_________________________________________________________
F
_ _
II
_
--- . -.
..
: ;;-:-:: . -:;-:-: :- :. :~~ ~ ~
. ~~
U)
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
01
0) S
10
I::~~:::~:
.
. c . . . .
01
4
01
a.
01
0)
1 0
U)
E-4 . ~~
_ _ _ _ _
.-::.: J~~
_
cd~~~~U) U)
_
I *f :* f . f:f:f::f- 4 1 4 1 ~:-:-:-:: :-:-:.:~ ~~ -: -: - :.: -: .: .: . I~~ ::- : o ~
U )
L. ~
5
~~~
~~
1 0
I
. 0
I
~~
L.. ~
I 0
,-4
~~
0
0
v-I S .
0 0.
0
1
0
C ~~
C4
I-~ 1 4
1z4
(
-- 5 -
95
-5-
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~
55
5 5 5 5 ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ii
5 .
P4 P4
0 10 1 40
1-4 0
0) 0
an
I 41 -4.1
1 1 ) 1 I
: ~
o~ b 0.-4
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ZW
~~ S
1 . 1
-
U
0 0
W r ~~~bb
H
4,
1
H
1
-
--
--
E-4 ~~~~~~~~~
0 ) 0 1 1 4 0 10
~~~~
p4
P. .
I I
4 1 0 1 lJ r-I
I
S
0)0
p4
-II
-.cn ~ 4 1 0
-.-I 14
0
rI
1 40
S
1401
FS I
-S
T I I
U H H I-I 84 -, 4 ~ J ~~ 1
) 1 ~
S. - ________
i 14 0 0 P4 0 ~~ 0 10 v-I 0 0 rIr4
_
(D
S
_ _ _ _ _
-- -
- -
-f
H
_
II
_
_ _ S I --
I I
.u P ~~ 4 i ~
) 41 0
I 0.
I-I
96
S : ~~~~~~~ S _ S
improvement fro,n Phase I to Phase III. The response rate at the end of Phase III was still high for certain items. The physical condition, its fit and the noise attenuation, all rate negatively high for the primary means of intratank communication.
S
Warning and Advisory Lights: There is a significant lack of consistency in the use of color coding for warning and advisory lights at a ll crew stations.
The color red is used to indicate normal operation
bnormal , inoper a tive , or hazardous (not normal) conand also ; ditions. Guidance found in the U.S. Army HEL Standard S264A,
S
Human Factors Engineering Design Standard for Vehicle Fighting
Compartments, Displays, Color Coding states, Red. Red should alert an operator to conditions that niake the system inoperative, Military e.g., error, nogo , failure, malfunction, danger . Standard 1472 A , Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities, states that red shall be
S S
used to aler t an opera tor that the system or any portion of the sys tem is inopera t ive , and that a successful mission is not
possible until appropriate corrective or override action is
taken. Examples of indicators which should be coded RED are

those which display such information as nogo , error , failure , malfunc tion , etc.
97
______________________
--
-:
- ~~~~~~
S S
3 . 5 .1. 2 .
Dc ~Ign for Saf ~~y

-
1)
s Station (Dr ivet Drivet s Hatch)
While driving the tank with his head extending cut of the hatch, there were several instances of the driver being struck by the turret ballistic shield as it rotated . On one occasion an accident occurred that caused injuries severe enough to require hospitalization for the victim . Informal interviews with various drivers also revealed numerous unreported incidents where bolt
.
heads on the shield had snagged the drivers clothing and partially lifted him out of his compar tment.
A study was made of this hazardous condition (Appendix E) . This study revealed a reasonable means of significantly reducing the probability of the occurrence of this type accident/incident . The study showed that a movable roll bar type device effectively imposed a physical restraint on the height of the driver s head in the hatch , while still providing him with an adequate field of view. 2 ) Loader~ Station Loader Restraint
There have been instances of loaders who were not careful
I -
en ou gh in kee ping all of their body inside the turret perimeter as th e tu rr et begins to traverse.
This resulted in one accident
and many incidents , mostly unreported . The accident occurred whan a loader was using an ammunition rack as a footrest, and the turret was traversed without him moving his f on t . 98
-
The turret
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -.S -~~ ---55. --- -- 5--
~~
-5
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ss
~~~~~~~.
-5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[5
-S
-5- -
- --5---- -
555
~~~~~~~~~~
movement trapped his foot and it was crushed between the hull and the ammunition rack. Several toes were broken and the large
55
toe was partially severed from the foot. The loader Is normally the least experienced member of the
cr ew and therefor e more lik ely t h a n oth er cr ewmember s to forget
safety training and/or miss the implication of an intercom message that turret power is going to be turned on. A removable safety
screen which would cover the turret wall opening would prevent injuries .
Turret Drive Ring The left side of the loaders station has an exposed portion
of the turret drive ring which poses a significant hazard to the

loader . There is a good likelihood that his arm, hand or clothing
could become entangled in these gear teeth, resulting In severe injury if the turret was traversed . The configuration of the loaders station is such that some sort of an extension of the turret flooring or a mesh screen could be made to guard this hazard area. 3 ) Gunners Station Fire Extinguisher A portable carbon dioxide fire extinguisher was provided for use in the event of a fire in the turret. This extinguisher was stowed behind the gunner on the rear of the turret power pack. ( Observations and interviews showed that this stowage position severely limited the access to the extinguisher with no ammunition aboard . Due to the internal arrangement of the positions, access
-S
-5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
: I
51 ~
- - -~~~ _ t S . -5 ~~ - - 5-55~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
5 ~ S. ~ ~~-55-5 ~ s~ 5 -5 ______
5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
to this extinguisher is considered totally impractical with a full load of ammunition aboard .
The location of this emergency device must be changed .
Gunner s Right Leg Position

S
The physical configuration of the gunner s workspace is such that the normal position of his right leg puts him in contact with the hull. In tropical and moderate temperatures, this
has no safety implications . Weather significant ly below freezing will cold soak the tank and create a safety hazard . Experience has shown compression of clothing not designed for such use will develop a significant thermal leak. Continuous
-
pressure of the gunners leg against the turret wall in cold weather will result in frostbite at this pressure point.
4)
Tank Commander s S tation

S
Tank Commander s Foo ting
During the course of open terrain opera tion , several tank commanders lost their footing while standing on portions of the
-
T. C. seat assembly. The Tank Commander normally operated a moving tank, except when under air attack, with the hatch open and at chest or shoulder height defilade. This gave an adequate field of view for guiding the tank, and afforded the max imum chance for target detection . To achieve the desired height of defilade, it is necessary for all but the taller Tank Commanders to stand on the auxiliary platform or some of the seats ancillary structure, such as the height adjustment handle, or seat frame cross brace. The structures other than the auxiliary platform were not designed for standing
100
--- - -
- 5-~~~~~~~~~~~ -
- 5
_ _ _
on for extend ed period s of time. The structures are strong enough for the task , but do not by their own design have the areas or safety features to retain a weighted foot when a sudden unloading/loading of the weight occurs. A sudden weight unload / load situation occurs when the tank encountered significant unseen dips or uneveness in the terrain. There were two occassions when T.C.s were thrown from their footing and both fell against the hatch coaming and then --f
S
into the turret. Neither was standing on the auxiliary platform which is springloaded to the vertical position. One T.C. received bruised ribs and the other bruises on both arms and lacerations on one arm . Both were evacuated to the hospital for examination. A study of the T.C. seat assembly was made Appendix C) which discusses the seat assembly from another viewpoint. 5 ) All Stations Sharp Edges and Corners Crew members are continually beset by minor cuts and punctures
while working in the crew static~ s. One fell through his hatch
and cut his hand on the top of t-~ ammunition rack while trying to
break his fall. Edges and corners have not been blunted or rounded . Round ing of corners and blunting of edges will not affect the utility or or structural integrity of t~ a material.
101
-~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[55
S
_ _ _ _ _ _
~~ -
3.5.1.3.
Design for Maintainability
In Tank Company Commander interviews one CO indicated

U
that the problem with the M60A2 system, in terms of maintain ability , is that the tank is too delicate. Procedures for Another
quickfixing an Al in battle wouldn t work with the A2.
CO observed , in a similar view, that the A2 required more mainte nance than the Al simply because it is more complex . The primary
d i f f er en ce is in the t urr et sy stems , specifically the electrical
system. -
Maintenance supervisors who were interviewed also agreed
that the maintenance workload on the Al is less than that for the A2. While the tanks are automotively the same , the comp lexity
of the tu rr et and the sophistication of tur r et sub systems makes
it e x tremely d i f f i c u l t to locate failures , replace parts, and

S
repair single components . For the supervisors the greatest prob

lem is with the stabilization mode with the laser system running
S
a close second . Par t of the problem for the stabilization system is that troubleshooting procedures are Incomplete. In a Phase II questionnaire 58 main tenance technicians were asked if the M60A2 tank was put together so that required maintenance and repair could be performed easily. Two thirds (67%) of these personnel responded in the negative. 3.5.2. Conclusions
Problem for Human E ngineer ing Design

Wo r kspace
Crew stations were generally inadequate in terms of
Seat Comfort Seat adjustment Ride quality

-
102
. ~~~ ~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, S - -S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-5S_ - 5 5 ~~~
S ~~~~~~~~
s and driver s stations were Inadequate in terms The gunner of ease of access/egress . Handbolds and footholds for standup operations were inadequate in the TC and gunner stations The TC communication control accessibility was judged to be
- (
inadequa te
Safety hazards were noted in
the drivers head position out of the hatch the exposed turret drive ring in the loaders station inaccessibility of the gunners fire extinguisher the stand up position stability of the TC sharp edges and corners in all stations
F S S
S -
S 55-- - ~~S - 5 -:-5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -_ _ _ _
-~-~~:~~~~~
5-
S _ ._~~~_~ 5J. 55
~~~-
&- - - , ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~\ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ i
55:5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 . 6 Human Factors Evaluation of Communications Systems and Procedures RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES ON THE COMMUNICATIONS QU E STI ONNAIRE ADMINI STERE D AT THE END OF PHA SE I
General
The questionnaire was completed by 152 crewmen from three tank companies and the HQ company. The distribution of respondents by company and duty position was as follows: Com pany
Position A B C HQ TOTAL
Driver Loader Gunner Tank Commander
15 7 8
18 12 15
12 7 8
3 1 1
4 8 27 32
TOTAL
44
i. ~
60
M
41
. . i
7 152
S S -
Spec ific Problem s
Issues
Based on the review and analysis of responses, the following problems were identified : 3 2 % ) rated the operation of tank Almost one in three crewmembers ( rad io equi pment as poor or very poor.
27% rated intercom equipment as poor or very poor .
S
8 8 % ) of the The radio jack box is poorly located . A good majority ( crewmen reported having to move to see it, and 69% have to move to reach it. Visibility of the box is therefore somewhat worse than it s
accessibility. In a tradeoff of location for visibility vs. accessi
bu lLy, priority should be given to the visibility insofar as the crew will need to check control settings more frequently than they 104
hh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ a- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~
~~ -
-.
--
_ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r-r-r r z t a
5~~
-~~~~~~~~
-- 5 5- - - -
will change settings.

(
6 2 % ) don t know why they position their inter Almost 2 of 3 crewmen ( corn selector switch . This reflects definite deficiencies in training and in the availability of or knowledge of available standard opera
ting procedures. a While the loader has the responsibility of retuning a radio frequency while in the field , 557. of the crewmen sampled stated that it was the the TC. This confusion of roles and responsibiliresponsibility of . ties again points up deficiencies in training and standard operating procedures. 41% of the crewmen report that it is difficult to retune a radio frequency, probably due to the TC seat assembly design . 5 4 % ) don t know if their unit had voice Over half of the crewm en (
communications SOP or regulations. Again this demonstrates the need When asked if a standard for improved training and crew briefing.
S
voice communications procedure was used in their tasks , ~ one in five crewmembers said no, and one in three said sometimes.
If a standard procedure for voice communication was reported , 32% of the respondents still did not know where it came from , and 30% thought it resulted from local custom . Only 18% reported that a standard procedure is us ed for aler ting the
-
TC tha t a du ty posi tion is read y.

One In three crewmen don t know if tank checklists are available for srandard modes of operation. th ink they are not. 39% think they arc available and 28%
S
This reflec t s deficienc ies in crew briefing and
training , and checklist dissemination.
ip, ~
--55 -5 -
- _________
-5
f - S
55
- -5 .
5-
555-S----a- S ~ ~~
-- ---- --S-~S--5-~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~1
Two of three crewmen feel that checklists would be helpful.
About half of the respondents rated the physical condition of CVC helmets, communications set , and ear muffs as poor . 60% of the
crewmen reported problems with helmet fit. About 1 in 5 crewmen
S
had problems with headset reception at the conclusion of Phase III ( s e e Figure 25).
-
Half of the crewmembers report that ear muffs do not adequately attenuate vehicle noise. (see Figure 25~ . A good deal of confusion exists in responses pertaining to which crewman checks the ex te r nal intercom station. Again , this poin ts up the need for SOP and training.
-
Confusion also was reported when crewmen were asked whether the TC has a copy of the Signal Operating Instructions ( S O l). While the
crew should not know the contents of the SOI, they should know that
it is required and is in the TC s possession. training and crew briefing. Again , a problem for
o While the need- for improved communication procedures was evident

based on the pattern of responses throughout the questionnaire , only
S
77. of the crew recommended improving the procedures when they were
specifically asked if it is necessary .
I
-
(.
]S0( 1
-5
- ~~~~ --~~~~~ ~~~~~~
555 5
4 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations for change were formulated to eliminate or alleviate the effects of problems identified in the conduct of the human factors evaluation of the M60A2 tank system. The recommendations are pre
sented in the following areas:
Personnel selection Training

Operational and maintenance procedures
Manuals and publications

Equ ipment design (safety only )
Communications
4 . 1 Personnel Selection
Review the required skills and knowleciges for the loader position . Emphasize .
S
training, specifically on thejob training , over
personnel selection .
4.2 Trair4 ~~
1 . Course Content
.
Comprehensiveness or Scope
Additional emphasis on operator maintenance , specifically turret maintenance , should be placed on TC training at the Cadre School. Crew training on the use and operation of the night passive
devices allowed some crews to use the system more efficiently
--S
- S
- S
. - -
107 __ 5-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
_ _
~
1
i
5 than others during platoon ATT training and throughout the

-
test. Where feasible, targets should be set out at known distances and crewmembers required to detect and acquire during night training.
Both operational and maintenance crewmen should receive additional training with the emphasis being on handson training.
Many of the responses to the questionnaires reflect this
S
attitude.
Maintenance training should place emphasis on those new systems which were reported as creating the heaviest workload . These
include the stabilization, turret electrical, and the missile

guidance and control systems .
o Specialized training
IR driving system.
should be given drivers in the use of the
may be the result of the lack of training .

2.
-
re is reluctance to use the system , wh ich The ~
Course Content
Coverag~
o In train ing TC s and Gunners , additional coverage must be given in the follow ing sub jec t areas:
arma m en t, con trols , and eq uipmen t

conduct of fire
auxiliary fire control instruments and range cards

prepare to fire procedures conduct of fire trainer
opera tor main t enance

laser range finder operational procedures boresighting
108
L
I l _ S -S
~~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~
crew drill stabilized gunnery night firing
In train ing loaders , addi tional emphas is and coverage mus t be given t :
S
basic tank gunnery red uction of weapon malf unc tions prepara tion of amm uni tion for firing
identification , stowage , and maintenance of ammunition
S
crew ma inten ance crew dr ill

147385 mechanical training grenade launcher system self test
verification
recoil mechan ical check

misfire proctdures
align LRF em erg ency f ire proced ures

S
t~
In tr aining dr ive rs , additional coverage must be given to:
techn iques of f ire ad jus t range determination
oper ation of f i r ing m echan imn s

clearing misfires tank load ing
charac teris tic s of ammo
~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _
1~~~~~
.
S-S
--
--
~~~~~~~~ -
5 -
- -
55~
-~~~~~
befo r e ope r ations chec k (hull) startstop procedures

-
response to ground guide signals

level and varied terrain driving
perform as ground guide af ter op era tions check

use of opera tio ns ma nual and lubr ica tion order
s For maintenance training , add itional coverag e is requ ired on use of manuals and tes t se t s , and on the CBSS system . 3. Course Content
S S
Clarity
o
5
No unique problems were identified . Problems with course content clarity are closely related to problems of instructor skills and
knowledges and tra ining a ids and ma ter iels , and are treated in
those sections . 4 . Course Content
o
Consistency
One of the major problem areas identified for M60A2 tank crew tra in ing w as th e absen ce of co nsistency or standardiza tion of the course content as presented to different trainees. This
problem of nonstandardization applies equally to instructor

S
skills , training aids , and measures , as well as to co urse content. It is strongly recommended that the training to be
administered to candidate N60A2 tank crews in the future be formalized and standardized such that the information presented to different traInees is comparable.
-
5 -
110
-5 ~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~ -
~~~
55-S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5555
----
When local (unit) training is scheduled , personnel who are to
attend should be excused from other military duties in order to avoid interruption s of the class and to ensure a continuity of train ing for each crewman .
5.
Course Content
Compatibility
Criticism of M60A2 training often voiced by trainees was that the course ma ter iel was pr esen ted w ith ou t any cons idera tion to their individual requirements and capabilities . Thus, they would spend what to them was excessive time on subjects they
already u nde rs tood , leaving less time for areas where they
needed more intensive instruction. This problem must be resolved
in conjunction with the resolution of the course content consis tency problem cited under Item 4 above. The training course
es tablished fo r M60A2 tank crewme n mu st be be tter for m al ized ,

structured to a greater degree , and standardized . It must at the same time be flexible enough to effectively tra in crewmen having a wide range of natural ability and motivation. Two
approaches se em feasible to m ee t this flex ib ility req uirem en t: programmed ins truc tion , and availability of trainers and train ing a ids in su ff ic ien t numb er to enable crewmen to prac t ice
specific operations on their own. The programmed instruction
app roach has the advantages of being selfpaced and being

directed to individual training . Consideration should be given to the use of programmed Ins truc tion tech n iques to supplement
_ 5-55 SS ~~~~~~~~~~~ -
111
5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. ~~~~~~~~~
S ~~~~
55-~
5--- 5 5 ~ S-5- ~ 5S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5-,-
classroom instruction. The availability of trainers and train

ing aids appears to be the more effective approach to enabling trainees to devote more time to areas where they or their instructors feel they require additional practice. Such devices~
can range in complexity from simple handouts expanding on classroom material , to sophisticated tank trainer systems. These viii
S
be discussed in greater detail under training aids and materials. ~ 6 . Instructor Skills and Knowledges o It is recommended that either skilled instructors be used for
training, or that battalIon personnel selected to instruct others be administered a short course in how to effectively instruct.
(
They should also be provided with - lesson plans , handouts for the
class , and training aids (visual aids , mockups , et c . ) .

Ill
7.
S
Training Aid s, llaterials, and Media
o A variety of crew trainers (mockups) should be developed . Each

crewmember should be given the opportunity to receive training in a mockup of his own crew station . This releases operable hardware ( tanks) for other uses and provides crew and equipment
safety . Crew safety factors could be emphasized without endanger lug personnel . Also , m alfunc tioning trainers would be easier to repair than actual tank systems . These mockups could also be constructed for use in maintenance training . In developing any trainers , considera tion must be given to at least two factors: ( 1 ) fidelity of the trainer and , ( 2 ) cost. Obviously, the
trainer with a higher fidelity or representation of the system will have a higher initial cost but could save considerable money
112
5_SS~~ S~-S -S _ ~ ~~~~~ 4~~~~~~_ ~ _5~ ~~
flw -
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S
j
after - usage. It precludes tying up operational hardware and provides crew and equipment safety .
-
. For training aids used in classroom instruction , suff icien t aids should be available to ensure a ratio of no more than four studen ts per a id , and preferably two students per aId .
o As with course content , the train ing a ids and mater ials , in-
cluding lesson plans , handou ts , and mockups need to be standardized so tha t the effec tive ness of the aid s and
materiels can be established , and also to ensure that all
students receive the same training. 8 . TrainIng 1-leasures and Criteria

o
Standardization of measures and criteria is the most critical requirement. Measures should be derived based on standard
tests (paper and pencil, oral, demonstration). Tests should

S
be cons truc ted such tha t the eval uation ca n iden tif y weak
areas for remedial training.
Criteria should be expanded beyond a simple pass/fail to enable and facilitate identification of weak areas when additional training is required .
-
The pregunnery examination should be restructured such that each trainee proceed s through the course on two different
__ . L ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 =
~~ S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5555 _5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S S~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~
occasions.
In the first session , he is tested and scored . The
scoring is done , however, only to identify weak areas. Kemed ial training is provided immediately, prior to moving to the next station. After completion of this session, the trainee proceeds.. through the second session where formal testing is performed . Scoring should be structured such that at the conclusion of the formal test, the trainee passes the course, requires additional remedial training , or fails. In this situation , remedial training will involve reprocessing through the gunnery course
with special emphasis on weak areas identif led in the test. Action to be taken in the event of a fail will need to be deter-
m ined on a pol icy basis.

4 . 3 Procedures
Following is a list of the recommendations to be made tha t rel ate problems aggrava ted by inadeq ua te procedures:
S
to
A standard communications procedure for both message content

--
and frequency of reporting should be established and enforced . This would ensure clarity (understandability) of the message and reduce traffic to the absolute minimum required. During ATT training, i t was no ted tha t un it leaders did no t assign targets to any particular element under their command when multiple targets were acquired . Such a situation could
lead to overkill on some targets with the remainder not receiving fire or detection. This was probably a training peculiar con-
d ition ; however , this procedure should be practiced whenever
114
______
5 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ii i
~~~~~~~- --
-~~~ --~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ________ 5 -
-- S S S - -
possible to produce ingrained behavior .

Procedures should be established to ensure that crew daily
S
maintenance inspection and servicing is performed to preclude
equipment damage. Moistureproof checklists and/or decals should be fabricated

S
for use at each duty station.
These should be constructed for
those procedur es wh ich requ ire the use of j ob a i ds , whether
routine or nonroutine. These checklists should reflect the sequencing of steps as outlined in the various appropriate manuals.
To gain access to the conventional rounds located in the lower
righ t ready racks , the procedure for conductoffire should

require the -loader to use the forwardmost missile around the
gunner s compartment as the first missile round to be fired .

Conventional rounds cannot be retrieved without the missile and pod being removed .
S
o There is a general requirement for improvement and enhancement.

of standard operating procedures . Tank commanders and company
commanders repor ted in in terviews tha t the follow ing i tems need
to be formalized as SOPS:
c~ s tabiliz at~~ n system operations
when to use it , etc.
requir e tha t the eng ine be runn ing wh en turre t power is required
standardize the frequency of CBSS checks u se a dips tick to check tu rre t flu id levels ra ther than
a visual estimation of fluid quantity

targe t engagemen t tech niques
1 1 5
-
- __ _ _ _ 5555 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
~~ S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- S - 5S~~
5-
carry position simp lified and standardized preparetofire checks standard uniform minimum acceptable crew size for training (should be three rather than two crewmen) restrictions on wearing binoculars around the neck provision for using a hand microphone or loudspeaker battle sights precombat checks frequency of system exercise missile subsys tem s checks
:1 -
4 . 4 Manuals The manuals used to support the M60A2 were found by human factors stan dards to be Inadequate. -This was supported by responses on the various questionnaires administered to the tank crews and maintenance personnel. In order fo r manu a ls to receiv e more widespread use and become more effective, the following recommendations were formulated .
Sufficient manuals should be available to individual crewmen during training . The manuals need to be revised with regard to arrangement. For
S
example, the 10 manual ( T M 9235023210, Operator s Manual)

would be easire to use if all aspects of a duty station we r e listed in one subsection. ( As it now stands , informa tion for
the driver is found in pages 22 through 215 , 255 through 265, and 2147 through 2151 rather than all being under one section concerned only with driver requirements . The same is true for all
duty stations so that a technical manual user must skip from see tion to section to find the information he needs. A saving on time
116
5- 55555 -5 -~ 5 5 -~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
55
5 5
55- 5555 W
SS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and reduced confusion would result from rearrangement. In keeping with the concept of rearrangement, unbreakable, moistureproof ind ex tabs should be employed to enable the user to immediately find the section in which he is interested . A type of binding which allows the document to lie flat (remain open) Is required . It Is d i f fi c u l t to use a manual that keeps flipping pages when one is attempting to follow insttuctions.
5
In content, the ins tr uc tions m us t be clear as m us t be the illustrations. Instructions and illustrations which are not
clear contribute highly to nonuse of a manual.
When operations must follow a particular sequence , this should be noted and specified in the manual . Frequently, shortcuts
will be attempted which lead to damage or nonoptimal operation or repair of the system .
Considera tion should be g iven to bre ak ing up a large ma nual

-
into several smaller documents.
The organizational manual ( 2)
has 700 pages of materiel for the turret mechanic. This material could easily b e seg m e nt ed a t leas t b y user and ,
S
for maintenance users , by system or b y ma intena nce func tion

( troubleshooting, ins talla ti on , qualification test , etc.).
o The primary defect with M60A2 manuals (and with most operational
and maintenance manuals) is that they place too much emphasis
on compr ehensiv eness and coverage , and not enough on user requirements and constraints.
Manuals and checklists are generated with
the intent of including , under one cover , any and all infor m a tion
I
_______
-
~~
~~ :
-~~ 55-~~
which a user might require, without giving due consideration to
the time, effort , workload , and skill requirements on the part of

t he user to f ind the in fo rmation that he n eeds t o use it
effectively to perform his designated activity. Consideration should be given to other approaches to present information, such
-
as gr aphic f low diagrams for troubleshooting or installation,
programmed checklists for computer driver display, and generally a wider use of symbology and graphics as opposed to pages of text.
4.5
Desig~, As was specified in the Introduction to th is repor t, design problems
were only to be noted and no specific recommendations made except where ( crew safety was involved . Several design problems were reported during the conduct of the test which were safety oriented , these being the TC foothold! handhold problem (See Appendix E, Driver Safety Study) and loader safety.
Recommendations made in this section will address only these problems. The reader is referred to Subsection 3.5 of Section 3.0 (Results and Discussion) of this report for the enumeration of the other design problems .
During the course of the ICTT, several TCs were injured

when their feet became dislodged from their footholds when
the tank struck a ditch or depression. A study was performed

. ~
to determine the adequacy of the TC station ; particularly the

seat assembly (including the auxilliary platform) since this is the primary footrest. The recommendations made included
-
investigation of a seat assembly similar to that used in the

M6OA1 tank and improving the footholds/handholds available in the M60A2. Some specific changes which can be considered ( would be allowing the main platform to rise higher on its rails
-
[ 18
~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~
~~
than it currently does. This platform provides a larger surface
area than the seatframe cross brace does and would not allow the TCs feet to slip off as readily when a ditch or depression is encountered in cross country travel.
. S
The M6OA1 type seat would also allow the TC to sit during cross country travel, thereby lowering his centerofgravity as well
as providing comfort. Re would again be more resistant to being
dislodged and injured . One of the loaders received injury to his foot when he allowed his foot to protrude outside the basket. When the turret was
traversed , his foot was crushed between the turret and an

ammunition rack which provided a convenient footrest.
The
opening in the turret is necessary to allow access to ammunition
storage racks; however, an easily removable screen guard would provide protection and still provide access when necessary. Driver safety problems were reported when two , on separate occasions, received varying injuries from being trapped betwecn the gun tube mount and their compartment hatch openings. One of these received severe facial injuries ( i . e . , crushed cheekbones and severe lacerations requiring approximately 1 6 sutures)
when he was scissored in this manner . Other drivers reported incidents where exposed bolt heads on the gun tube mount weather shield snagged the driver s clothing and lifted him partially out of the compartment. A positive restraint of a rollbar configuration was recommended to keep the driver below the gun tube mount s lowest point. A mockup was fabricated and tested
119
~ -5
5 5
~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S~
5 ~~~~~ . Sss _-
.L~~~~~~~~ s.5 . . 5 _ ~ _
J s i ~~~ .
.. .
5-
5-5~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _. ._ . .
~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~
______________________
~~
5 -
r r
(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
5-
5--
and proved to be feasible . It is recommended that such a device be employed on the M60A2.
S -
There is a potential for the gunner , due to his seating/workspace layout , to be exposed to frostbite when operating under cold
weather conditions. His right leg is forced to rest against
th e tu rr et wall , compressing his clothing. This could result

-
in a thermal leak where his leg would become cold the turret wa-li
soaked through
and injure him . Additional insulation on the
leg would prevent this . o The five pound portable fire extinguisher should be relocated to be more readily accessible in the turret. With a full . ammuni tion load , this unit is hidden and could not be easily used in an emergency. Sharp edges and corners should be removed to eliminate cutting
and/or puncturing of personnel. Where materiel thickness does not permit sufficient. smoothing, . the edge/corner should be
--
covered with a protective materiel ( e . g . , teflon tape, etc.)

to preclude injury to crewmen.
The turret drive gear ring is exposed just to the loaders left
_ f
55
side. It is con-ceivable that the loader could become enmeshed in this ring as the turret is being driven and sustain injury as a result . A simple screen guard covering this ring would preclude such an injury from occurring .
3
(
120
5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , 5555 S~~~~~
- .S-55-~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
55--
-5
----- ~~-~~~~
55-
- -S
-
.
55
APPENDIX A Prel iminary Task Analysis

M60A2 Tank Crew Operations For: Pre/Post operational check
. -
Carry mode op era tion
I-
-.
Conduct of firemissile engagement Conduct of fireCOAX engagement 5 0 caliber engagemen t Conduct of, fire .
.
Conduct of fireconventionalall modes
I
- - -5 - 5 - S _ .5_1. ~~~L .. _ -
5 - _~~ S SS_ ~5S~~~~ ~
___
__ _
__ ~___
~~~~
-~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -55 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~5-~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________
. ~
~~
-~~
- .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S
______
. 0
4 1 r1 ~ 1 0
-
. 0
1 . 1 r4
~~
U
U)
44.1 44-i
$4 01
1.1
~~
41 0.r4
. . -1 ~~~~~ 1
0 .0
~~94 0 31I
~~
0
~~~r4 , (d
0 .
oj ~~ 00 01
~~
~~
U ~~~ 41 0 0 1 0 4 . 1
r l
~~~~~ 5
(0 ~~~
,-I ,0 I $41 01 ~~~~~ 4 1 0 . U) .-i , c

(0 0
E l I 1-i rl 5 .r4
$4 0) I r1 5 ( 0 14 ~ 044 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 4.1 0 $4~~~ 0 1.10 0) (1) 0
,I . ~~~ 0001
1 . 1
Cd
0
.r ~
~r 1
r-4
01
1 4
1 . 1 01
U )
01
~~~
0~~~ 0 ( 1)
01 0
0~~~
.,-4 41 $.4 r4
0.1 0 u , c
H I ~ .
1-i
(d c.
~~ 01 ~~~ 0.10
.
U~~~ u 4
.
0.0 01 0 ~~ , UI . 0 0
010 . r O
0(0 r 15 ,-4 $4 O ~~~ c oc

$4
r-l
$4 4-I
(0
~4 Q 41
~~~~~~
~~
.
S S
~~~ 41 , ~
1 0
0 1 . 1 . tdrl
-.. U
U~~~ U) U )
r4 g~~~ i ~~~~~ 41.4 0) 4W 00 5~~~~~~ 0 $44 1 - 1 4 . 1 0 1 0 0 0J 4 4 $-4~~r1 El O 1 0 k ~~~ 1-I 0 10 ~~~~ ~~ l 4 .1 (0 ( d l , -1 4J 1 . 1, 0
~~ 0
01 4-4
0.1
U 0) .I 01 o,
U
1 . 1
0 0 l .~ 1-4 0) 1 . 1
r1 01
U 01 S
-4
01 . O~~ 0
00)
~~~
.
. 0
. -4
0 Z 0
I I
E~4
1 . 1
U)
C)
0)
0 >~~
r1 0)
1 4 0) ~~~ < ~~~
00 rI ~~~
$4 . ~~
4$
04
o
I
1 - U)
0
44
004
. 0
0)
41.0
0 1 0
~~~~~~~ (0 1.1
4144 00
0
p4
I ~~~
$.4~~ r4
1441
.
~~
Ci)
3.-I
P
~
,4 ri
r-4 0
~~~~ 0 0
( 1) 0 0
.
~~
,-
o
~~
~~~~~~~~~~
r41 0 0 ~~~ . r - I
C)
Z
U)
4$ C.) . . . . . . . . . .
0 ( 1) ( ~~~ 0 1 0 00 0 0 ~~~ (0 0 019-I 0 .0 W
I 0 4 03 (1)
( 0 0 0 10 . 0 1 . 1 41 14 C) C) 0 ~~~~-4
$.0
0 41-4~~~~ 1 14 0) ~~~ O .0 41 0 . 1 ~~1 rI

r-4 C) 0 1.1
5
4 44 $
(0 ~ 0 0 )
1 44
(1) 41
0.0
4-1
-4I 5 4 1 ~
(1) 1
. 0 4 4 .-3 0 0 0~~~ C)
Cl)
0)
4 4
r4 ~ P$4 ~~ ( 1) . 4 1 . 0 1 0 0( 0 ~
444 r-l I4-4
.0.0 0 0 0
Lf~ 0 . ~ k I
(0 1-4 (00 r-4 1-)
V~ r4 01
0) 4 4 444 $
1 -i l 0) ( 0 41,0 ~
0
~~~~~ U
Li ~~
0 4-4 0 .0 . 0 C)
U r4
0 . 0 U
0 .
0)
04 4 ~ 0,
Cl) .4 1 4 ~ 4.4 14 1
COO ~.4 4J 14 0 ~~~ . U)
0 0, 0
0.1
0)0 I-i (iN Us I
010 ) 1-4
O
rI
~~~ U
1 4
( 4 4
4$ 3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
Ci)
4 1 0 $ 4 1 4
U ) COW ~~ 1 0 U I
- 0 1- 1 0 1 0 4 1 0
. ~~
. 1. 1-1 1 0 0~~ 0 U ( ( 4 ) 00 1 0 14 4
0
0 O14O U
0 ) 00 d . 0 ( 0 0 0 4- 0
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
p ~
rI bO Cl) O rI d ( 0 O O O 1-4 03 r-I 0 14 0 . ~~~ 0 U C 0 0 3 1 40 ~ . ~ C)

0) (0 (1) . 0 0
. r4
4/)
0(0 00,0 14 0 O 0 1 N. r I , 0 04 1 > - 0 U)
SI
1-i
-. 0 0 1 0 14
0.0
-
0 0
Cd
,-4 41
P~ ?
~ 0
. - I .--4 ,-4 4i
H f-i
. ~
4 1 0 . 0 1 - 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 ) 0 1 ( 0 1- 1 4 ) 0 ) 0) ~
~ 0
rI
, 0 0 4 - 4. ~~~~~
iI S 0 ) 0
CU
4-1 vI
1-i
1 4
0)
0)
01
cO
O) Cd
0 41
0.1.1 0
0 0
Uo.
40
0 0
, -I
(0 0
0) 0I ~~~~~~0 0) 0 v-I 0 0 . 1 0.1 0 4.1 - 4 1 1- . I 1 ) 4 0 1 0) 0 5 1 1 . , 0 1-1 , 0 0 ,0 4 1 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 . -U 0 . 4 1 ,-4 41 1 4 4 J 0 ) 0 (13 (0 $4 .v-4 1-i d 0 E . - l E .-I ( 0 O~~~ W~~~ Cd O~~~ 0 0(0 1 4 0 ( 0 0 . 1 0~~~ 4 1~ I1I 0 . 410.0
UCO
00 0 .0
4. ~ 0
0 . 0 1 ) 00
1-4
01
( 1 )
0 0 0 . I .
4 . 1 00
4.1 00 1-1 0 0 .-I
14
4-)
0)
. 4
0(0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 1 4( 0 (13 0. 14 C) .4 ~~ ., 0) 14 0 1 4 .0
$-4 01 r4
0 0 ) 0 1 . 10 0
0 .0 0 3 0 5 1 40 . 4 1
0 I
4.1
ci
.rI
0
(0
1 . 1
0.
0
0)
11 0 0.41 0(0
(1)
4)
0 0
u ) q .r l 1-1 1 4 .0 .
4 0
. 0
4.1
0
1-4
0 ) 1 0 1- . 0 . 1 40
0)
00 )4 10 4( 0 1
1 4 0 0 , 0 0 0..0 C) 0(0 0 .0 0 0 0 d
U ) . -4 U Ci 0
.-I,0 0~~~~~~~~~ 4 . 4 0 0 ) 0) 0W>4 -i-I r-I CO zl .4 0. U 0 ,) , -f $.4 v--i l-I U ~~.~ 0 4 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 ~d 0 ) 0 0 . C ) .r4~~~ . 03 .-4 C1 .-I ~~~~
0..0 C) 0(0 . - I
~~~~~~~~ 0 ,-l cd 0 . 4 4 0
55-
o
f-I
0
~~
1 . 1 0 4
~~4 0 .
0 1 0)
1-1 C)
3 .
4)
0) 041)
4 0
0 0 0
(T3
0
0
0 ,0 0 iI U
Cd
14(0
0
0
Cd
, 4
14 t::)
c4 P-i 04 I
Ci) 51
0 0. 0 U 0 .U
001
- .
4 0W 1-i . ~ 1-1 0) .00 U C . ) 0 0 1
10.-I 1400 1
0) 0
.
0)0 r~ 0 0)0
.5 5 . --
~4-l
~~ 0)
0
00
0 1 - .
4$
4-4
~~ c~
d
5 ~
r-4 r ~ r-4 4.J Cd l))

) ~) ~ 4 10 . 0) 0 U) 5
0.0 0
d O)
0 4 1 0 . 0 1 0 1 4
0 0 . 0 1 ,-l J ~~~ ~ Cd (I)
$ 0 0. 0)
14 4.
1-.
0 ,-i
(4)
rJ)
v--I
0 0. 0
0 0 . 0 -
1-1 0 0 .
Ii) 0)
34 .
. i-. 4 Q) 3 d ~
0)
0 c1 14 ( 0 0 0 1 0 ) 0 O rl I 0 . 0 0 00
C)
0) 4-i
1-i 01 0) ~ 14 4. 0 0 ) 0 1 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 .0 OI 01 ~~~ 0 (1) 0.1 0 . ) 1- 44 0) 0
4-4
0 ) 0 3 0 . 0 d r
. 0 0
4)
0
. .
1-.
14 ~~~~~
..
0)
. 40 0 41
C.)~~ Cl)
0 1 . 0 41.0 0 . d
0 0 0 . -IJ
0 , 0
d l-)
1 4 (0
( 0 0 ( (0 03 . 0 4 0. 000 0 0 (0 .-l 0 3 0
0 ( 0
1)
rI
1 . 1
(1)
(4) 0 . 0 0 4.1
Ci 0) (0
0
I U
~~~~~~~
- 4 01 0.14 03
0~~~~
0 d - 0 14
( 0 00

( 1 ) 0 0 ( 0 0 < ) 1 4
-
014
0 0
4-4
4 1 0
W O
5-d
C.)
o~~ (1)
-i-- 1 4
(O C.)
1-~ .-4
0. IJ
~~~~~ 0.10
0. 0
0) . 0. ~~~
1 . 1 v-4 P . 1 0 -i-I 0 .-I 0.4-4
.4 -4
0 0)
410
O0 ~~~ 0 4-i 0 ~~~ O cd

4-4 li. rl
0) 0 . W d 4-1 U 4
0.0 (000 0 .-l .-I 0 34)4 00 1.0 5 0 0 Q.

0 i-4 1 . 1
ci Ci
v--I 0
0
0 00 .
O
0 . 14 0)
0) 0 ( 0 0 ( 0 1 4
. 1 .-4 1
1 4 4
.~~
0 0)
COO
< 1 4
Ci) ~~ (-4
F-i
0 .0 4
II F-I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
55
~~~~~~
1 .
_____________ _________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -55
s .-.
S - -
55
55- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
- -~ -55
~~~~~~
~~~~~
.1
a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ -
-S
0 ~~
~~
0.0 0 4-) dr l 34 1-4 0 . 0) 4-i r-I
0 1 0)
Cl) 0 )
0 1 4 3
10 Cl)
-:
9 ~~
r4 4.1 ci 1 4 4) 0.
u. 0 (000
C . 3 d . 1 1 4
1 04~ 0.0 (1) 00
0 . 0
1 I 0 0r 4 0 41 0. 0 - ( 0 -1 .-l ~~ 0U< .i
0 (l)
(ii
0 3, 0
4-1
i-I
o
Z
~~
- . ~~
0 v--i
Orl . 1 ~~ 1
Cd l-i
(1)0
0) 41 ,-I
- 0
00
0 d O v--I 0 4 111
tOo
0 ) U ~~ s
r ~ 0 0014
0r 4
0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 4 ~
0 v -d I 0 0 0 0) 4 . 3 14 0(0
-. 0
l41 O0 . d 4 ~
0
4..
0) 1 4
-J
4$
o
p
-rI CO 0 3-i
0) i :i- .
1 4 0 ~ 0)
4.1 4.1 1 0 1 4 . 0 0 0 04 - )
0 - .-014
0
(-4
-
0 0
00 1
-.
0)
0
4z4 0 4)
4 1 . 0 -v.1
5
0 4. 0 0 0 (1)
.,-l
04
0 04
0 .
0 0
1 4 0
tL ~ -d
0~~~ 0 f-I C))
1 4 4 . 1 -.-4 e~~ .- .34 ( 0 0 - d C) 4-i --f

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( I )
Qj
Q)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, ~~~ I 0 r 4
0 0 1 40
0 II
1 4
-
S .
(-4 0 0
-l j 14 .
4$ 4 $-
0) 0 1
0 0 II
0 p - ~~ 0 0
~ .i
04
OOr-4 . 0 0 ( 0 0 0
-v-I
0 5 . It~ 0 0
I
U)
0 I--4
~ 0)
< 0 1
0
0
. ) 0 0
~~-
(0 d0 ~~~ ~~ 1 . 1( 0 0 0
00(0.-I
0
(-4
55
- ~~~
(-1
4/)
. ~
(-4
II
0
U)
_ ~~ S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -55 - ---- -55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ __ _ _ j. ~~ ~ ~
5 5
-~~ -~~~~ -
- - . -
55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.--- ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
~~
(13
U~~ 4~~~~ U -.-1 4-i

) 1-1 0 11
$ 14 0 00
I-
~~ 0~ ~~ ~~
Il-I
iI
00~~~ 0 0 0. .0 0
140UCO 0 0 0) 0 U 14 ~~~ 0
Q)
0 4 1 I 1 -
1 4( 0 1 . 1
-~~
C/)
1 . 1 01 00 ,0 4-1
Ci)
0) 0 3 ( 0 - i - I C.) 41 14 ) I .34 0 Q) 4- 4144-4 -.-1 4 ~ (1) 0) 0 . 0 0 d O O 1 4 ( 0 5 1 4 ~i-. 0. t 1 . 10 ) 0 04 1(0 0 o 0 0 ~~~~~5

4-I
-1 1-i t--I 1 4 4 1 . 0) 4 5 1
0 0
.ri
0)
0 S -s 34 .
0
00
Z
II II
0 14
-
0~ 1$ Z :~ 0
IC ) 4 14 1 00 ) 0 0) 1 40 0 ) 0 ) 0 4 1 4 E l 0. 0 0 0 ) 00 5 1 4 0. - I 1 4 0 14 0 0 l 0 0 d 41 U 0 0 . 4 ( 0 ( 0 4 1 W ~~~~I 1 4 0 3 O r-1 0 I 4 ) 1 4 Z WOIP.. 0 (0 0 10 0

1-I 14 4 1 0 1 14 0 4-d
-v-l
00)41 1
O Ch
Cdi
S 0
4- C )
-5 -
i-I
U
0
-v-I
4.1 0 . 01 0 0 1 00
54 1 v- - I
0 0.)
4)
14(0 U I C)I 01 0 .d I
41
Cd
C)
Z 0
H
(-4 4I
) 0) 0
IC ))
0 ) 0 ) 0 0 0) 0 4
54 10) ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Cl) 0. 1041 0 ) 1 ) 14 )0 ) 1-4 0

P . r- I .
1..I 0- r I 0 ,0 0 .- 4 , 00 1 0 0
0 14 4 1 0 0 41044-1
1 4 0 3 0. 0 ( 00 0 4 1 0 ) 0 0)
0) (4)
0.001
Cd
14 C) 0
WIC UO d
~~
o ~~ ~
Z 0
II
p
l J v-I d 0 ~ 1414 S
0 0 3 4 0 . 0 -ci 14 1 4~~ U 0O0) 0 0 ~~ ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 v-I 0 00 0 4 0 00 I - .-I 0 rI d U
F-I Z 4$
< 0 ~~
S -
o 0
I $ 4
4-4
O d U ) Q) Z 1 40 0 . . 0 0 40
1 . 1
p~
0 ) 0 3 4 . 1 (0 1 . 1 I 14 ~ r
04 0) 0 00 0J ~~d 0 0 414 Cd -rI 0 0 . 0 0 (43 0.0 00 4 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 .I . 0 v-I 0) 0 0 1 4 0 ~~~ (0 14 4.1 0 0 ( 1) tO . .0 1 . 1 (0 U . 4 $4 00 ) 0) -d 0 0) 0) ~~-, 0) 4.1 41 d O C O 1 4 00 01 I l-i 0/)044 .1 0 0 0 5
rj ~~~~~~
o l 0)4
0) 4-1 0) 3. 4-4~~~~~
(0 . 0 .34 4 1 0 1 4 10 1.1 ( 0
-r I E
10
04 C 00 1 14 00 I - I I W .- 1 O 3 4 ( 0 1 4 . UdUO) C) 0(43 0 00 . - I . 0 00 4 - 4
0 CO 0 rI
(d r-I
.- 4 1 1 4 Ci 14 (4)
0 ) 0 ) 4.1 0. 4-1
0)14(4) ,0 .rl
4 1
CO
( 0 ( 0 0 00
$4 Ir)
0
00 -.-4
U 4 1 C ~~~ d () 41 . 0 ~~ ~~~ 0 00 0 1 4 1 4 0) P . 0 10 . 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~
(0 (43 ~ . 0 4-3 0 0 b 0 0 . -. (0 0 . 0 v--l 0 00 4-i .0 c) 4) 0 .-I O 1 4 0 0 1 4 U r1 4 ) 0 0 14 d C 0 1 4 , 0 4) 14 4 1( 1 ) (0 14.0 0 5 rI (0 , 1-4 ( 0 4 1 ~~~~ 0 ,0 (0 .0 4-4 14
00
.0 U ) 10 0 03 04 1 1 4 0 , 0 4 1 ) . 0 C~ 0 d 41 -rl $4 rI 1 . 1 0 ( 0 00 5 .0 ) I ~~~ 0 ~~ .r4 )-l r--14 14 4$ U I 0

41
34 .
14 Cd 5
0.)
. 0
4.1
~~~ O 1_J
0 ) 4 4 0 04 1 0(0 Cfl i-I (0 -rI 04 0 U) .0 iI , 0

$
4 14
0 -i-I
rI
4 10 00) 0 3 0) 5 1-i 0.0 00

O) COO CO t i
Cd 0.
14 0
-
-rI
. ~~
41
(4)
0 S 0
,j I
v--I v-I
0) 4-i
O C Ol
U.4
14 4) 1-4 0 0
00 1-i , U 01 0) 1-1 4
Cd O)
0 4 1 0( 0 0 (
4 r 4 0 0
0~~~~~0 4 P . . 0 0
14 (0 0 (0 -d P
. 3 4 0 0) 0) 0 . 0 0 r-l 0 4 10 )
_I) i( 4 )
0) 1414 O r-I I-l U

CO
0
0.0 ) I-I (~ 0) (4) 00~~~

41 1 J -r4
1-i
-v.4 -v-I 0 C)
0 0
0 (0
~~
0
( 4 O -
O 0 0 4 1 4 10 0 .
~014 0
-i-I ( 4 ) C)
.340
141 0 d 0 ) 14
i 0d 4
010
( 0 10 5
0)
~ 1-i
U
-v-I
.1-I d
5 0 0
41
41 CC) r-I
~~ ~
d
-
o -x Cl)
I
o
. ~ 1-4 -
l-1 -d d CO 14 41 ~~ C O 0 0 o 0 4) 5 Cl) 14( 0 v-I 14 0 0 0 3 d . C )0 0 ) 0 00
14030r-I
C0~~~~~~O 4-J
4-4 U) >4
F-I
-
< 0 r1

014l- d .-I
~~
4. 4-1
-
C 3 I W C O C l0 ) CC) d 0 ( 0 4-4 r-4 ~~~~~~~~~ 41 4 1, 0 U 4-I I 4 1 0 0 4 1 4 1 C ) 1 4 0 0 0 ) . . 1 4 1 0 J 143 0J 0j 0 . 00 4-1 r-4 ~ v-I 14 C) 0 1 1 4 4 1 0 4 3r-I 14141- 1 0 I C O 0 ~~
U I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
(0 C) . 4
0 . 00 0 0 0( 0
~ 01
I ~
0Ii i w c O o 0 0 o c O
5
U .-4 . 0
0) (I)
0 3 0 0 ) 1 4 4 1, - I ~~~ 00d C0 14 0 1 4 ( 4 3 (0 1-4 41 0

0.) 0 r-I CO
4) -- E 0..0 0 0 4~1 5 i 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 ~~0 4.-i U3 0 I 1 - I 0 ) 5~~~4 0 D I - rI I 1J C ) 0 ) 5 4 .r4 r4 ( (0 - 0 5 I ( 014N 5 ~ ~ 0~~~~~0 ( U ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cl) . O 0 I W 1 - i 4 1 U 0) 1 0 -d 1 4 4 1 0 .-I O tI 14 (0 U 00 0 Ci) Cl) rI 0 cO O) 0 1 4 4 1 0 03441 C~ 0 IJI W , I-) -., 0 ( 0 1 1 4 0) 03 ti~ 0 1 1 4( 0 d 0 . 0 0 4 1 4 1 . 0 0) 0 14 IJ 0 4-1 0 0 0 0 ( 0 4 1 1 4. O 0 . - 40 4 1 - d O U 0 4 0 ( 0 . 0~~~~~ 4 1 d U) CO (0 CU 4. ~)
4 3 C ) ( 0 4 .(0 1
.4 .4 (00 I
0
C)
S
41000 0
t4~l
-I 1-1 0) 4.1 ,
1 4 0 0) -f U) ~~~ 01 4 0) 4 JLr, 5 W -i-I

U)
~~
..
0) 3, 1 ..-I CI I ci Oii
0 -v-I
4 11 4
03 .340
Cl)
,C)
4_I
0)4.1 (1 1 -. COO
0)
~~ CO
10 -v.4
v--I (0
14
i~~~~~~~~ _ . -.
0
-
0)
.S
~
~~
~~~~~~~
) 4-I C Cd -v-I 0 .0 )
14.0 0
-i 0) 1
. -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F-I _ 4 ~ I
0 F-
-
-S
Il b
. .
140) 0.00 1-i
( 4 ) 0
0 30
--
55--
-55-
~~ 4-I (0( 1 (04_I
55
-IC C,)
<U )
-~~~~
~~~~ -
~~~~ - -w ---~
~~~~~~~~~-- -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- ---
~~~~~~~
- J
J 1 . ~~~ 1 ~J
-.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
. .&_
~ A
F!-5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ct~
z
0
II ( 4
. 1 . 1
,
41
4) b0 0 14C) CO C O
-i-I 4 )
0 C) rh H
0 0
ul o. o
0 00
14 0 0
0)0)
I Z 0 Z
1
S
0 s-I 0 o 1 4 0 0 0) 0 < 04(0

S. . ,0 ) 0 ) 1 4 1 4 -rI
0 1 ( 0 ,0 l-1 0 - r I O C 4 ) , - - 1 0 0 3 4 - i 1 .I 0 O J . I d C h~4 J ,I 4-i 4 1 4 . 1 14 I 1 J 0 4 0 . 4.1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 . 0 ~ 0 0 0) 4)0 U)~~~~~U ) 1 4 0 . 0( 0 0 0 4 00 0 .4J (43 CC) .014 C43 1--i 01 , Cd 0(0(4) .-I~~~~~0 ) 4 1 4 . 0 0 . 0) 0 0 ) 0 4 1 r I U W tI ) 0) 000 ( 0 (0 00 ( C, 4-4 1 44 1 4 1 0 ) 14 04 r-I CO0 0 0 0 3 0 ) C O C OO)~ r-I . 3 4 0 1 00 0 0 14 00 -rI U 004 0) 0 0 .r4 C) 0 0 1 4 1 4 1 - . 0 O c i( 0 U .34 >-i 0 0 . 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 1( 0 4(0 4 30 ) I CO Z0 .) ~~~ 4 1 4 1 0 40 1 4 , 0 U4 1
41
~~-
0 rI
0 ) C ) 0 , . .0
--
0 0 0)
014r1 O W .-I U b O 0 0 0 0 (0 CO -i-l U 14
v--I
0 1 . 1 0 0 CI S 5 0 0 0 -i-I
0 0 0) 0 0) 0) 0 0) 1 0 0) 0 . - I 41 Cl) I J 0 -,-4 0) IJ O ( 0 1 4 0( 0 ~~~~0 4 , 0 , 0
4) 4-J O
0)
(4) . 34
. 0 0 3 (4) CC) iI Cd
( 0 C 4) -r-I
-v-I
Cd 0 4 ) 0 U (0
I-i
C/)
~ 4-i
0 i
. 0 00
sI v-I
H ( i 4-4
4_I Ci
-v-i r..
134
~~~ 0
I ~
I 0 0.0 bOO
Wv-i
0 ( 4~3 0
C ) - .-I >s t1 4 E
4-I C)
00
14 4)
v--I
CO CO r-4 W. .---I
4 ~
0 .- .
( 4 ( 4 )
~~
2 4~
0 - v -I
~~
~J
(0 0 )
5
(1-4
1 4 0) - r I 14 1 4 d 0 4 4~~
~~~s
001 . 0J 41 0 4
0)
01
0) 0 0 0 0 ~~
0
0
$-I 4.4 0 0) 0 (0
0)
(0.34
4) 0 . 0 1 1-i
0) 0 , 0 C)
01
>-.
4.1 11-1
0 0 ( )4
0)
.9 > 0
01.0
4.1
0 04 1
0(0
00 0 0 0 I - - IS
S S S
Z i-
-v-I
. 0( d ~~~ 0) O , O
W ,0 r I
1 4r I
0 4-)
0-)
14(4 ) ---
4-1
(0
0 0 00 I-i (0
) 0 (4) 0) -I
CD
0 1 4 4 ) 0 .0 4 4 4) 0 . 4) I 0 Ci 34 .
iI
4$
I-I
1 ~.
CL) .
~~ >~
0) 1 . 1 - 0 01 I 1 4 0 > s 1 4 U U ,-4 0 1~ -40) I r I G . ) 0 4141 4 ) 0 0 ) 0 4 1 0 0 1 4.1 5 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 3 . 0 0 0 0.) 0 ) 0 04 1 0 0 0 (43 - 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 4 000 0 0 U 0 4 d 0 )00 ~ d 0 0 C d ( 0 E 4 1 C )4 . 4 ( 0 1 4 1 4 4 1 0 4 (13 (43
0 F-, 0 P 0 0 I
-IC 1 / ) I I
>4 <
~~ 0 0
4 ~ <
14
03W41U (0 0 (1) 4 E r - I 1--i 5 1 ~~~ ~ Cl) 0.) (1-1 s-I 0 v--I ) 0 0 -v-I 0.) 4-I 44 1 -1 CI) C0 U -rI 41 0 0 . 0 1 4 1 40 0 0 ) ( 0 1 4 (43 4-1 Cl) 0 (0 LI ,-I 0 0 CO - 0 ) 0 C) ..-I 0.) c43 -0)0 4- 0 4 1 0) ,0 O O C l ) O U ) ( 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C ) > 0 1 1 4 ( 4 300 3 4 0 4 101 4 4- 1 0 ) 1 4 . 0 - .-I 1-i O -.-4 0 ) 0 ) 0) U - H0 , 0 0 O
P. rI
-l 0 4-1 0 .
C O O C O rI
( 0 W C 4 3
14 4.4
0 -r I C d
(4 3 0 0
4)0 U 0.)
0 )
0
( 0 14~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 4)
O O 0 4 1 1 4 C d 5 0 4 - i <(43 ~~~4 1 C ) 1 4 0 Q t-1 41 , - 4 1 4 ~~ ---C) , 0 0 d r4 - C ) 0 0 0 . o-d

-
U)
14 ) G.J~~~~~~~O 0 0 ( 0 4 10 > C l
( 4
C/)
~1. 0 .
I-I F-I
4$
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~ . 0 0 00 - 4 0 0 3 -i-I 0O 1I 0 4 3 4 1 0 CD > 1 4 ( 0 0) .i-4 (0 1-i 0 .-4 4- 441 0. 0 0 (1344 0 0) -4-4 0 0 ( 4 ) 0 0 . 9 4- 4 1-1 00 ClI p-I (0 (43 S v-I v-I 1 . 4 1 4 ,0 0 iI l ( 0 4 3 0 ) 0 43 0 0 1 4 0) 00 0) 1 -4 1-i -,-l 1 - ~~~ 1. 1 (0 0 (0 (0 1I 4.1 ,0 ui t j ) ci w 0) 41CC) 0 0.0 (O r-I 0 0 1 0 (4) 1 .1 0) 4-I 0 U 4 1 ( 0 0 1-i . 44 v-I . 0 $-i 4 0 3 0. 0 0 . 1 0 4
I 0 43 4 . 1 0) 0 . 9 0 1 ( 0 CO v--I
0) 0 0 . 0
O
1-1
I -l u v-1 4.1
v--I
v-I
II
S
U)
4) 4.1 5 O 0 - 4 5 1 0( 0 00 0 5 Url e-4

(43 1-I
0.
0 43
1-i
I-i W v--I OW 0 0 0 OCO 0004
,L)
p
_ _ _ _
5 5 _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ 1T ~
_ _
5.
-~~~~~ - S~ ~~~~~~~~
55
~~~~~~~~
: ~ U)
S
- --
0 0O-~~ 1 4 44 - 4 1 . 0 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~
~~
- , - I 00 1 1( 0 5
-~
~~~~~4 1 0
-
s-,.
I--I 0(4 ) u . i Or I 0) 0 1 s--I C)) 01 s-I 0) 5 I -I l 0 01.0 M U MrI 14 < ~~~ ( 0

(13 4-I
~~
Ii 011 u 4-1 14 ri O 54 1 (0 10 0 0 (13 s-I 1 4 0 4 1 0 --I 0) .34
(4) 0. . 0 00 1 4 0 (0(0 41 (4) vI 1401 ) 0 1u -I
4-l W
03 4 -00 0 0 -.4 0 $-i O 0(0 0 i-I 0 0 *4-4 (0 I.J -rI 014-i 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4)

~~~~4J r4
1
-
(I)
-
0 0 s - I .0 0 . 0
0 0 ~~~~
u i-s i-
. 0 . 0 00 00 1 40 1014 03.0
0041
55
tx-I
S
01 s-I >~~~ r I O ~~
I~
v--I
I
-
0) v-I 0 -rI (430 -v-t O 0 0, 0 -U
4-4
Z IL)
(4
I I
~~
~~ ~~ 0
0 ci . 0 04
UOJ 0
. 0
I 4.I 4~
0 >-. 0 0 (13 0 1 4 4 4 >. ( 0 4 1 0 3 0 ). > 34(0 0. 000 0 ~ iI 0 v--I 0) Iis r I -i-i . 4 0

( f l 0 b O . , -I. 9
0 41 i-I 0) -4 r I (0 u-I
5
U)
00 I-I
1 4 1 1 -I 0 CD .
W O j O. U 0
U . -I
Cl) 4-1
-i-I 0 - . - I 0) 0 5 .I Ci -rI -v-I

41 0 .-I Ci 0 0) 00 0
( 0 ( 0 0 ( 0
( 0 00
( 0 5
(0
I
I-I
0 4 . 10 i--I -rI -1-) ~~~~
0 ) 0 1 4
0~~~~~0 CD 5
u I W O~
0) 0) 0 ( d -r-t 4
0 . 0
-.-
(0 . 0 00 0 .) W ( 0 . 0 ( 0 C ~ d >0 r4 0) .41 00 (43 iI Ii~

4 ) c 4 3 -s-4 0 . 1 0 1 4 C13 rI 0I 4) 1 ~~~~~~
S
0 . v-I 14 0 01 41 0 (0 (1) . 00 O r-I l-i W O O 0 41 1-44 0

0
0) >-
0 )
0 . 0) 0 0 (0
. -
(43 . 0 U (0 I v-I (4)
I . O 0 0) 0) !
v-I
0 .
04 1s - I
. 0 UIUi-4
0104 0) 010 I -i -i-I O r-I . ((4 CD 9(0 . 0 4-i 0(0 . 0 5

0. 9
0 0 14
CD
r I ((1 1.5 0) 1-4 0 0 0 001

0
> r-I
v-I 44 I
. 0
1 1
v-I
00
i-I
- . .
Iis 0 0) 10 4 1 0 1-1 i-I ~ ( 0 1 4 0 0 4 4 (0 . 9 0 0 -i-I 0 0 ( 0 .0 0 U I > 4-0

S
v-i l i 00.0
1 -rI 1-1 0~~~~~0

~~~~ 1 0 0
.91 ~ 0 4) . 0 s--I 0 0)
4 1 ,0
0 1 4 3
00-)
1-4 v-I 0~~~ 1 4( 0
1 . 14 1
li-i 0
0 .
~~
4-I 0)
I-I 0
01- 4-1 0
0
~~
-; S
(4
-
P
Z
<
0 I
U )-
~~ 0
U
5 S
4-I 00
,.4)
~4 Z
(-4
E D t -P . 50>- . C -v-l U 1 4> 0 5 ( 0 0 0.) I-4 I l-I 14 (4- ~ r-4 1 0 4 - 4 43 0 1 0 00 s-I14CO 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 1 4 1 00 ( 0 00 0 1 40 0)04 1 1-4 00 --. < 0 4 1
C O> . 0 IJ rI W
4 1 0 ) 4) 4) v-I 00 1-i 0 1 4 0 r I
CDI
0
CC)- r 4 4)
.4
0 )
0 0 00
(0 v--I 00 0 .0 0 s-I 0)41 0 (00 > 14 Cd - r I
i 0 ~~
0 0 05 0O ,-l O I )U rI (
W Ci I 0 41.0 0)010 0 ) 0 0 4- 0Cd 0 4 ~~~ 1( 0
0
(4- 0)
S -
S-~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-~~~~~~~~
127
L..55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
5 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
-5
-~
___
55-
~~ -
iI Cd 4 1 0 ( H O U)
S
~~~
-<
4-I 1 . 5 0 0 0) 40 0 $ . 4 1 4 1 - ) -.~~ i-4 4 1 0 - , - I 0 1 0 4- l
.I
(0
,0
(0
0 0) 0 .
0 ) 4 4
00
1 4
,1 0 14 1 0 0)
(4)
44-
Co s-l O
vI
4) i4 0 (13
0 1 0 0 0) 0(0
(0 . S
~~ C,) ~~
; ~
4-I > O 0 > - - i -~~~ 0 Cfl H 4) 5 t ~~. 0 . 00 0 00 -.-I 4-i O) ( 0 .0 0 4 44 4-1 0 0 1-, 0 0( 0 4 1 0 4) O rI . 9 4-l U 0(0 0 0 0 .) 0 0 4. 1
U 0 O O 1 4J I v-I 0 ) O 0) v-i
03 (43 0
(4-1 10 ,0 Ii 0 (43
(4) 5 0 > 0)0

-
--
4) 01
0 0
v-- i
0 . O r-I ,
4J . 0 1 4 - 0 ( 4 3 C43 1 -1 0 4 1 0 r4 41 00 5 .0.0 0) v--I 0 00 1-i -rI C) 0 00 5 (0 0( 43 ( 0 . 0 0 si 0 rI O) 4.I O r-4 1441 5 -rI O I 1) C 0 ) 04314 -i 1-i 0 ) 4 0 ~ (0 14 -rI 01 iI 0 0 . - I 0) 0 0 ) 0 1-1 s-l O C!) 00 u--4 0) 4,1 0 (U 0 0 0 ) 0 0 ) 0) 0 4 1 0 ) 0 - r i 0 0 ) 0 0 ( 0 s- lU) 0 0 ) > 0 (0 . - l O 00 ri O l-I CI) 0 0 1 4 0 1 ( 0 1 4 0 - r I -4 (4) 0 < P.4 (0 Z U 0 E 0 ( D U > rI
4) 000 00 140
4.1
-v-I
.1 0 0 s-I (43 1-1 ,0 0 0 ) > s 4 1

0 - v-I . Cl) CC) 0) U .0 E (43 (43 14 . 14 1 0 04(0 0 10 ri
(4.4
4401 0> (0 $-i
v--I
0 4 1 0 b0 0 0 10(43 0 000 r IO v-I 0 (D CC) 0 0 04 .-I uI -rI 4,1 0 v-4

44 1 i -~ 4
II
0 00 44 (0 0 0
44-I
o
I ~~ 0
I
14
0 1-i 01
iC ,0
0-I
a)
14 0
a) 4)
01 0
0 iI 0 .
4 -)
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
C~ 3
0 0)
00 0 4) 00. 9 U 4 . 10 Di v-i 14 1 4 1 0
(0 0 14 14-i 0 14-i 1 40
0 D41 1 . 1 s-I W 0 ~~~ 0 0)
4 - 1 ,0
0) 14 0 >1 . 1 r I 14 10 0) 01 5 0) 1 . 0 010 ) 0 0 1 >0) -rI 4 ) 1 1 4 4--. 0

0, 0 . O r-l
00 14( 0
4-4
04 1 rI 4 1 (0 14.1 0 ( 0 0 4 CD
0 1 0 ) 4-1
CO s-I
0 0 40
010 > v-i C) 1 1 (1) 0 0 v-l CD . . 0 0) 0 0 0 0 1 $ 1 J 01 0 ) . 0 0 1 4 1-~~ 0 41 .ri U W~~ ( 4 0 ( 0 0) 5

14,0
-
u
0 0
Ii
(0
i-I
i-I
C o L I - r I P. 4-I - r I U 0 0)~~~~~0 4 1 ( 1 ) 0 ) 0 ( (1) 0 0 0
U)
I.4 CC~
S
~~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~ 0 0 tx~ -~~ ~~~ ( -4

-
00) 0 0) 1 . 1 0 00 14 s-i 0 rI 04-4 0 0 0 0 r - 4 1 0 0 0 r I 0 ( 0 4 1 0 4 1 r I O 1 4 0( 0 0 0 4 1 0 ~ C0 ~~~00 0 1 4 r i 0 rI 0 CO O) > 0 . 0 (0 0) C D ,0 0 ~~~~~03 0 0 ) 4 14 , 01 0 1 0 0) 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 1 0 r - l 1 4 1 4 r 4 ~~~ 0 O ( 0~~~~~ 0 043 4- 1 0 - 10 ( 0 0 0 . 0 Cd

0 ,
0) 0 ~~~~~
>-41C0 00) 0 5 0 ) 0 ) Q) -r-) r4
0 4-) 0 4-0 II (43 4-)

(4-4
0 rI . 0 rI 00 0 uI 3 4 0 .
0 ) 1 . 1
14 0
9-1 0
0 0 0
0) 14 (4 ) 0 0 > 1 0 1 4 0 .O rI Z 0 ( H
>
v-I 4 1 4 1 0 1 0101-1 .4 4) -rI 0 4 5 4-4 0 0 0 0) 0 ( 4 3 0) 00(0 0 00 ) 0 0 0
0 4 ) 1 0 4 ) 0 0 41 0 . 3 4 0 3 0 ) 1 . 0 0 4) 0) 10 -i-I 0 0 ) 0 . 0 4-I . C O O 0 0) v-I 0 0) 0 - n v- I ( 0 . 0 ( 0 4 1 4) 4-i 0)

0
0 3 0
go
. 4 0) 1 0 0 (43
4
0
0
0) U (0
443 0) 0 . 0) Ii
(43 0(0 P.v1 ,0 0 1-i
( 4
S .
4-4
P-i- P-i
55 -__ S-S-_
4) 1 O
0) CI 1 4 0 ( 0 1 0 0 L4 p4
0 1 0 00 0 4 - I 0 , O 4J
(4 -4
I3~ 4 H
. r 4 4) ~~~~~
(-4
S-,-.-
____ _ a
_ _
SL_ _ _
f l
_ _ _ _
. . a__ _
_ _ _
5545___
___ r
_ _
55
S_55_ _____________________-
____________________________
_ _ _
\
_ T_ 5 5 5 5 ~~~ ~
__
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. _ 1 , . -,
b 4 I ~
_ _ _ _ _
- -~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 - ~~~~ _! ~
;~~~~~~ ~~
~~~SS~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~
U) 0~ 14 ~~
S S
N 0.14 1
1 . i U 0 O -J 4 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 00 1-1 ,-I i-l Cd 4 ) 0 ( 00 . I-i 0 0 ) 0 ) - v - I l.I d (0 0 1 4 > W v-I 0 - . - I 0 0) . 0( 0 0 1 4 . 0 0 E-i lJ O 0) U 0. CO 0) 0 41 OX 0(43 6 0 14 fO 0 0 1.4
~~
(0 ~~~~~u-I 113
00 0)
-;
S -
0 I-ri 0 0 0 1.4 0)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
( 0 ~
. ~~ 4.1
0 4)
I rO
~~
~ ~?
5 ~
~~ ~~
1 1 . 0 -rI O ~~~~~~~~~
v--I
(43 c!) r-I

0 00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 0
i;i
S
0
~~~~~~
z p-I
Z 0 f-i
0 (0 4J 00 00) (0 vI i1 0 0 4 4 0 . 1 (0
( 0 $-i
0.) 0 4 10 Q (0 0 rI . 01 0 U 00 ~4-I (0 1-i .-I > 0 0 1) 44 ( 0 0 4) 0 Cl ii) 03,-I 0 0 0 0) P, I-I . 0 0 4 J ~~~~~~~~0 r I
0 0 ) 1 0 0 ) CC - .- 4 0 1 4 0 . 0 (H 0) 0 1) 0 0 0 0 0 4 1( 4 0 0 *0(00 0 0 . 9 1 1 . . 4 I ( 0 ( 1 3 1 4 00 4 1 0 4 4 1 < ~~~
-~~~~~~~
14 ~ 0 0 000 00 14
. 0 1 . 1 v-I 10 0) I-i 03 0) 0) 1 .1 0) > 4 ) (014 1-i rI
0 1 . 1 41.0 0 0 04 . 1 E rI r-I 1-4 0 0 1-i -ri 0 U 0 ) 4 1 0 4 ) 0 0 3 0 4 1> 0 .-b v - I W O 04(0 0
iI 44 0 (0(0 0 00 -I 0 ~ 1 J v-I rI 0 0(0 0 0 04 r- I

0
1- c1 I ( 00 0 C 4 C0 (I) 41 0 4 ) 0 3 0314$- i 14 r4 0 P-i 4-I ,0
1 1 4-I
. ~.
~
H
-
0 .
~~
~~ 0
0 4-4 (-4
0 ( 1
(1) I 1-4
Z
4 -) r-4 ~~~~~ ( 0 0 00 0) 0 0 0 0.0 0 (0 ~~~I I 1 1I 5 0 ~ 03.0 1-i 03 1.a Ol 1-4 0 X rI 0H ( 14 4,) 440 1 0 0- -i-I 0iJ U I 1-I l ~~~ (II 4014 10 (0 > -. 00) 4) 4-I - 0 0 1 4) 01 U 0> ( ~~~ 00 (13 9-I 0 r i p-l i--I i-I l-i il Cd 0 4 0 04.0
.4
Cd 0
04
I
01
0) 0 0
0
X
(43 5 0
(44
(
(430 ) 0 U I
(4 0 0 0 Z >4 0 I
U)
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 0 0
>4
~~
~~~
1.1 01 N (4 .-l OH 0-ri 0 rI , 4 1 ( 0 U I-I 0103 1 1 v-4~~~ ( D r i 0 0) C)00 0 ( 0 0 0) 00 0 (4 0 0 II 4) 5
o o
H
( I
Z 14
-4 14 ( -4(0 0 4 0 ) 0) 1 1 (4) 0 04 ) 1.0 0 4J 03 1103 (HOD . I-I 0(431 9-I 1041 00 0 0 0 0 0.1 4-I -rI -rI 0 0 0 03 .I CO W 0 0 0 OW 0 4.1 ~~ 1 -4 0 0(3 0) 0) 10 (0 0(0 1. 1 ( 0 1~ 0 . 1 0 1 10 ( 0 14 0 04 1 01 1 --4 0 4-1 1_ S O 4-I r-I O 0 1 4 1 40 0 0 b O r Cd ) (C) C0 1. 0) 0)0 010 ) I 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 (0 0 ( 0 ( 0 0 0 011-rI 0014 u 0-0 1.1 P . O 0) 1.i001 0 1 ( 0 ( 0 U 0(0 ( ( 0 4 ) 0 06 0) 0 41101-i v--ISO > i- i3) (I) -rI ). 0)0 0) 50 0 W U i 4 5 0 00 0 ( 0 ( 0 0 0 1 4.1 4 . 1 4 1 0 1 W~~~~ iI-4 0 1 (0 0) 14 1 0 ) 4 1 1 0 143 0 0 0 1 0 (4 4 1 1 ., > 0) 14 0) ( 0 0 ) 0 ) 05 0 ) 0103 0 0 00 0 0 4 ) 0 ) 0 0 0 CI) I 0 1 0 0 00 41 -.-4 00 0 0 10 0 . I 0 ) 1 1 0 0 ( 4 ) 4 1 > 0 ) 1 4 0 4 - i CC) vI1414 s-I 4 10 0 0 ) 0.3 0 0)- rI O 0 ) C d C O 4 0 ) 1 0 0 ,O r I 0 4 0 0 ) 0) . 1 ~~ 1 . 1 41 U) (4 Ii 4-4 i-i 0 0 1-i 0 0) 00 1 ~D 0 ~~ v - l C d. P-.0)
-
00 0 0 0
0) >. 0 1-1 0 0)
(0 4-i
0 0 00 I 4-~ 0.0 140) 1441 0 -v-I 41 01 ~~~~ 0 ) 0 (0 .34 0 ) 0 0 0 > 0

(C) .-I r-I
1 . )
0 0)
4-1 4-I
W(H 1 10 4-i
0 - I
4.1
. 0 1 0 0) -1 0 1 14 -i-I
H 1-4
z
0
(4
--S--S..--
55
1-, o
___________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5_~~ 5- -~~
5-
- - -5 - ------- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
55
55
5 _
_ . __
-, . ---_
~~5--5--v ~~
-.
Ii)
5 -
o
S
S I
iI ~I ~i ~j 0
~~
0
if)
~~
00 . 00 ~~~ 4 ) 0 1 4 -v-I 0 O> ~ 0 4. 1 4 1 0( H 1 1 0 r I 010 (44 -0 (0 1
U 0) . 0 - r i4 1 1 . 1 , 0 0r 1 U 1 . 1 4.1 C 4 3 1 ~i . 0 (0 -l ~ 00 .0~~~ 10) 0 -r i I~

5
14 0 41 -v-I C d C d C d 0 U v - I -rI -d~~~~ W . -1 14 1410 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 4 4 - d r I 1 4 0 . O U 0 . vI 1-~ 0 (4) 0 0 0. 000 0 0 C d 0 1 r I ,0 0)) 0 00 r-l 1 . I -d 14 0J >-. rI 0Ov ( ( 0 0 ) 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0( 4 0,-.~~ 0 C 0 1 4 .0 0 0 .
0 -.-I P. 0
i-b O
CO O) 1-i O
(11 (0
01
0 Cd 1 1 0)ri 0- 0 0 ( 0 0 ( ) 0 0(43 1 . 1 14 0- 1
-1 0 3 0 - U . - 4 - ~~
CO -d (01.1
0 .0
0 l-I 0 -r4 0
4 0
O C
01 (43 00
1 00 0
0 1 4 0)
-i-I l .)
(0 0 -i-I
0 . 0
(43
Of)
5
<
j ~~ ~
>~
0 >4 f-i
~D (4
v-l Cd
0)41 0 0 Cd ( H
>-.
1 40 0-0
C4) H 0 0
0 4 1
0 4 ( 4 ( 4
-
00) 5 >- .14W1 4 - i O O C d . 0 0 4) 0 0 - 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 tD H r-I ,0 0 0 0 C d 00 001 000 0 0 ( 0 0000 1 4i 4 0 -r-I )-i Cd 00 . 0 0 0 0- 0 ~ i 1).
00 W(H 5( 0
1 . 1 0 0 04) 41
U ) 0
1 4
-5 5
>4
U3
0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.e
~~ S
&
r.w.
_ _a a . _

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-S
--~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
. ;:
~~~~~~~
APPENDIX 8
-
GUNNERY QUESTIONNAIRE
Js
I
~~~~~
131
~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 ~ S~~~ S
~~ ~
C*J~ut:Ry
Tank Ccr .rn&ur
Er.TIC: ~~A I t E
CIII )
-
name :
Doto :
_______
_______________________
Comp any :
S~U:
___________________
Platoon : __________
I . The arrancio- ont of switchos , disr Iays , Indicator lamps , circuit breakers , ~ ~ etc. at you r tank duty po~ iti c a Is:
A.
B .
Unacceptable
Inadequate
to reach can
end/or see
w it h
C. Borderl i ne
B. Adequal-o E. Very Good 2 8
no prob l ems lo roac1~ and see thom The room (work space ) av ailable at your tank duty position is:

s ne difficu l ty ~ sand minor Drob l ecs to roach ~nd see than
reach and/er See
A. Lh acceptablo
S
too cramped and/or dangerous
Inadequate Borderline Adequate

Vrn-y ( - ~~~~
cramped and/or scnot ices dangerous

can manage my duties with some difficult y
C
S -
D
F.
some minor work space probIe~ s
-s c - :-p,e ~ ~ k ~~~~~ ~~~ ~
ngagam enf :
3. The thinq s
you have to do to prepare for a conventional afirlunitlon
A, Too many things to do

B . S C. B o rde rl ne Very many
a I amae nunbor of thin-is to be done in and/or done very accurately can do them with so-a di ffic u lty
minor
a very short time
D
E.
Adequate
only
prob lens
East
ly done
4 . The steps you havo to follow for a conventional are1o engagement
are:
A , Too difficult to follow B. Diffi cu lt to follow

C.
Borderline
some stops ne-cd lo be improved the steps assist

you
usually rake some tai stak~s
0 . Adequate E. Very Good
only minor problers doIng the stops
in a Successful engagement
132
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
S~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UI-I C
-
5. The things you have to do to prop-aro for a ni~ sile engagement : A. Too many th i ngs to do B. Very many C
a largo number of thir~ s to be done in a very short time and/or done very accurately can be dono with scro difficu l ty
Bordorilna Adequate
0 6
only minor prob l ems
E. Easily done The steps you have to fol tow for a miss i le engaqer.ent are:
A.
-
Too difficult Borderline Adequate

Cood
to follow
5. Difficult to f~ l I ~ w C. D
usual ly make some mistakes
saio stops need to be imp roved
only minor prob loris doing the stops the steps assist you in a successful enoagemont its drift) is:
S S
E. Very
7 . The Job of nul ling the cupola (killing

-
A. Very Difficult B Difficult

-
C. borderline
0.
Adequate Very Easy

-
E.
-
8.
Once nul led (drift killed) 1-he cupola nulling should be: A. left alone
-
5. Checked periodically, infrequently

-
C.
Checked frequently
0. Checked when m isali gnment to target not i ced E. Chocked almost continuously
..
to spread
-
9~
Whoa
A. B.
Hover
seloctir .n a tarcet , how ruch do you work with other tanks in the unit the number of targets a oag the tans? ~
each tank selects a target independently of 1-ho othor tanks
Occ ass onaiiy Usually
depending on the tactical situation
C.
0. Whenevo r possible E. Alway s

S
____ ______
__________
55 1
555
- -
---5
5 5-
-5
--
averse $0. The procoduros for finding and laying The cupola gun on the target (tr cupolu to target end designate) are:
A. B.
Vory difficult and time consuming Difficult and sonc-whal- slow Borderline Adequate
-
C.
0.
son-a problems minor problems

.
some
E.
II.
Eas y
alerting you of the -target and its location with respect to the tank is: A. non-existent
B. C 0. E.
S
If a target is detected by one of the crew other than you , the procedure for
that crewman merely reports to r-e
Available but i nadequate Borderline Ver y Good
thb procedure must be improved
the procedure should be improved
Available and ad~auato
some minor prob lems need improvement

S
no problems
12. If the cupola gets off the designated target after the main gun is ali gned with the cupola the T C. should:
A. B
Correct main gun to target without adjusting cupola a li gnn-.ent Adjust cupola position and traverse main gun Comp lete the desi gnation procedure again
C.
all the steps
0. Direct the gunner which way to traverse the main gun to the target
E. Allow the gunner to correct main gun ali gnment if he has target
-
identified
13. The location and arrangement of the target designate equipment is:
A.
S -
Very Poor
B. l nedequate
C.
makes using it very difficult can be used with some difficu l ty
Borderline
0 . Adequate E.
some minor problems but can perform the operation
Very Good
the design and arrangement assists me in perform i ng the operation
14. Are the steps for the Target Designate procedure as laid out in the manuals and SOPs adequate? Indicate by an X for each of the follow i ng.
b) Desire Change ( Ca) Must Change ( c ) No change

A.
Manuals SOP s
S
B.
15. When d~ you recommend use of the l aser range finder?

A.
Don t use it
B. C.
Use it when time permits Use it when target has clear outline
S S
0. Use It whon range estimation Is difficult

E.
Always use it whGn it s wort~ing

-
.1. 34
_ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~ .---- ~~ -S~~ SS-S~~ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
-,
--
--5
~~~~~~
5~_ ~~
5 5
5 5
5 5
S ~
~~~~~~~~~
-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
55
_______
55
--
-5 - - -
- - -~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
S-- - - ~~~~~~-~~
- -- : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
~~
U I- T C
$6 . With a ch nco to change thlne s ir 1~~~ Target Designate onorntloi-i , show which ~ things must be~ c rinnud and whore ci n -s are desired. Indicalo by an X for ~ ~ eac h of the fol lowing :
-
I
~
A.
-
Locat Ion of cupola traverse controls
Ca) flust Change

-
(b) Desired Change
Cc)
tie Change
B. How tlio cupola traverse controls -.ork C. Location of - my periscope

is
_____
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
0. l ice good -the periscope display
______
E. Location of Target Designate swi-rch F. flow acceptable is the type of Ter ot ~ Designate switch C. How ti-a Target Designate swit;h operates H. Amount of room t operate ( work c~ ecc ) ~ I. of clearance from things in the ~mount workspace .1. Location of footholds K. Location of main platform 1 . I-low my main platform adjusts H. flow the auxiliary platform works N. Number of ste ps to do a Target Desi gnate 0. Oroer of steps to do a Target Desi ;nate P. Difficulty of steps to do a Target Desi gnate Q. Information displaye d to me for Target Desi gnate R. Ease of cornunicati on within my tan ~ S. Ease of communication with other tanks
-
_____
S
_____ _______
_____
_______
_______
_____
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_ _ _ _ _
_______
_______
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
______
~~~~~
_______
________
_______
_______
________
_______
_______
________
_ ~~ ~~~ /
_____
______
_______
$7.
A. 5.
The loading and operation of the cuo la gun due to:
( a)
-
( b)
Cc)
Cd)
Ce)
Its wei ght
is
Length of the rounds is Location of the chamber Is

Way the gu. is mounted Is
C.
0.
E. A.
~ Anno feed systcm is
Reject g after stoppaqo is (b) Difficult Cc) Ecroerline Cd) Adequate Ce) Very Good
(a) Very D i f f i c u l t
S S -
j 3 -b
S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~ 55 5--~~~ -
- \
.5
5-5 - 5-5 -. ------------S--- --S--.-- -S -S -5~~~~~
--
--
5,
5--
S S
S - --
T ~~~~ ~~C
$8. tSlaat d o you do when tho range to ipso target a ost Imatod by you does not ~ eqroo wills the laser range roadcut?
A.
B.
P j oct tho laser range and u o ny est-imate ~ ~ Chock the laser range if you have p lenty of time
-
C. Always check the laser r-~ng o 0. Always believe the laser mango E. 19. A. Range again with the laser by the gunner or no
What do you do if you su~ poct a laser range finder ma lfunction? Rely on visual rancie estimates using periscope rot iclo pattern
B. Assume contro l of the lacer ~anper and try rang ing again C. Request gunner to repeat rang i n g 0. Turn laser ranq~ r Off for a moment then back On
S
E.
Chock curcuU breakers How effective is the laser range finder? Hore trouble than its worth
-
20. A.
B. Useful but difficult and/or time consuming to operate

C D
Borderline
has some prob l ems
have to decide when to use It Useful in some situations,
ry Er~ cn..f~ ve must cc wor King for best f ring results ~~ 21. How do you like the layout and the way things are arrangcjfor work at your tank duty position?
~ .
A.
S
Very Poor Poor
very d i f f i c u l t to perform my required jobs

-
B.
have problems doing most jobs
C Borderline have problems with some jobs ~ 0. Adequate have prob ien with very few jo bs E.
22.
Ve ry Good
no prob lems
How was the gunnery training given to you and your crow:
t ot enoug h to get vs read y for firing tables ~ 5 . Inadequate w ith some major problems
C. Borderline with some problems
A.
0. Adequate
E.
with some minor problems
Very
Good
136
_. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-c~ ~
J~
l3l
TC
~~ -
23 .
Arrange the foiir- .ing thincin in toru s of thnir trspcw-tanco in Iho decIsion of which nun and m nunlticin te i~ -~ -i. (lace the thinas in your prefe rred order by ~~ of l h o th in- jr~i flu ink 1t nest i:iport ant , put p lacinq (a) in t:i~, L I ~r,k c~ nc ~ (b) by the scicond mast Inportaist unt i l a l l t ho things tsavo a le te r in flue blank space botslnd thorn.
A. 13. C. Type of target Hunber of po c n t i a l ta rgets ~
________ ________
_______
Rango to target
0 . Deqren of thr3at to own tank C. Target location

F. C. :n tank s Deptoynont of o~ Do lo -inuent of encr y forces ~ ~ ry) ~~ nunit ion Cquant i
-
_________ _________
:1
II. Disposition of
_________
24. With a chance to change thiens in the laser range finder system , show which things must be changed and whore changes are desirable. Indicate by an X for each of the following : -
(b) Desire Ca) 1-lust Change Ghango A. B. C. 0. Sharing contro l between TC and Gunner Steps necessary to get contro l of laser due to sharing P iies for dc-c d inn when to take control ~ ~ of s-j;l.. . Deciding which ranne is belno dis played Where your laser readouts are located Types of switches end controls for system Whore the laser controls era located
______ ______ ______ ______
S
Cc)
Ho change
_____
-
______
______
-
_____
______
______
E. F. 6.
_______
H~ How hard is it to decide the range is correct I. How difficult is the laser system to operate J. Are operating procedures standardized enoug h K. Are you confident enough In laser ranges L. flow was trainin g for laser range finding
~~~~~
______
S
______ ______ ______ ______ ______
______ ________ ______ _______ _______

-
_______ _______ ______ _______ _______
Is there enough tine for laser pract ice
U. Are there enough safety instruction s for laser
:
--5
--
-~~~~~~~~~ ~--. -~~- ~~~ -~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ . -
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- : ~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
(~ 5
25. Show which thIngs in gunnery tra inIng r,e-~d to be changed . Show which onos is duisl,j ble. Indicate by an X must be chancu.ud , and in whic h ont-s cSu~in for onc h of tho fol I ~ w Ing. ( a ) f-lust
A. B. C. Quantit y of training ovora h i Quantit y of dry f i r e pract ice Instruction on Individua l f i r i n g duty procedures Instruction on crew procedures Training aids and materia ls
~~~~~~~~~ -
Chuinrue
(b) Can (ci Ho Change improve P-eruulred _______ _______
______
_______
0. E.
_______
_______
______
_______
F. Training tests and examinations C. Retest procedures after failure of PreCunnbry Exam
_______
S_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_______
S_______
26. Show which of the things related to gunnery training that need to be changed. t - hi c hu must b~ improved , and which can be improved. Indicate by an X for eac h of the f o l l o w i n g :
Ca) Must A. Fmount of time spent In actual range fIring Mount of tine spent in actua l f i r lng Amount of time spent in instruction on t ac ;Ls ~ Amount of fine on Tables 13 Mount of tine on Tables 45 f~ nount of tine on Tables 67 Mount of tine on Table 8
-
Change
(b) Can Cc) l i e Chanqe Improve Requ i re d
B. C.
0. E.
______
_______
_______
in simulated co:53t exerc i ses
______
_______
_______
_____
_______
_______
________
F.
6.
U. Amount .of time on refiring

A. f-lakes communication almost imposs ib le Makes communication d i f f i c u l t
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
27. How doer. tank noise Interfere with coreiunications in the tank: B.
C. D.
--
Periodically interferes with communication Seldom interfere s with comunication Does not interfere with communicat ion is your seat : trend y uncomfort able todoratoly uncomfortable ~omIortabie srnn of the f ir- c Camfortablo most of the firm Always couifort.-ufie
S
E. 28. A. B. C. 0. E.
uncorufortablo at intervals
138
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~
________
~~~ -
--
~c
. ~
~~~S~~~~~~~~ L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~ :
(il - IC
29. Are seat adjustments:

A. B. C.
Unaccoptoble inadenuato
Borderlino

can t adjust it
not onounh adjustrmnt tnu~t be Improved

could be improved
0. Adoquato
30.
minor prob l em s
E. Vory Good
Do you have d i f f i c u l t y entering end leaving the tank by your hatch :
S
A. Alwa ys great difficulty B . Always moderate difficulty C. Borderline

-
0. Only when wearin g heavy clothing or carrying a load
E. Never
31.
always easy
as opposed to standinq still:

A. B. C. Much more d if f i c u l t
I-low are your jobs for conduct of f i r e different when the tank is movi ng
Somewhat more d i f f i c u l t
Borderline
0. About the same E. Easier

5 -
32. Derinq firing of the main gun , is the interna l environment (t emperature , humidity , fumes , etc.) of the tank:
-
A.
Almost unbearable
B. Bearable for short period s C. Uncomfortable 0.

33. (
S
Is the ride quality of the tank such that when it moves you
Usually very uncomfortable
-
are :
A.
B. Occasionall y very uncomfortable

-
C. 0.
Borderline
t-toderaloly Comfortable
E. Comfo rtable
]39
55- 5-
_ _ S~~~ _
--
-i- ~
_______________
-5-
~~ S ,
55
~ 5-
; : T ~-~~
~~~~
~~
w - ~~~~ ~~~
v---- ---
---- 5-- - ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
55-
Bl TC
34. is tim location of your radio controls such that It Is:

A. B. C. 0. E. 35. Almost inaccessI ble
sometimes requires some one elso to switch chennols
Difficult to got at some controls Borderline Adequate

S
Duiracts f rom other duties
with some pro-b Ions but does not interfere with other duties
h o problems
Is the operation of your platform Craising and lowering of the platforsu) :

-
A. Extremely difficult and tine consuming B. ~ iodorately difficult

C.
-
Borderline
0. Adequate much c~ f the time E. Easy
3 6 . Arc handholds and footholds used during standup operation with the tank in motion :
A.
Inadocuate and/or unsafe
B. Margina l 0. Adequate
E. Excellent
some major problem s

-
C. Borderline
onl y minor prob l ems
no problems
. .
&
-
1 40
~~~ -
-- -
--~~~~~~~~~~~
55
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
___
____
--
U I - IC
34.
A.
-
is tho location of your radio ccri rois such t h a t i t is: ~ Al most Inaccess ible
-
sc.rot~ r~ es requ ires scr-~ cmne else to switch channels

-
B. C. 0. E. 35.
g et at some controls Difficult 1 ~

Borderline Adequate
Detracts fro m other duties
w i t h sc c probl e s bt t ~
No problems
~ .s not interfe re wi1l ~ other duties
Is the operation of your platform (raising and lowering of the platform) : A. B. C. Extreme ly d i f f i c u l t and tir~ consumirg Moderately d if f i c ult Borderline Adequate much of lhe time Easy
-
V
S -
D E
36. Are -handholds and footholds u, sed during standup operation with the tank in motion:
A.
_ :~~~
Inadequate and/or unsafe
B. Marg ina l
some
major
prob ie-n s
S
-j
:i
C. Borderline
-
D. Adequate E. Excellent
onl y minor problems
no problems
S -
37.
Did you have any unscheduled dcwn-tire during tank gunnery? A. Yes
B. No
-S
38. If you answered Yes on Qus-stion 37, was this due to:
A.
Range closed
-
B. Maintenance requ ired

C.
Shortage of personne l such as A l s , Safety O f f i c e r s , etc.

-
0. Wait ing for f i r i n g tanks to clear downrange points

- -
141
S S S
_____
55_ ~~55 ~
5 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i~~ _
__;
( i l - IC 39.
If your donwt kiti was due to rualntenn n~e , whet system vus tI.~ cour o? ~
A. B. I-l ull
S -
Aulonotive
ss
C. com .munications I. Pain Gun 2. 3. E.

S
radio/interco m
9. Armament System (specify )
Coax 5O Caliber
-
Fire Direction Contro l (specif y ) L 2. LASER Rangefir.der Periscope

-
3. Computer 4. 40.
. -
Other
If you had downtime due to maintenance probiegs of any system was this due to: A. lack of maintenance personnel
B. Awaiting parts C. Aw aiting tools Processing I-:orkOrdcr requests aintenance? systems requ ired the most n~
S
S , -
0.
4 1. Which A.
Hull
S
B. Automot ive C. Coimnunication system 0. Armament (specify ) I. Main gun 2. Coax C. E. 50 Cal ibcr Fire Direction Control (specif y ) I. LASER P.angef lnder 2 Periscope
-
3. Computer
-
4.
Other
142
5- 5~~~~~5~~~~_
_ _
___________ _______
~~~~~~~
s~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____
G1JN 4El iQUt S1 l Ci :Al: E ( M) ~ ~ ~ ~ [
Cunnor
Name : Date : I.
S
SSN :
company :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Platoon :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The periscope des i gn and operation is:

-
To see
_ _ _ _ _ _
To Reach
D i spl ay S i ze Operation
S
Other
-
A. B.
Very Poor Ina dequate

-
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
C. Borderl ine
0. A d equate
E.
S
some pro b lems
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
______
-_ _ _ _ _
Very Good
2.
The telescope des ign an d oper a t i o n i s:

S -
To see
.
To Reach
_ _ _ _ _
Dis p lay
Size
Operation
_ _ _ _ _
Other
_ _ _ _
A.
B. C.
Very Poor
I nadequate Borderline
D. Adequate E. Very Goc d
some prob l ems
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. The job of nul l ing the cupola (ki l ling A. Very D i f f i c u l t

-
its drift ) is:
B. Dif ficult
S
C. Border line 0 . Adequate E. Very Easy
only mi nor prob l eris
163
-
- ___ _ _
_ -~ -I
-: - -~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~
-S. ~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~
-~
-~~~ ~~~~
._i~~~ =
- 5
drUt killed ) the cupola nul li n g should be: 4 . Once nu tt ed (

-
A.
Left alorio Checke d per iod ic a l ly , In f r e q u e n t l y ~
- -
B.
S -
Ch ecke d f requentl y
D. Checked when m is~ Ii gnment to target not ice d E. Checked almost continuously
(
5. The pro?edure for fin ding the designated target is: A.

-
Very d i f f i cult to perform to i~ er form
B. t-loderai-oly difficult C. Borderline D. Adequate

sometimes d i f f i c u l t
S
sel dom have prob l ems
E. Very Good
ems no pr-ob ! confusinq and/or time consum i nc ~
6. The procedure for laying gun on the target is: A. Always d ifficult
B. Moderate l y d if ficu l t C. Borderline D. Adequate

(

usu a lly have prob l ems
some problem s
ok most of the time
E. Very Good
no prob l ems
7. The target tracking procedure is: A. Very difficult
B. Moderate l y d i f f i c u l t C. Border lin o 0. Adequale E . Very easy
some prob l ems
occasiona l minor rob t ems
S -
144
IiILe ~
~~~~~~~~~~~
- -S-- -- ~- 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~
5-
~~~~~~~~~~
6-1311
8 . The jo b of keep i ng the m iss Il e on target after fi ring A. Very difficult

-
Is:
.
doratoly difficu l t 13. t.lo C. Borderl ine 0. Adequate E. Very easy

scme problem s
occasiona l minor prob l e-~ s

-
9. The things you have to do to prepare for a convent i ona l an-munItion engagement : A. Too many things to do B. Very many ( C. Borderline 0. A dequate
E.

a large number of i-hir ~ s to b e done in a very short time an d /or done very accurately
can
do them with sor-e difficult y

.
Eas i iy d one
10.
The steps you have to follow for a co~ventione l ammo eng agement are : A. Too difficult to follow
B. Difficul t to fol l ow C. Borderline
usually ma ke some mistakes

ie
scre steps need to
improved
S
D. Adequate E. Very Good
only minor prob l ers doing the steps
t the ~ teps ass i st you i n a successful enge geme r~
II.
The th i ngs you have to do to prepare for a missile engagement : A.

Too
B. Very many
many 1-hi n ~ s to d o
a large number of i-h i~~ s to be done in a very short time and/or done very accv a~c l y can be done with scr-~ di f f i c u lty
C. Porder line D. Adequate
onl y minor pro b le m s
E. Easily done
145
(
_ _ 5 __ ~~~~~ - --- - - 5
. ~~~~~~~-
__________________
____
r
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 5
, , k ~
~~~ -
55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
--
-~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 5 -
55
. =
61311
(
12. The stops you have to follow for a missile engagement are :
A.
Too difficult
to follow
B.
Difficult to follow
usually make some mistakes

-
C. Borderline 0. Adequate E. Very Good
some steps need to be Improved
. the steps onl y minor problems doir ~
the steps assist you in a successful engagement
13. The afrangement of sw i tches , d i sp lays , i nd icator lamp~ , ci rcuit breakers, -. etc. at your tank duty position is:
S
A. Unacceptable B. Ina dequate
to reach and/or see can reach and/or see with some diffic u l ty
-
C. Borderline 0. Adequate E. Very Good
some mino r problem s to reach and see them
no prob l ems to reach and see them
work space ) avai lable at you r tank duty position is: 14 . The rcom ( A. B. Unacceptable Ina dequate

cramped and/or sometimes dangerous can manage my duties with some difficu l ty
C. Borderline D. Adequate
S
some minor work space prob l ems
E. Very Good
no work space pro b l ems
, the procedure IS . If a target is detected by one of the crew other than T.C. C. of the target and its location with respect to The tank is: for alert i ng T. ( A. Nonex i stent
that crewman merely reports to T.C.

-
B. Availa ble but I nadequate C. Borderl ine
the procedure must be improved
the procedure should be improved
0 . Availa ble and adequate C. Very Good
some m inor problems - need imp rovement
no prob l ems
146
(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ -
--~~~~~~~~~~~~_ ~~~~
44_ _ 4~ ~~
3t-! G-~ . C. work w i t h other tanks In 16. When se lect i ng a targe t, hot- much does ihe 1 the unit to spr ea d i ho number of targets ar~r~ g t h e t a nks? A.
~
Never
each tank se l ects a i-argot indop cnJently of i-he other tanks
B. C. D. E. 17.
Occasio nally Usuall y
depending on the tactica l situation

-
W henever poss ible A lways

-
r
-
When do you rocommcnd use of the laser range finder? A. B. C. 0. E. Don t use it Use i t when tim e perm i ts Use it when target has clear outline Use it w hen range est i mai- i on is d if f i c u l t Always use it when i t s w o r k i n g
S
18.
How good i s t h e laser range f inder: A. More trouble than its worth
_ 5
B. Useful
Difficult and/or its slow to use it
C. Border line
has somz pro b lem ~
D. Useful in some situations E. Very good
have to decide when to use It
must be available for best firing results
19. What do you do when the- range to the target as esti mated by you does not agree w ith the l aser range_ rea d out?
S
A.
-
Reject the laser range and use my estimei-e

S
B. Check the laser range if you have plenty of time C. A l ways chock the laser range
-
0. Al ways believe the laser range E. Range again with the laser by Iho
T.C. or me
1 _________
147
5 5 5 -
L. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
G-BH
20. W It h a chance to change 1hlngs in the laser range finder system , show wh ich things must be changcd an d where change-s ore des i rable. Ind i cate- by an X for each of the fo llow ing :
-
( a) tv~ ust Change
( b) Desire Change
Cc) No Chanc&
S
A. B.
Sharing contro l between IC & Gunner

-
Steps necessary to get control of laser ~ue to sh a ri ng C. RJles for deciding when to take contro l of sysi-om 0. Deci ding which range is being displayed E. Where your. l aser rea d ou ts are l ocated F. Types of switches and controls for system C. Where the laser controls are l ocated H. How hard is it to decide the range
I.
_ _ _ _ _ _
______
_ _ _ _ _
- -
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
S -
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
How d ifficult
operate
i s correct
is the laser system to
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
itre operat i ng procedures standard i zed enough K. Are you confident enough in l aser ranges
J.
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
1. How was training for laser range finding M. ti. 21 . Is there enough time for las er p ract ice Are there enough safety instructions for laser
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What do you do if you suspect a laser range finder malfunction? A. Rely on visual raflge estimates using periscope reticle pattern B. Keep contro l of the laser ranger and try rang ing again C. D. E. Request I .C. to repeat rang ing Turn laser ranger Of f for a me-mont then back On Check curcuit breakers
S
148
--
--
- - -
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -
iing th i ngs in terms of their i mportance in the- decision 22. Arrange the fol lo ~ mun it io n io use. Place The things in your preferred order by o wh ich gun and er~ ~ a) in the blank space of The- th i ng you Th ink is most i mpor-tant , put ( b) p lac i ng ( int il all the thi n ~ s have a l etter In the blank by the second me-st i mpcrtant ~ ~pacc beh i nd them .
-
A. Type of target B. Number of potential targets C. Range to target

-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0. Degree of threa + t o own t ank E. Target l ocat ion

5 -S
F. Deployment of own tanksG. Deployment of enemy forces

-
23. 1-tow was -i-he gunnery tr ai n i ng g i v en to you an d the crew : A. B. Not enough to get us ready -for the firing tab l es I nadequate
nun ition ( quantit y ) H. Di sposition of arr~
with .sonie major prob l ems with some prob lems

-
C. Borderli ne 0 . Adequate E. Very Good

-
w i t h some minor prob l ems

S
24. Show wh ich th i ngs in gunnery training need to be changed. Show which ones must b e changed , en d in which ones change is desirable. Indicate by an X for each of the f o l l o w i n g : (a) i1ust (b) Can ~ Change hiprove
S -
Cc) No CimnrRequ i re ~
_ _ _ _ _
A.
Quantit y of training overall
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
B. Quantity of dry fire practice C. Instruct ion on individu a l firing d uty prcce d ures 0 . Instruction on crew procedures E. Training aids and materials F. Train ing tosts and exam inations
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____
G.
Retest procedures after f a i l u r e of ProGunnery Exam
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, ________ -S--S ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ___________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ ...
~ ~~~~~~~~
------
~~~~~~~ ~~~
---- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
S ~ ~-
___
~~
*S5 S-1
S S
25. Show wh i ch of the things related to t lf- J given in gunnery training that need to be changed . Whic h must te i ri:pi-cved , arid uiich c~ir a be- improved . Indicate by an X for each of the f o l l ow ing :
. -
( a) Must Change
S -
( b) Can Improve
Cc) No Chan~ Requir~

-
A.
-
Amount of time f i ring B. Amount of time in simu lated C. Amount of time on tact i cs D. Amount of time
spent in actua l range spent in actua l firing combat exercises spent in instruction on Tables l- 3
-
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
E. Amount of time on Tables 4-5

~
--
F. Amount -of time on Table s 67 G. Amount of time on Table C H. Amount of time on ref ir ing
26.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _-
How does tank noise interfere with communications in the tank: A. Makes communication almost i mpossible B. Makes communicat ion difficult C. Periodically i nterferes with communication
-
0. Se ldom inter fer es w i t h commun i cat i on E. Does not inter fere with communication 27. Is your seat: A. Extremely unccm fortable
B. Moderately unccmfortable C. Comfortable some of the time 0 . Comfortable most of the time E. Always comfortable 28. Are seat adjustments : A. B. Unacceptable I nadequate

uncomfortable at intervals
can t adjust it
not enough adjustment must be improved could be improved

-
C. Borderline
0.
A dequate
minor prob l ems
E.
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very Good
S
iso
~~~~~~~~~~ --- ----
- . : ~~~~~~~~~~~~
__
-
\
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
5r . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~
- - - -_5-S5~~~~~~~~~~~~~5~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S.
~~~~~
S___S___S
:1
29. Whi ch of the following be improved : I tem
i tems wculd you s~ y m ust be chang d an d wh i ch could ~

-
( a) Must (b) Could Cc) No Ch~ r: ~: Chanqe Improve

_ _ _ _ _ _ _
b c tion and/or how ii works:

-:
A.
Armament selector sw i tch

-
_ _ _ _ _ _
B. Hydraulic/stabilizat ion switch C. 1-lain gun tr i gger D. Range button ori cadi ll ac handle E. Cant switch F. Laser rang~ fi n der contr o ls
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
--
G. Laser range finder displ ays H. Turret hu l l knobs I. Per i scope controls
S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J. Te l escope controls Procedures i nvolved in: K. Target identification 1. Lay ing on target M. Target tracking U. Missile Aiming
S
______
____
_______
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
0. Communicati on with other cre w men

~O. Do you have difficu l tyThntering and leaving the tank by your hatch : A. A l ways great difficu l ty
-
8. Alw ays moderate difficulty C. Cordorl inc D. Onl y w h en w ea r i ng heavy cloth ing or ca rryin g a load E. Never
S
always easy
~ ci -
- 5---
h.
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
--.
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- ~~~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~S-~~~~~~~~ -~ ~~~~~~~
-5 -
31 . How are your jobs for conduct of f i r e d i f f e r e n t when the tank is mov i ng as oppos ed to st an d ing s til l : A. Much more dirficult
S -
B.
Some w hat more dif fi cult

S
C. Borderlin e D. About the same E. Easi er temperature , 32. Durin g firing o~ the m ain gun , i s the i ntern a l env i ro~ment ( -humidit y, fumes , etc.) of i-he tank:
-
A.
Almost unbedrable
8. Bearable f~ r short periods C. Uncomfortable 0. No problem 33. Is the ride quality of the iank such that when i t moves you a r e : A. Usual ly very uncom fortable
B. Occas ionally very uncomfortable C. Borderline 0. Moderate l y Comfort ab le

--
E. Comfortable 34.
Is the l ocation of your ra di o controls su ch that i t is: A. Almost i naccessible
sometimes requires some one else to sw i tch channels
B. Di fficult to get ~ t some contrOls C. Borderline 0. Adequate E.
Detracts f rom other d uties
with some prob lems b u t does not i nterfere with other duties
No prob lems
152
I S ~~~~~ ~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~
- --~~ _
~~
S--
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ ~~~~~ -~~~~~ ~~~~ -~~~~
-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ -
5-
-~~~
35 Are handholds and footholds uwd du , ing stand-up oper tie-n w it h The ta:k ~~~~~~~ in motion:
-
A.
Inadequate and/or unsafe
8. T~rg ina l
-
some major pr c-blcm s
C. Borderlin e D. Adequate E. Exce l l ent

-
only minor problems
no prob l ems
153
_____________
-~~ -
~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~ - -
. - - -
~~~~~~~~ - -- ----S - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~ ---- --
-.----w-----------
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * -
GUNNE RY
QUE ST!O~t-4AlR E (DG ) Loader
Name : Date: I.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SSN:
Com p any :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Platoon :
. -
The procedures for load i ng the coax gun are : A. Very Poor B. Pbor

Difficult all
the time
usually have some problems
C. Borderline D. Adequate E. Very Good

-
sometimes difficult
some mino r prob l ems no problems

. 5
2. The loading and operation of the coax gun due to: (Ind i cate by an X for each th ing below ). ( a) (b) ( c ) Cd) Ce) A. Its wei ght is
;.
C.
I~. Length of the rounds is
Location of the chamber is
0. Way the gun is mounted is E. Ammo feed system is F. Reload i ng after stoppage is ( a) Very Difficult ( b) Difficult

~~~
d) Adequate ( e) Very Good Cc) Borderline (
3 . The things you have t~ do to prep are for a conventional amrnunftion engagement: A.
-
Too many fhing ~ to do Very many

-
B.
a iarge number of things to be done in a very short time and /or done very accurately can do them with some diff i cu I t ~
-
C. Borderline D. Adequate
(
E. Easily done
156
-( -
---._~---
-- S
-~~
5S-~~~~~~-
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
-5
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-. -_
. -- ~~ --S-~~~~~~~~~ -
.- -_: --=- i------ -::5 ~ ~~~~~ -- ~
~~~~ -
L 1 . )
4.
The steps you have to fe - I low for a co w untioria I airmo engagement are: ~ A. Too difficult to f o l l o w
B. Difficult C.
to follow
u suall y ma ke some m islakes

-
- Bo r d e r l i n e
some steps need to be improved y minor problc- r~s doing the steps
onl
th e
steps assist you in a successfu l engagement
work space) at ycur duty station with a ful l load of 5. How i s i-he room ( ammuniti on : A. Unacceptable I nadequate

B.
l crenped - nd/or scret i res dangerous es w i t h some di f f i c u l t y can manage my ~~~~ is no work space pr oble ~
-
-.
C. Borderline
0.
Adequate Very Good
scme mi nor work space prob l ems
E.
6. The work needed to pee l the barrier bag and load a round i nto the main gun is: A.
B .
Very great an d tiring

Moderate
but difficult
C. Borderline D. E. Adequate Very easy
some prob l ems

S
soe-;rlminor prob ler s
7. The operation of the breech during loading conventiona l ammunition In the main gun is: A. Very difficu l t and/or very conf using
B. Diff icult C. Border line

0.
difficu l t arid ccn-~using
usua ll y some problem s

-
Adequate
onl y m i n o r pro b ! e: -s ~
E. Very easy and sim ple
155
-
--
-- 5 -
- --
~~~~~~~-
. ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_:
~~ _ 5 - 5 ~5_
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
_____________________________
7 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~w
~- -
~ S#
B. The l ocation and operation of switcbes ,ali gnt ~e-nt marks , and d isplays used In load i ng convention al zirrtnunition is:
A.
Unacceptable Ina dequate
can use only wi Th great difficu l ty to reach and/or see
B.
C. -
difficult
Borderline
some prob luns to reach an d /or sec prob lems

-.
0.
A d eq u a t e
some minor pro b lems
E. Very Good
no
9. The things you have to do to prepare for a missile engagement : A.

S -
Too many things 1-e- do

-
B. Very many
short time a large nucnber of th i ngs to be done 11n a very and/or done very accurately
-
C. Borderline can be done with some difficult y D. Adequate

S
E. Easily done
10. The steps you have to follow for a missile engagement are :
S
A.
Too difficult to follow
B. Difficult to follow C. Borderline

usually make some mistakes
some steps need to be improved
only minor prob l ems do i ng the steps
the steps assist you in a successful engagement
II. The use of the missile checkout panel is: A. Unacceptable B.

S
teo confusing and/or too comp l ex for checkout

-. -
Ina dequate Borderline Adequate
confusing and/or comp lex for checkout checkout can be done with some mistakes
C.
-
0.
nee d s minor improvement
E. Very Good
no prob l ems
156
-5
j - ~
__ _ _J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--5
_ - - S-5 ~~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ k~ 5 ~~~~~~~~~
________ -
5-
LbC 12.
Thu room ( ~iot- k space ) for all

-
Is:
jobs ~v -~IIa b le at your tank duty position
A.
B. -
Ver y Poor
P o o r
very difficult to perform my requ i red jobs

-
have p rob lems do i ng mosf jobs
C. Borderline
D.
A d equate
Very Good
E.
no pro b lems
hav ~ problems with very few jobs
have problcms w ith ~cmo jobs
err a nge me nt o f sw i tch es , disp la; s , in dicator l amp s, circuit breakers , 13. The ~ etc. at you r tank dut y pos i t i on is:
-. -
A. B
Unacce p ta b le Inad eq uate

S S
to reach an d /cr see

can reach and/or see with some difficulty
C. Borderline D. Adequate E. Very Good
some minor prob l ems tc~ roach an d s ee th~ rn
no prob lems to reac h an d see thcr!1
14. When se lecting a target , how much do you work with other tanks in the unit to spread the num ber of i-argets among the tanks? A. Never
each tank selects a target i ndependently of the other tanks
B. Occas ionally
C. Usually
depending on the tactica l situation -
0 . Whenever possible E. Alway s 15. It a target is detected by one of t~e crew other than the T.C ., the procedure for alerting him of the -I-argot and its l ocation with respect to the tank is:
S
A.
Nonex i stent
that crewman rnere y reports lo T.C.
B. Ava i lable bul i nadequate C. Borderl ine
the p ccedur e
.t t-e ir., ~.ovcd ~-u- ~
the procedure shc-u~~ be irprovcd

-
D. Av & lab le and adequate E. Very Coed
some m !n o r problens need Improvement
no prob l ems
-I
157
-- --- . . ~~~~ -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~
~~~~~~~~~~
5 -
--
16.
I s your seat:
A.
Very uncomfortable Inadequate . Borderl in e Adequate

-
can t sit strai ght
B.
C.
moderately uncomfor l a b le
Comfortable sometimes, uncanfortab lo once In a while
0.
Comfortable most of t h e time
E. Very Good
17 .
always comforta b le
~ -~
Are seat adjustments :

A U n a c cep t a b l e
B.
-
C.
Borderline could b e i mproved
5 Inadequate not enou g h adjustment must be improved g

-
can t ad just It
0 . Adequate E. . Very Good 18.
minor problems
S
Do you have d i f f i c u lty enter ing and l eav i ng the tank by your hatch : A. Always great d i f f i c u lty
B. Always moderate difficu l ty C. Borderline

-
0. Only when wearing heavy cloth ing or carry i ng a load

S E. Never
a lways easy
as oppose d to stan di ng s t i l l :
A. Much more difficult
19. How are your jobs for conduct of fire different when the tank is mov ing
B. Somewhat more diff icu lt

C.
Border line
-
D. About the same E. Easier
158
(
_ 5 5- 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5_ S ~ -.
- -
-: ~~~~~~~~~~~~:
--
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~5 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ --5
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~t
_________
_____
____
, r r -
-_
)of the tank: humidity, fumes , etc . A. Almos-t unbearable

-
20.
DurIng firing of ihe main gun , is the Intern al env i ronmen t (temperatu re ,
-
B.. Bearable for short periods C. 0. 2 1. Uncom forta ble No Prob lem
S -
Is the ride quality of the tank such that when It iroves you are : A. B. Usually very uncomfor i-a b lo Occasionall y very uncomforta b le
C. Borderli n e D. Moderately Comforta b le E. Comfortable

22.
How was the gunnery training given to you and your crew : A. B. C.
0.
Not enough to got us read y for f i ring ta b les Inadequate Borderline

Adequate
with some minor prob l ems with some prob l ems
with some minor pro b lem s

-
E.
Ve ry Good
23. How does tank no ise i nterfere w i t h communications in the tank: A. Makes communication almost impossible
B. Makes communication difficult

-
C. Periodically
i nterferes with corr~ uni c etions
0. Se l dom i nterferes with communication E. Does not i nterfere with coirinunic-ation
_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _
~~~
J
-
L E ~~~~ .
S -
: ~~~~~~i~
- -
24. Show which things In gunnery traiii l ng need to be changed . Show which onos must be changed , and i n %-/h ich ones ch. nge is des irable. Ind icate by an ~ X for each of the follow i ng :
-
(a) Must Quantit y of training overall B. Quantity of di-y f ire praci-ice C. Instruction on i ndiv i dua l firing
-
Chan ge
(b) Can
Improve
Cc) No Change Reo u ir e d ~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____ --
_______
0. Instruction on crew procedures

-
dury procedures
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E. Training aids and m aterials F. Train ing , t ests en d examinat i ons
S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____
C. 25.
Retest procedures after f a i l u r e of Pro-Gunnery Exam
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Show which of the th i ngs re late d to time given in gunnery training that changed . Which must be lmprcve~ , an d wh ich can be improved . Ind icate by an X for each of the follow ing :
need to be
-
(a) Must Cnange

-
( c) No Cha (b ) Can improve Requir4
-S S
Amount of time spent in actua l ranGe f i r ing B. Amount of time spent in actual firing in simulated combat exercises C. Amount of time spent in i nstruction on tactics ) . A mount of time on Tables 1-3 E. Amount of time on Tables 45 F. Amount of t ime on Tables 67 G. Amount of t lr -ie on Table 8 ~
A.
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
H. Amount of time on ref iring

2 6 .
Are handho l ds and footholds used during standup operation with the tank i n motion: A. Inadequate and/or unsafe
6. Marg i na l scme major prob l ems C. Borderline

0.
A de quate
only minor problems
E. Excel lent
no prob lems
-
______________________
5.5S s~5 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
- -5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~~~. .
.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
55
r
L-BG
2 7 .
~~
- -------.~~~
-S ~~
- 5 -
~~~
Is the location of your radio controls such that i-f- is: A. B. C. Almos t inaccessible
somet i mes requ ires some one else j o sw itch channels
D i f f i c u l t to get at some controls Borderl ine
Detracts f rom other dut i es
0. Adequate
with some prob l ems but does not I nterfere with other duties
E. No prob l ems
S S -
I
1
1-
I-1
1 61
______
~~~~~~~ S~~~~~~~~~~5
Dr iver
Name : _____________________________________ SSN : ________________________________

4
-
Da te:
_____________________
company:
Platoon :
S
I. The . rrangcmont of sw itches , d i sp l oy s , indi cai-or lamps , circuit breakers , etc. at your tank d uty position i s :
- -
A. B. C.
Unacceptable ln~ dequate Border line

to reach end/or see
can reach end/or see with scme d if f t ~ tiity no prob l ems to r~ ech an d sc-c them
D. Adequate some m inor prob l ems to reach and see Thei~ E. Very Good
-
work space ) avail able at your tank duty pos ition : 2. The room ( A. B. Unacceptable I nadequate
-
too cram ped and /or somet imes d angercus
cramped and/or sometimes dangerous can manage my duties with some d i f f i c u l t y
C. Borderl ine 0 . Adequate E. Very Good 3
some minor work space prob l ems
no wo rk sp ace pro b l ems
How do you like the l ayout and the wa y th ings are arranged for work at your tank duty posit i on? A.
-
Very Poor
very d i f f i c u l t to perform my requ ire d jo b s

S
B. Poor
have prob l ems doing most jcbs
C. Border line
0.
-
have -prob l em with some jobs
Adequate Very Good
have prob l em with very few jobs
E. 4.
no p ro b lems
How was the gunnery training given to you and your crew : A. 6. C. Not enough to gc4 us read y for f i r i n g t a b l es Inadequate Border line Adequate
-
with some major prcb l en-.s with some pro b lems

-
0.
with some min or prob lcris

-
E. Very Good
162
, 5-
-S
S, s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- u-or
S
V -
_ _ _ _ _
5. Show which things in gunnery tra ining need to be changed . Show which ones must be changed an d i n w hi ch ones ch ange is des i rable. Ind icate by an X for each of the fol l owing: ( a) Must A. B.
-
Quanti fy of training overall Quantity of dry. f i r e practice Instruction on individua l f i r ing duty procedures Instruction on crew procedures
-
( b) Can Cc) No Chan ~~ Chan ~~ Improv e Reauir . ~t:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C. D.
E. Tra ining aids end materials F. Trainin g tests and exa- inetions
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
G. Retest procedures after fai lni re of ProGunnery Exam
6. Show wh i ch of the t h i n g s rel ate d to gunnery training that need to be changed . Wh ich must be improved , and wh ich can be improved . Indicate by an X for each of the fol low ing :
(c) No Charv (a) Must (b) Can mpr Rcc !r ge ve Cha~ ~ ~ ~~~ A. Amount of time spent in actual range f i r i n g
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
B.
S
0 . Amount of time on Tables 13
Amount of ti m e s p ent in a ctual f i r i n g in simu l ate d combat exerc i ses Amount of t i me spent in instruct i on on tactics
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E. Amount of time on Tables 45 F. Amount of time on Tables 67 G. Amount of time on Table 8 H. Amount of time on ref iring 7
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
How does tank noise interfere with communications in the tank: A. Makes communication almost i mpossible
.
-
B. Makes communication difficult C. Periodic a l l y i nterferes w ith coirmunicatlon 0 . Sel dom i nterferes with com municat i on C . Doos not interfere wit h communication
S -
163
. ~~~~~~ --S 5~~~~ 5_ 5--S ~
. __ p - - ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. ~ . -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~
__: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ S~~~ 5-5-S5-~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8. Is your scat: A. B. Extremely uncomfortable Moderately uncomforl-able

-
/
-
C. Comfortable some of the t ime

S
uncomfortable at intervals
D. Comfortable most of t h e t i m e E. Alw ays comfortable 9. Are seat adjustments : A. Unaccep ta b le B. Inadequate
S
can t adjust it
-.
not enough. adjusi ment must be impr ~ vdd

-
C. Borderline could be improved 0 . Adequate

-
minor prob l ems

-
E. Very Good
tO. Do you have difficult y e n t e r i n g an d leav i ng t he tank b y your hatch : A. Al way s great diffi cu l ty B. Always moderate d ifficult y C. Borderl ine
S
0. Only when wear ing heav cloth i ng cr carry i ng a load E. Never

S
always easy
as o p p osed to stan d ing s t i l l :

A. Much more d i ff i cu i t
II. How are you r jobs for conduct of fire different when the tank is mov i ng
B. Somewhat more difficult C. Borderline

S
D. A bout the same C. Easier
164
C
S _ _ _
S _ _
--
-~~~
- -- -
~~~~~
-~~~ -~~ ~~ ,
--
----
--5----
- 5- 5-
:1
. S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-*
D-~ F
humid i fy , fu m es , etc.) of the tank:
2. Durin g firi n g of the main gu a A. -Almost unbe arable
Is ihe interna l env ironment ( temperature ,

S
B. ~eara b Ie for sh ort periods C. Uncomfortable

-
D. t~ o prob l em 13. A. B. C. 0. E. 14. Usuall y very uncomfortable Occasionally very uncor::fcrtable Border!ine Moderately uc- mfortab!e Comfortable
Is the ride qu ality of the tank such that when it moves you are :
-
-.
- -
Is the locat icn of you r radio controls such that it is: A. B. C. 0. E. Almost inaccessib le D i f f i c ult to get Borderline Adequate
somet i mo s requ ires someone e lse to sw itch channels
t some controls ~
Detracts f rom other duties
with some prob lems but does not interfere w it h other duties
No prob lems
15. Are handholds and footholds used during stand up operation (head out of hatch ) w ith the tank in rnoi ion : A. I nadequate and/or unsafe
B. Marg ina l
some major prob l ems

-
C. Borderline D. Adequate E. Exce l l ent
only minor problems no prob I em~
165
__
--5-
L.
~~
--- -~~~ ~~ ~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~
r~~T~-
~~~~~~~~~
S~5-5-S ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
(5
S -
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF THE M 60 A2 TANK COMMANDER S SEAT ASSEMBLY EVALUATION
______
--
r~~
- 5-55- s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
,- -_.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S_S5=~_ ~~~~~~~~~~ : ~~~~~~~~
TEST OF THE M60A2 TANK CO~ 1ANDERS SEAT ASSEMBLY

4
_____________________
Introduction The purpose of this test was to examine the tank commanders seat
assembly on the M60A2 with regard to operational efficiency and safety.
To
accompl ish th is tes t , two evaluators , one OTEA eng in eer and one h uman fac tors
engineer , rode the tank in the g~ nner ~ s and loader s seats. These personnel
noted the standing points , body positions and recorded time spans while the TC performed the motions and issued commands for a conductoffire mission. The following sections of this report present the methodology for collecting
da ta , the personnel tested , results , conclusions and recommendations.

Methodology The method used to collect data involved two evaluators riding
-
in the
N60 A2 tank in the gunner s and loader s seats.
A line drawing of the TCs
station was used to record foot and body position as the TC performed a conductoffire mission . These data were recorded by the OTEA engineer . Also indicated in these sketches are handholds used by the TC during the test. The human factors engineer , a contractor from the Essex Corporation , recorded the time spent by the TC from the start of the fire command with the TC in shoulder defilade until he achieved the position to observe the target
-
and lay the gun through the periscope.
Upon issuance of the Cease Fire corn
inand , the time required by the TC to return to chest defilade was recorded . These measurements were taken for both seatin and seatout configurations , allowing each TC to serve as his own control . This eliminates variables due to experience , anthropotnetrics , preferential techniques , etc. Three ( 3 ) data
runs were performed on each configuration and times were averaged out . This
I -S ~~ ~ -
~~~~~~~~~
_ i ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________
______________________
--~ z ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- -
- :- ~ ~~ ~~
precluded confounding of results due to one extremely rapid or one bad trial.
The latter might occur randomly and the TC should not be unduly penalized for this factor.
-
During the tr ials , the driver , who remained constant throughout the test
trials for any given company , was directed to drive a given course , s top upo n
collection of the desired data for that portion of the trial, turn the tank
S
around and retrace the course for the alternate configuration. Use of the same driver and course , as allowable , reduced variab ility of resul ts due to
driving or course conditions . Because of the requirement for noninterference with ongoing training or
S
duties , it was not possible to use the same course for -all companies ; however , all subj ects in each company were tested on the course suitable to the terrain
S
g., B Company on the practice TCPC course , where training was occurring (e.
1 111 range). C Com pany near the Table IV range, A Company near the Table I, 1 ,
Evaluator personnel wore CVCs or headphones and were able to communicate on the tanks intercommunication system.
This allowed them to determine the A stopwatch was used to record
beginning and termination of each data set. times.
Mter each trial run in bo th config ura tion , the TC was briefly interv iewed
with a tape recorder and was requested to fill in a questionnaire related to the TC seat assembly.
-
Personnel
It was arbitrarily determined that thirty ( 3 0 ) TC s be selec ted , as 5 0 %) of available , to perform in the test. This represents over 50 percent ( the TC s in the battalion which number 54 in all. These personnel were acquired The majority
on a random , as available , basis during breaks in training periods.
of personnel used to perform the actual test were involved in gunnery training at the time of the test; therefore,
the techniques for issuing and performing
168
\ -j
__
_ _ _ _ _
--
fire command s were well practiced . Anthropometric information was collected

on all personnel through one of the questions on the questionnaire to allow
a comparison of height/weight characteristics to task performance. The subjects ranged in he igh t from 63 inches t 77 inches and from 125 pound s to 220 pounds
in weight . Table 1 lists the height range of the subjects tested , the number
in each increment and the percentage of the test population. Beca use of rou nd ing of the percen tages , the to tal ind icates slightly
4 2 % ) of these personnel fall in the ranges higher than 1 0 07 . . The majority ( between 65 and 70 inches height. Twentyfive percent ( 2 5 % ) of the people in this heigh t ra nge indica ted a preference to retain the seat assembly whereas the remaining seventyfive percent ( 7 5 % ) expressed a preference to ride with the seat assembly
Out.
S
Personnel below 65 inches height responded unanimously to retain the seat. They do not have any other footrests which allow them to ride with any degree of comfort and be able to see outside the hatch . Two TC s over 70 inches (one at 71 and one at 73 inches) heigh t expressed
a preference to retain the seat assembly . These personnel, as determined from the debriefing and q ues tionna ire , had been directed by their battalion to keep
the seat assembly in place and had developed a technique which allowed them to perform fire commands satisfactorily. This technique was to simply squat down
in the cup ola , without moving their feet , and place the eye on the periscope sight. Use of this technique was not limited to these two. Some TCs, when
S
using this squattosigh t approach , ex tended the ir knees beyond the safe envelope of the cupola. These subjects were requested to slowly rotate the
cupola to see if they encountered interference points inside the tank. When rotating from the centerline toward the righ t side , many subjects bumped their knees on the grenade launcher control box as the first interference point.
5-
169.
-- 5 - --
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
-- -
~~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
--- ~~ ~
-.~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~ ~ ._=_; 5 - _ _ ~~..~~~~
5 ~
~~~~~~ 575
TABLE 1.
S IN SEAT ASSEMBLY STUDY HEIGHT RANGE OF TC
Height (Inches) 63
No. of Personnel In This Range

1 .
% of Population
533
3.3
64
65
6.6
66 67 68
(
69
5
6.6
6.6 6.6
6.6
2
2
70
2
-
6.6
71
72
_
6
3
-
20.0
10.0
73 74
S
5 0
-
16.6 0
3.3
75
76
77
0
1 .
0
3. 3
TOTAL
30
99.4
Mean Height
70 inches
Standard Deviation
3.05 inches
170
~~~~~~~~~~~~
5~~~~ -~ ~ .5-S ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.
I~~. . t ~~~
~~~~~~~ -~ -
~~~~~
-5
--
-5-S
-- S S555---S
.5
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When rotating to the left, the radio jack box protruded into the envelope re quired by the knees. As long as the direction of engagement of a target did not exceed approximately 300 on either side of the forward tank centerline, there is no interference or safety hazard using the squatting technique. It wa s not ed that per son nel g ene ra ll y employed on e of t hr ee t ech n iqu es for dropping into the turret to use the periscope on a target. 6 5 or less) stands on the sea t pan and squats to First , the sho r ter TC ( place the eye on the periscope.
He simply stands to return to chest or shoulder defilade. This technique is satisfactory only within the cons train ts no ted
above. Some subjects did not extend outside the safe envelope; however, most of those that used this method did exceed the safe envelope and it is conceivable that injury may resul t if the turret is traversed rapidly.
S
A second method used by the subjects when the seat assembly is in place is to stand on the seat pan until a target is acquired . Then, he unloads his weight from the seat by grasping the hatch opening , allows the seat to springload to the vertical position and drops to the main platform which he preset to be at his eye level with the periscope. To return to chest or shoul der defilade, he usually stands on the screen guard partially surrounding the main pla tform wi th his righ t foo t, places the left foot on the lower left non adjustable step ( o r on the personnel heater control box directly below it), and places his right foot on the handle which controls the main platform
height and attempts to lower the auxiliary platform with his left foot. When the cupola is ro tated away from the fron t cen terline , the screen guard cannot
be used since It does not extend far enough. storage brackets is used in this case. f ully loaded tank .
Usually , one of the ammunition
This will not be possible with a
Lowering the auxiliary platform and the seat pan can be
ex tremel y time consuming in som e cases. This is especially true when operating
in rougher terrain than used In this test or with muddy or wet boots. Raw
171
~~~~~~
-_ _
times of 1 1 and 12 second s for the subject to return to the chest defilade
position using this method were recorded.
Further , damage may r esu lt to the
personnel heater control box because of the stress it receives when being used as a step .- The auxiliary platform is springload ed to the vertical position . In this configuration the upper edge of the platform is behind
the plane of the seat pan which also springload s to the vertical position . To lower the seat pan , the crewman must engage the auxiliary platform with his heel or toe , lower the platform to clear the lip of the seat pan , then
engage the seat pa n w it h th e o th er foot an d lower both (the pa n and th e platform) to the horizontal position. Frequently , the auxiliary platform
slips free of the foot and retracts; thereby , precluding the deployment of seat pan . A modification had been made to one tank which was used in the study. The return spring which retracts the auxiliary platform seat pan to
This allows the T. C. to easily
the vertical position had been removed.
deploy the seat/platform assembly upon return to should er defilad e, but it increases the difficulty of dropping to the eye height on the main platform . The auxiliary platform must be manually raised or it will injure the T.C. s back since it tends to remain In the horizontal position without the retractor springs in place. Another difficulty with this technique is when the T.C. unloads his weight , he typically swings his feet outward to allow clear ance for seat and platform retraction . His feet sweep or kick into the loader s compartment. The observer did not escape being kicked several times while
A loader who is occupied in performing
-~ -
exercising extreme caution to do so.
his duties will not be as alert and could be injured . At the very leas t , the loader may drop the round he is attempting to load or have It kicked out of his hands. This consumes valuable loading time or results in potentially
hazardous damage to the ammunition.
172
S
______
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-. . , ~~~~ . 5 -
5-_ 5 ~ ~ 5-555 -5-S-5
S~SSS_~_ _ ~
5-S~ _~S5~_ 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
5___
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the third method , the extreme ly tall subj ect simply p r eset s t he ma in
pla tf orm and never uses the sea t assembly at all,
lie simply drops his head There
to the perisco?e to view and then stand s to achieve shoulder defilade.
was on ly one subj ect who was tall enough ( 77 in ches) to perform in this manner. W ith the seat r emoved , all pe rs on nel e x cep t the 77 inch tall subject stood on the seat frame crossbrace and dropped to the preset main platform for use of the periscope. This has proven on several occasions to be hazardous as
the feet sometimes slip from the seat crossbrace when operating in rough terrain. In order to return to shoulder defilade, the TC stepped on the main platform screen guard , with his right foot, pulled himself up with a handhold on the
hat ch open in g and stepped on the crossbrace. All personnel except the two
-~~
shortest TC s (63 inches and 64 inches) could see reasonably well standing on the crossbrace. Thes e
two
could see off to the sides but reported a blockage
of vision by the periscope ballistic shield directly in front of the hatch . Results
-
--
The r esults of th e time trials are shown in Table 2 . In Table 2, the first or top row of figures indicates the average time (4 .97 seconds) required
by the TC s to return to shoulder defilade after laying his gun on the target
S
with t h e seat IN. The figure in the D OWN column represents the average time (3.73 seconds) spen t by the TC c to d r op down to eye level with the periscope
af te r acqui r in g the tar get with the seat assembl y in IN place.
The row labeled
OUT represents the average times (1.7 seconds) recorded for the subj ects to perform the fire command tasks with the seat assembly OUT.
S
The bottom row of
figures represents the difference in average times between the SEAT IN, SEAT OUT conditions. As can be seen, there is a saving in time of 3.24 second s for
~~~~~
______
S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-i
- ~-.---
___
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~ ~~
~~.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ z ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the subjects to return to shoulder defilad e with the SEAT OUT and a saving of 1.6 second s for them to drop Ins ide the turret to lay the gun with the periscope. t ime. These savings represent an approximate 65% and 43% quicker reaction
-
S S ~
. IS
LAY ON TARGET AND RETURN TO
TABLE 2. AVERAGE TINES AND DIFFERENCES FOR TC S TO ACQUIRE,
DEFILADE WITH TC SEAT ASSEMBLY IN AND /OR OUT
SEAT
-
UP 4.97 2.7
DOWN 3.73 1.2

2.13
In
Out
S
1.73
0 . 6 4
TIME
-
0.65
DIFFERENCE
3.24
1.60
From these data the 99th percent probability times were compiled . These times are the t imes expected in ninetynine percent (99%) of TC operations , 5 based on the results of this sample. For the UP operation , the 99th percent
5
times are:
SEAT IN
that , based on the test dat a , in 99 of 100 t imes that the TC performs operations
6.24 seconds; SEAT OUT
2.03 seconds.
This means
requiring him to move up, the maximum time expected is 6.24 second s with the seat in , and 2.03 second s with the seat out , for a difference of 4.21 seconds.
174
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ -S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T : ~~~~~~~~
-5-5- - -
With the down operation the 99th percent limits on time to perform are 4.30 second s with the seat in , and 2.44 seconds with the seat Out . The d i f f erence is 1.86 seconds.
-
The individual difference in time saving ranged from 0.1 second s to 10.0 seconds to return to shoulder defilade with the seat out and from
0.3
seconds to 5.8 seconds for the subject to lay his gun with the periscope.
those cases where very small time differentials were recorded , it w as n oted
In
that the technique to lay on target and/or return to shoulder defilade was
almost immaterial to the seat configuration. These personnel utilized the
technique of squatting to use the periscope regardless of whether they were
standing in the seat pan or on the seat frame crossbrace. The data sheets were reviewed to determine the number of operations or movements the TC makes during the conductoffire mission. This includ ed the
total number of operations to sight the periscope and return to shoulder
defilade.
It was found that the TC s utilized a total of 142 movements to
perform the fire mission with the seat in and only 1 1 0 with the seat out . This is an average saving of one (1) movement per mission or twentythree
-
percent (23%) with the seat out. It should be mentioned here that the subject , while operating with the seat In and not using the squatting technique, is forced to stand at an angle
1
when he uses the main platform to achieve an eye level position at the pen scope. This angle was measured from the center of the hatch opening (as
measured from both foreaft and laterally) to the center of the ma in platform and found to be 6 with a backsiope (i.e., feet fo rw ar d , head toward rear) . The center of the hatch opening was established and a plumb line was attached
to a f lag stic k at the hatch center point . This plumb line was drawn taut
175
S~~~~~~ - -5~S~~ ~~~~ 5--5-
- 5
5-S- - S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L
,
-- - s
~~~~~~~~~~~~
____________ ~~~S-55 S~ 555-SS ~~~-~ 5 -
5-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and held at the measured center of the main platform.
The angle was measured
with a protractor at the hatch opening.
This means that a crewman riding on

.
the main platform of a M60A2 tank with the seat assembly in must stand at a negatIve 6 angle. Nany (approximately 90%) of the subjects interviewed
stated that this position becomes uncomfortable after a period of time . With the seat out , the subject can assume a more nearly vertical stand ing position and does not become uncomfortable as quickly .
-
When a subject operates with the seat out and is too short to stand on the raised main platform , he usually stands on the seat frame crossbrace.
hese per sonnel ha v e reported that after riding for an extended period of T
S
time with the instep hooked over the brace, the legs and back become ex t r emely
tired .
Also , several instances were recorded during AlT training where TC s These pe r sonnel bumped the hatch
f e et wer e th r own clea r of the foot rest.
with the chest or arms and required medical treatment .

-~
Finally , a nu mb er of subj ec ts stated du r ing th e t r ial runs that the seat should be removed ; however , on the questionnair es , these personnel wrote that the seat should be removed for tank gunnery and on tank trails and should be retained for crosscountry exercises . Many TC s stated that they no~a u se the
-
seat only because it is battalion policy.
It should be pointed out that the
preliminary analyses of this study resulted in a battalion policy decision that the use or nonuse of the seat for tank gunnery was left to the discretion of the individual tank commanders .
Approximately 4 4 % of the subjects who responded to the questionnaires
. .
served in three (3) or four (4) other types of tanks . Also , six teen pe r cen t (16%) served in one other type , 16% in two , 10% in fiv e , 10% in six , 4% in ( seven and one member served in nine types of tanks other than the M60A2 . All
176
-S
S--5
_ _ _ _ _
S ~~~
-.
5- - i -- :~~
S -~~~ -~ --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
--
-- ~~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~ - ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.-- ~ 5-~~~~~~*-
~~~~~~~~~~
th es e pe rs on n el who had ser ved in the M6OA1 reported that they would prefer a
seat similar to that in the M6OA1 which could rapidly be displaced for a f i r e mission while providing a comfortable seat on a march or while performing standard operations.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The recorded data demonstrates that the crewman can operate faster and more efficiently when the TC s seat assetbly is removed . When one considers that the nonpenalty opening t ime for a 50 caliber engagement on the M60A2 during Tank Gunnery is 15 seconds , and the TC spends almost 2 seconds mo r e
with the seat in than out to drop Into the tank to use the periscope , thi s seems excessive. The TC reduces the time to achieve periscope height by In the time required to resume shoulder defilade , During tank
1 1% when the seat is out .
there is an expected saving of 4.21 seconds (99th percent).

-
gunnery where targets are spaced suffIciefltly far apar t , this is not critical . I n combat , this could mean the difference between firing a round or not.
These data must also be tempered by the knowledge that the shorter TCs
cannot operate satisfactorily without the seat assembly installed or something
similar.
The data overwhelmingly favor discarding the seat assembly for

S
certain missions and retaining it for others. This leads to the conclusion
that the seat assembly and the entire TC station be reviewed , and modif ica tions
I
be considered.
One suggested modificaticti being the adoption of a seating
device which would be universally accep table to TC s of a wide variety of
heigh t and be compa tible wi th the func ticns of a TC during tank gunnery . A lso , the modification should provide soie means for the TC , regardless of anthropometrics , to be moderately comfortable durin g extended road marches , crosscountry travel and gunnery exercises. It is not in the province of this test report to make specific design
177
~~~~~~~ -----~~~~~~~ -55--
___
____
~~~
- -S
recommendations; however , consideration should be given to the use of a seat similar to that U8ed in the M6OA1.
Also , some means should be found to
elevate the short TC in a M60A2 from the seat frame crossbrace to allow him to adeq uately see outside the tank while traveling if the seat assembly is nqt available . This modification , if pe r fo rm ed , must allow consideration of safe
and rap id ingress/egress from the tank for all crewmembers while still
satisfying the requirements of a tank mission.
Summary
The purpose of this summary is to indicate these safety related items which must be considered . 1 . TC s who u se the squattosight technique may exceed the safe side of the tank forward centerline.
envelope of the cupola if the cupola is rotated more than 30 eithe r
2. The potential hazard to personnel or hardware when the TC unloads his weight from the seat pan to hop into the turret to use the periscope. This hazard results from the sweeping or kickingout motion of the TCs feet to allow the seat pan and auxiliary platform to springload to the vertical position .
3. There have been several occasions recorded where the TC s fee t , with dry boo ts , have slipped from the improvised , unrestrained footres t , such as the sea t frame crossbrace , in rough terrain . Injury resulted to some TCs from s tr iking the ha tch openin g or fall ing inside the turret.
178
-----
55 5-5-5-
- 5 --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
APPENDIX D
FULL COMBAT LOAD M60A2 TEST
I
179
- i- ~ - -5 ~~~~------
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~-5 5_____ ~
__
~~ S.__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5- --
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.
~~~
~ 5-.-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ . - - - -.--S
_____ .
~ ~~~~ - ---~
5-
AFMASCCPE
5 November 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Proposed Evaluation of Fully Lo aded M60A2 T anks
evaluating combat loaded M60A2 Tanks and the data that may result.
1. General.
The purpose cf this paper is to present a methodology for
2. Methodology . The methodology shown in inclosure 1 is b ased on the data required by the essential elements of analysis shown in inclosure 2. Inclosure 3 is a request from the Human Factors Evaluators to obtain a crew space evaluation . 3.
Anticipated Results. a. Human engineering factors to include crew space, crew siz e, f ield
opera ting cond i tion s, ref uel , rearm procedures.
b. The extra weight carried by the tank s m ay prod uce add itional RAN data. H6OA1/A2 common maintenance problezi areas may surface due to addi approximately four tons.
tional weight. The weight differential between net and combat load is
c. Procedures and times used by the transportation section of the battalion support platoon will be observed and recorded . d. All phy siolog ical and psycholog ical e f f e c ts upon the crew will be documented .
4 . Personnel and Equipment.
a. The 1/67 Armor Bn has the following dummy ammunition on hand : ( 1 ) 300 ea 152mm . ( 2 ) 130 ea Shillelagh Missiles (3) 39 , 0 0 0 round s + 7.62mm . 3, 600 rounds . 4 5 cal.
(4)
l~ O
--5
.AIWiS GCPE
SUBJECT :
5 November 1973 . Proposed Evaluaticu of Full y Loaded M60A2 Tanks
(5)
.50 Cal.
b. The 1/67 Armor Bn has the balance of the items on hand to combat load two platoons of tanks. c. The two ARt Human Factors Evaluators will observe one platoon each and record all significant data on crew positions and human factors. d. Each company evaluator will record and evaluate specific areas. e . The maintenance evaluaton team will observe and evaluate problem areas that may result due to the additional weight (RAM Data). f. The battalion evaluators areas of interest are shown on inclosure 5. g. Crew questionnaires h. All data related to combat loaded M60A2 Tanks will be forwarded thru Data Collection to the Objective Three Writer. 5 . Period of Test: The two platoons should be loaded 50 percent on Tuesday , 13 Nov., the first week of phase III. These platoons will be from the same tank company of the 1/67 Armor. Two different platoons may be loaded the 13 December . 26th through the 29th of November and 10
I .
181
~~
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~
_ _ _
. - - ---5 -. .
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _
__
. V. ~~~~ ~~~~~
_
_ ~.
_ _ :-.- S . _-- -,. ~r75-s vc --~~
Exercise Guideline s M60A2 ICTT FrX/ATr 1 . Exercise guidelines will be established to insure that essential elements of analysis are evaluated / observed during the November FTX/ATT . 2. The following guidelines pertain to the M60A2 Tank Company upon
attachment to the Mechanized Infantry Battalion : a. All Tank Company maintenance and parts requests will be forwarded
through the Nech Infantry Battalion trains. b. The detached M60A2 Tank Company m ust establish and maintain a
Prescribed Load List of repair parts. This PLL will be established by the parent unit prior to detachment. c. The 1/67 Armor Battalion will provide GOER fuel and cargo (a mmo) support to the detached tank company as company trains. ci. The detached tank company will not receive logistic support from the 1/67 Armor Battalion unless specifically requested through the mechanized infantry battalion. 3. The following guidelines apply to the rnechanized infantry battalion: a. The mech infantry battalion maintenance platoon will assist the M60A2 tank company with repair and technical assistance. b. All assistance requested that cannot be accomplished within the mech infantry battalion maintenance platoon will be requested from the common field trains. c. All maintenance and parts assistance will be logged by the mech infantry bn maint platoon.
182
_ _ _ _ _ _
ci.
The mech infantry bn will provide fuel, and cargo support to
the detached mech infantry company . e. The mach inf antry bu CO should be made aware of the characteristics and support requirements of the M60A2 tank company prior to attachment . 4. /67 Armor Battalion : The following guidelines apply to the 1 a. The 1/67 Armor Battalion maintenance platoon will maintain a
-
record of all maintenance assistance and repair s furnished the at tached mach infantry company .
-
b. The detached M6OAZ tank company should be at least eighty percent operable strength at the time of attachment to the mach infantry battalion. 5 . The following general guidelines will be provided: a. All commanders involved will be briefed concerning tactical concepts associated with the FTX/ATT. b.
-
Command and control procedures will be observed and reported .
183
- -
~~~~~~~ --= -
_ ,w
--~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- ~~~~~ - - - - -~~~ ~~
--~~~~T~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
- - ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --- ~~ - .S-
--y,..-- -~~~ . - -~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .7 - S~~~~~~~ -
~~
NAME:
Angelo J. Micocci EVALUATOR COMMENTS
DATE. 3318
During the course of this test, things may become apparent to you which should be recorded and passed on to the test HQ, but are not covered on any forms. Please use this form to record this information. Be as complete and specific as possible ; include names of individuals , dates , units, bumper numbers , etc. As an aid , a list of objectives of the test is printed on the reverse side. On this date , I participated in the Combatload test of the M60A2 . This included riding in the gunner s compar tment on a road march with 50% load and helping load to 100% at an assembly area . My evaluation included assessing the rea ch to the various controls and displays in this station . Following is a listing of the findings during this test .
- ~ -
1 . A number of crews were found not to know how to sequence 5 0 %) loading. This was load ing of the A2 during the initial ( found to be true during loading at the assembly area . The T.C.
4- -
loaded 6 missiles first , then the cony , ammo . In order to install these rounds, three missiles had to be removed , the ammo rack bases remove4 and the cony , rounds loaded in the racks to the right of and below the main gun. This indicates a need for a specific sequence and this needs to be practiced. 2 . Inclusion of the full load did not significantly alter opera tiug capability in the gunner s station. This station is cramped before the tank is loaded and the ammo did not make a great deal of difference .
184
_ _ _ -5 _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
- ~_ ~
~~~~
-- -
- -
-- -
- - --- ----
3.
The loader will be cramped and operations somewhat more difficult with the reduced space available for movement.
-
4.
Exposed hexhead bolts (telescope mount and cable clamps) rub the leftknee and create a very uncomfortable condition . Either these should be padded or the gunner issued a kneepad of some sort .
5.
This author (5 11 controls.
182#) had no trouble reaching critical
Use of the periscope requires leaning slightly This m ight be uncomf ortable after
forward and to the right. extend ed periods. 6.
Use of the manual elevation device requires repositioning of the left leg but is feasible.
7.
The gunner s seat backrest f i t comfortably .
Shorter or
taller personnel might be hindered by the backrest not fitting the lumbar region of the back as well. 8. Inclusion of the full combat load did not appear to affect mobility of the A2 significantly; however , this author is not an expert in this field and the reader should be tempered by this thought . 9.
-
At one point during the road march (on bumpy terrain) , the gunner s hatch sprung loose from its restraint with the manual travel lock level in p lace. I happened to be holding onto the hatch The
and prevented it from slamming shu t by that means.
manual latch lever was then disengaged and the hatch repositioned open and the lever snapped back into the clip. after that. The hat ch held
This aspect (slipping loose from the open position)
should be investigated to preclud e injury to the gunner.
l~ 5
-
.-
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -~~~ ~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
APPENDIX E DRIVER SAFETY STUDY
~-
.-
________________________________
_________________________
186
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REPORT ON M6 0A2 DRIVER STUDY
Introduction
On 28 November 1973 , a driver of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion 67th Armor

suf f ered laceration s of the face and cheekbones broken in two places . The 6 sutures to close. This occurred when the T.C. lacerations required 1 announced to the crew that he was going to rotate the turret and the driver did not lower his seat to protect his head . A scissor s effect trapped his bead between the gun tube ballistic shield and the driver s hatch . This was the second such reported incident with the first not resulting in serious injury. In the first accident, the driver was merely bent over double by the weather cover bolts on the ballistic shield and was able to report for duty the following day. History indicates that a driver at Port Knox , Kentucky, had his rib cage injured during a similar accident and subsequently died . Nine instances have been recorded of i . e ., pneumonia ) from complications ( traverse gear box failures and/or mechanical locks failing due to gun tube encounters with trees or the action of inertial forces. Any of these incidents -could have- resulted in serious injury to a driver not maintaining clearance between his head and the ballistic shield. In addition , several drivers were in the vicinity of the tank where the safety evaluation was progressing and indicated that on several occasions each of them had experienced close calls when the ballis tic shield passed over their heads during turret traverse. One driver reported that he was s compartment during one of these maneuvers. partially lifted out of the driver t is apparent It is not known how many of these- incidents occurred ; however, i
-
187
H _ _ -
. 5 ~~~~~~ ~ .__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. - 5
___ _ &, ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
that a safe ty problem exists and must be corrected .
If it is not , serious
injuries may be expected during the combat life of the tank.
ggy Methodo1 ~
A meeting was held on 5 December 1973 which was attended by representatives,
from the MaSSTER Company evaluators, Chryler , OTEA, NASSTER Plans and Evaluation Branch , U.S. Army , Europe and Human Factors. The problem area was
-
discussed historically and comments solicited from personnel in attendance . After a series of suggestions were reviewed, personnel in attendance visited the 1/67 motor pool. where a Bravo Company tank was made available for study . Measurements were taken at the driver s compartment with the fully depressed gun tube over the edge of the hatch and then directly over the centerline of the hatch . Maximum clear ance measured at these points was eight inches from the hatch horizontal plane to the lowest interference point of gun tube ball istic shield . At this point , a driver s field of view was measur ed and the driver could see a point approximately 2025 feet in front Of the tank. A
vehicle moving at 1 5 mph will travel approximately 22 feet in one second . With visibility of the ground 2025 feet in front of the tank the driver Anything closer than that will be unavoidable in any case since the braking requirements of the M60A2 are to be able to stop the tank wi thin 60 feet at a speed of 20 mph. This negates the opinion of some drivers that he should
-
should be able to see an obstruction or ditch in plenty of time to slow down.
be far enough out of the hatch to see a poin t directly in front of the tank. During gunnery , the driver must operate in a buttonedup mode and the danger of scissoring the crewmen is eliminated .
188
4
______
~~~~ -
4 .-
-5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, =- . ~~~~ ~
- ~
-
_ -S.
__
_. ~~~~~~~~~ 1 ~~~
Results
/
-
Many alternatives were discussed including training, emphasis of safety , physical restraints and electrical/mechanical int erlocks to preclude vehicle operation while the driver s hatch is open . Training and emphasis of safety have proven not to be effective in reducing injury. Requirements for a crew
report are not necessary Since the T.C. assumes that all crew members are clear when he announces that the vehicle is being placed in stabilization , target designate , turret power ON and/or turret rotation and no crew member replies that he is not ready (safe) . In the initial case reported herein, Also , th is
the driver never stated that he was too high out of his station.
would not prec1~ de injury in the event of a runaway turret due to a damaged mechanical lock or gear box failure. Mechanical/electrical interlocks can be overridden by a resourceful driver and did not appear to be the optimum solution . Also , driver discomfort due to driving all the time buttonedup had to be considered. This left only the physical restraint as a position preventive of inj ury . The most feasible concept involved the use of a device which w ould prevent the driver from getting his head too high out of the hatch and suffering consequen t injury . It was decided that this device could take the shape of
-
cage and/or rollbar to prevent the driver from sitting too high in his station . Pieces of scrap metal were obtained and bent into various shapes to f i t over the s hatch and under the fully depressed tube as it rotated over the drivers driver
igh enough to be hit station. This prevented the driver s head from ex tending h
s hatch by the rotating ballistic- shield. The device must also allow the driver to slide into position for answering the buttoned up mode. Such a design was discovered and found to allow ready hatch closing and opening , allow the driver to see approximately 25 feet in front of the tank and keep the head
in a safe posture . Conclusions and Recommendations It is concluded that training and safety emphasis are not sufficient to prevent injury . Company commanders and their troops both report , during
-
informal discussions , that safety training and emphasis on training has been religious ly imposed and kept current. Supervisors from T.C. s, platoon sar
geants, leaders and company commanders are always vigilant for errors which could lead to safety problems. However , injuries have occurred. With no specific requirements for crew reports , the T.C. and/or gunner are not aware that there is a safety problem. Further , crew reports that everyone is in a safe pos ture h ave also resulted in injuries as shown by the first case indicated in this report .
-
Interviews with personnel in the immediate area of the test also emphasized a point that the safety evaluation committee surmized and discussed . That being the circumventing of mechanical/elect ri cal interlock devi ces.
I
-
Further ,
partial or total dis ab lement of the vehicle through independent failure of the interlock is not desirable . Failsafe and/or override sys team become complex and present their own reliability/maintainability problems . Elcctrical interruption sys tems such as used on the rear deck are not feasible because of the requirement to disable these when the main gun must be depressed to fire over the front of the t ank . These electrical interruption systems elevate the gun systems to preclude firing the guns into the rear deck and disabling the t ank . Since the doctrine of tactics states that the M60A2
should engage targets f rom the front where the A2 profile affords maximum protection , front interruptors would require override or other disab ling methods . Since the other techniques discussed pr esen ted add ition al p rob lems , it was
190
-S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__.S_1S ~~~~~J~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
decided to place emphasis on the phygical res traint solution . Toward this end , a series of mockups were constructed and tested empirically on a M60A2
-
tank in the motor pool.
One member of the evaluation team served as the
driver (stationary tank) with a tank crew member on hand to rotate the turret as directed. This app roach enabled the evaluators to tes t the geomet ry of
the device and locate potential hinge points . It also enabled the measurement of driver field of view and assure d that the clearance were adequate to provide protection . The geometry of the protective devi ce was of a roll bar type with a radius from the vertical braces equal to the contour of the f ron t edge of - the driver s hatch. The hinge points occur at the outside edges of the extreme rubber bumpers on the front edge . This roll bar would detent in place when raised or lowered to prevent accidental dis lodging or movement from vibration. When folded to close the hatch, the bar would fit inside the front edge of the hatch against the rubber bumpers . The only reduction of the ingress/egress di ameter would be the thickness of the material used. When. the tank is to
k
~ -
--
s h es the bar up un til it be operated with the hatch open , the driver simply pu
detente or locks in position . To close the hatch, he simply pulls forward on the bar until it locks in the down position and slides the hat ch shut . The bar depth or diameter will be sufficient to prevent the driver s head from slipping between it and the hatch .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 4
~~~
-~~ -
~~~~~

Man-Machine Evaluation.... M-60 Tank

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Man-Machine Evaluation.... M-60 Tank

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

hs.urch Pro W.. levIow 74.

MAN-MACHINE EVALUATION OF THE M60A2 TANK SYSTEM

FORT HOOD FIELD UNIT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimi ted.

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

4ag. y Prqj~1*~_)~~~~er , l62lP6A72lJ Q~ ~~~ 4

~ and John C fBrad l e~ ~~~tomas B ./Ma loner An~ eio Jj Mi cocci 7

George M .I Giv iden Chief Fort tiood II eLd Uni t

! Joseph Zeidner , Directo j i ~ Organizations and Systems Research Laboratory

MM~ HACUINI ~ EVALUATION OF TIlE ?4 .OA2 TANK SY J.L f ~ ~ ~

The objec tives vei t T j ~~

Principal Findings: Personnel Selection

Loader entrance skills should be reevaluated.

formalized , standardized and disseminated to a greater degree.

Certain jrocedures need to be reexamined ,

deficient,which impacts on mission accomplishment and system availability.

Both operations and maintenance manuals are

Utiliza tion of Findings :

__ .___ ____ ___ ___ - __._~~&*~ ~ ~~

. . . . ... ... . , .. . . .. .... 1

1 2.3 Human Factors Evaluation Guidel,nes.

2 . 1 . 2 Operability Analysis 2 . 1 . 3 Safety Analysis

2 . 1 . 4 Maintainability Analysis 2 . 1. 5 Documentation Analysis 2.2 Phase II Gunnery

2 2 1 Tank Gunnery Evaluation

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

2.2.3 Analysis and Interpretation of Phase I Data 23

2.3.3 Analysis and Integration of Human Factors Evaluation Data.

NTS , Continued TABLI~ OF CONTJ~ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Personnel Selection Evaluation

3.1.2 Results and Discussion 3.1.3 Conclusions 3.2 Problems

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

Training Evaluation . . . . . . 3.2.1 Introduc tion

3.2.2 Tank Crew Training Evaluation. 3 . 2 . 2 . 1

3.2. 2.2 Results and Discussion . 3 . 2 . 2 . 3

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

Conclusions and Problems Tank Crew Training. . . . . .

3.2.3 Maintenance -Training Evaluation. 3 . 2 . 3. 1 General 3.2.3.2

Results and Discussion.

Problems Identified 3.2.3.3 - Conclusions for Maintenance Training. . . .

3.3 Crew Procedures

3.4 Evaluation of Manuals 3 . 4. 1 Results and Discussion

3.5.1.1 Design for Operability. 3.5.1. 2 Design for Safety

TAflLE OF CONTENTS , Continued

Design for Maintainability

102 102 1 0 4 107 107

Problem for Hunian Engineering 3.5.2 Conclusions Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. 6 Human Factors Evaluation of Communications Systems and Procedures.

RECONMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . 4 .1 Personnel Selection. 4 . 2 Training

4 . 3 Procedures 4 . 4 Manuals. 4.5 APPENDIX A

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

PRELIMINARY TASK ANALYSIS

M60A2 TANK CREW

WLL COMBAT LOAD M60A 2 TEST

LIST OF FT CUI tES

- -- ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Crew Rcspon~ es ta Ceiumunicatini~ rroccdures QL~eSttOfl! ~ at the ~nd o f Phases I a n d II

1.1 Test Overview

Phase I consisted of crew and maintenance personnel training on the

---- --- . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~

Maryland , for limited numbers of 1/67 Rn personnel in Military Occupational

platoons demonstrated the ability to operate effectively as a

2. Phase II (Gunne ry) comprised the span of activity required to

train each crew of the battalion in gunnery operations to the point of

._ __ _ _ - ._~~&*~ ~ ~~

- -- ~ ~ ~ ~~~~

~ ~~~ ---

- -- --- ----- -- - -~ --. ~~ _ _ _ _ _