armor magazine, march-april 1992

8/3/2019 Armor Magazine, March-April 1992

1/56


2/56

I think it was that g reat 20th Century philoso-pher, Casey Stengel, who said, It is very diffi-cult to make predictions, especially about thefuture. So, in this issue, in which we depa rt abit from our broad-based content and focuson one issue - he future - e will shyaway from making predictions. We do, how-ever, provide a glimpse of what might be.

The Armor Schools subject matter expertson training, doctrine, technology, and com batdevelopment ha ve p rovided articles that throwonto the table some ideas of where the ArmorForce might be headed and p aint a picture ofits capabilities. Almost anything is possible,given the resources. We hope these articlesprompt discussion and prod readers to submitreactions that w ill contribute to the d iscussion.

There are a few givens. The Army will shrinkover the next handful of years, and Armor willkeep pace proportionally. While comprisingonly 4.1 percent of the active force structure,the M ounted Combat Arm of Decision will stillprovide 37 percent of the active combat bat-talions available to p ut on the ground againsta future enemy. These battalions will deployfrom a predominantly CONUS-based Armyand will fight as a component of a combinedarms team that is part of a joint force. The

restructuring of this force and the sustainmentof it at a level of peak readiness will be ac-complished in an environment of constrainedresources.

Thus, each man and each weapon systemwill count heavily toward the success of futureoperations, perhaps more so than before.Goo d training in the application of future tech-nology will be absolutely critical. The k ey ex-ecutors of the future Armor Force are theArmor and Cavalry soldier and his leaders.Thus, while great weapon systems, such asthe M1A2 featured on our cover and in thearticle starting on page 26, stir our hearts andminds, we canno t forget that they take a manto employ them proficiently on the battlefield.Very appropriately, then, this years annualArmor Conference has as its theme TheArmodCavalry Soldier (See p. 12).

At the same time we look to the future, letscast an eye to the past and examine the leg-acy left us by those who put steel on target ahalf-century ago. Congratulations to the menof the 7th Armored and 8th Armored Divisionsas they celebrate their 50th ann iversary. Welldone Lucky Se ve nth and Tornado.- JC

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

GORDON R. SULLIVANGeneral, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:4?4dU&

MILTON H. HAMILTONAdministrative Assistant tu the

Secretary of the Army


3/56

I The Professional Development Bulletin of the Armor Branch PB-17-92-2Editor4n-ChiefLTC PATRICK J. COONEYManaging EditorJON T. CLEMENSCommandantMG THOMAS C. FOLEYARMOR (ISSN 0004-2420) is published

bimonthly by the U.S. Army Armor Center, 4401Vine Grove Road, Fort Knox, KY 40121.Disclaimer: The information contained inARMOR represents the professional opinions ofthe authors and does not necessarily reflect theofficial Army or TRADOC-position, nor does itchange or supersede any information presentedin other official Army publications.official distribution is limited to one copy foreach armored brigade headquarters, armoredcavalry regiment headquarters. armor battalionheadquarters. armored cavalry squadron head-quarters, reconnaissance squadron head-quarters, armored cavalry troop. amor company.

and motorized brigade headquarters of theUnited States Army. In addition, Army libraries,Army and DOD schools, HQ DA and MACOMstaff agencies with responsibility for armored,direct fire, ground combat systems,organizations, and the training of personnel forsuch organizations may request two copies bysendng a military letter to the editor-inchief.Authorized Content: ARMOR will print onlythose materials for which the U.S. Army ArmorCenter has proponency. That pmponencyincludes: all armored, direct-fire ground combatsystems that do not serve primarily as infantry

carriers;all weapons used exclusively in thesesystems or by CMF 19-series enlisted soldiers;any miscellaneous items of equipment whicharmor and armored cavalry organizations useexclusively; training for all SC 124. 128. and12 C officers and for all CMF-19-series enlistedsolders; and information concerning the training,logistics, history, and leadership of armor andarmored cavalry units at the brigadelregimentlevel and below, to indude Threat units at thoselevels.

Material may be reprinted, provided Credit isgiven to ARMOR and to the author, exceptwhere copyright is indicated.March-April 1992,Vol. CI No. 2

Features361315

20232629313537

43454749

Glasno&.and then someThe Armys Key Emerging Technologiesby Captain (P) Edward W. PayneThe Armored Gun System by DTAFR, DCD, & TSM-AGSTraining With Technology: Armor 2000 and Beyondby Lou EdmondsonSurvivability Is the Best Argument For a Two-Man Tankby Captain Mike NewellDoWe Really Orm he Night?by Josef SchroederThe Future Is Now (A Profile of the MlA2 Abrams)by Captain Timothy GarthDoctrine vs. Technology, A Blueprint for the Futureby Captain (P) Tom AriellyFuture Army Combat ForcesCaptain Michael L. HoweCreeping Overwatchby Captain Robert L. JonesThe Impactof German Reunificationon the Future of the German Armor Forceby Lieutenant Colonel Wolfgang Hahne, German ArmyThe Lucky Seventh: Assigned to Three Armies, Seven DifferentCorps During Itswwll Campaign From Normandy to the BalticTornado Trained Cadre Then Raced Across EuropeLike a Thundering Herd (8th AD)The Spirit of the Cavalrytranslated by Lieutenant Colonel DonaldC. SnedekerGeneral James H. Polk Dies at 80

Departments2 Letters 5 Drivers Seat2 Contacts 12 Armor Conference Schedule3 Armor Hotline 50 Bustle Rack4 Commanders Hatch 52 Books

AlTENTlON FREE DISTRIBUTION APO ADDRESSEES: Please sendyour new address and unit number to ARMOR, ATTN: ATSB-AM (Ms.Hager), Ft. Knox. KY 40121-5210. Be sure to include your current mail-ing label.


4/56

Armor Badge ShouldDeplctService AccuratelyDear sir:Congratulations on, once again, going forthe Armor Badge.In response to Mr. Reichley's letter (No-vember-December 1991Annor) of course.

it should be retroacbive all the way back toWW I if anyone is left to receive it.And i f the soldier sewed n Armor in twoor more wars, senrice should be depicted

exactly as it is now shown on the CombatInfantry Badge, with stars appropriatelymounted.Beadvised please that this is not the firsttime the badge application has been sub-mitted. I have personal knowledge of atleast two, and there may be more.But, let's go for it once again!GEORGES. PATTONMG, USA, Ret.South Hamilton, Mass.

IncompleteReviewDear Sir:I have read your magazine for a number

of years and have tended to enjoy andlearn from your h n g s and the writingssubmitted to you. It is this previous positiveexperience that added to my surprise at afar less than complete review of DesertViczory: The War f o r Kuwaif,written by JonClemene of your staff.Continued on Page 5

ARMOR EditorialOfficesEditor-in-ChiefLieutenant Colonel Patrick J. Cooney 2249Managing EditorJon T. Clemens 2249Editorial AssistantVivian Thompson 2610Production AssistantMary Hager 2610Contributing ArtistSPC Jody Harmon 2610

MAILING ADDRESS: ARMOR A " N ATSB-AM . FortK ~ o x ,KY 40121-5210.ARTICLE SUBMIS!SIONS: To improve speed and accu-

racy in editing. manuscripts should be originals or clear copies. e ithertyped or printed out double-spaced in near-letterquality printer mode.We also accept stories on 5-1/4" floppy disks in MultiMate,Wordstar, Microsoft WORD. WordPcrfect, XyWrite. Xerox Writer,and A SCII @ lease include a double-spaced printout). Please tape cap-tions to a ny illustrations submitted.

PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS: Report deliwry probIems orchanges of address to Ms. Connie Bright, Secretary-Treasurer, P.O.Box 607. Ft. Kmx, Ky. 40121 or call (502)942-8624. FAX (502)942-6219.

DISTRIBUTION: Report delivery problems orchanges of address to Ms. Mary Hager, DSN 464-2610; commercial:(502)624-2610. Requests to be added to the free distribution listshould be in the form of a letter to the Editor-in-Chief.ARMOR HOTLINE- SN 464-TANKme Armor Hotline is a 24-hour service to provide assistance w ithquestions concerning doctrine, training, organizations. and equipment

of the Armor Fom.)

U.S. ARMY ARMOR SCHOOLCommandant (A'IZK-CG)MG Thomas C. Foley 2121Assistant Commandant (ATSB-AC)BG James L. Noles 7555Deputy Assistant Commandant (ATSB-DAC)COL Dwight A. Beck 1050Command Sergeant MajorCSM Jake Fryer 4952COL Phares E. Noyes 8346COL John B. Sylvester 5855COL E. G. Fish I1 1055Directorate of Training Developments (ATSB-TD)COL Joseph D. Molinari 7250Directorate of Combat Developments (ATSB-CD)COL Edward A. Bryla 5050NCO Acodemy/Drill Sergeant School (A'IZK-NC)CSM John J. Beck 5150Reserve Component Spt Div (A'IZK-PIE)LTC William S. Richards 5953Directorate of Total Armor Force (A'IZK-TF)Readiness FAX - 7585

Maintenance Department (ATSB-MA)Command and S h f f Department (ATSB-CS)Weapons Department (ATSB-WP)

COL Dennis H. Long 7809TRADOC System Managerfor Armored Gun System (ATSB-TS)COL Eugene D. Colgan 7955

2 ARMOR - March-April 1992


5/56

Glasnost... nd then someThere was something strangely familiar about T-72Number 11039, all right. Among hundreds of other ar-mored vehicles parked at a former East German ArmyNCO school, where deactivated Warsaw Pact vehicleswere parked for inspection under the CFE Treaty, thistank sported on its glacis plate both the insignia of theU.S. Armor Branch and a red, blue, and yellow Armorpatch from the Armor Center!LTC Donald Snedeker. of the On-Site InspectionAgency - Europe, took the photos and sent them toARMOR.

Armor Hotline Takes Your CallThe Armor Hotline has recently been updated toprovide the Total Armor Fwce with a more extensiveservice than previously offered. This senrice indudesa call-in capability to ask questions, and to retrievemessages from Armor Center organizations. A num-ber of voice mailboxes have been installed on theArmor Hotline (DSN: 464-TANK, commercial: 502-624-TANK) in order to maximize its use. The systemprovides an initial greeting, then refers the caller to alist of Fort Knox organizations and to a list of sub-

jects. Callers may then select any of the organiza-tions, or subjects, in order to leave or retrieve mes-sages.The numbers at right can be used on a touch tonephone to access these organizations or subjects.Callers using rotary dial phones will not be able toaccess these numbers, but will be asked in the initialgreeting to stay on the line and leave a voice mes-sage. Important messages will be placed in the initialgreeting so that rotary dialers will receive this infor-mation.Personnel are reminded to leave their name, rank,unit, phone number, and address when they leave amessage. Additionally, personnel should rememberthat this is an unsecure line. Classified informationcannot be left on or retrieved from the Armor Hotline.

Mail BoxNumber

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

SubjectInitial GreetingList of USMRMC OrganizationsList of Subject AreasCalendar of EventsCommand and Staff DepartmentDirectorate or Combat DevelopmentsDirectorate of Training DevelopmentWeapons DepartmentMaintenance DepartmentTRADOC System Manager for Armored Gun SystemsArmor Magazine/Armor AssociationDirectorate of Total Armor Force ReadinessG-S/Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization12th Cavalry Regiment1st Armor Training BrigadeNCO Academy/Drill Sergeant SchoolArmor Branch Safety OfficeReserve Component Support DivisionSchool and Course MessagesSafety-of-Use MessagesTotal Armor Force Training Support DivisionArmor Unit Readiness ProblemsArmor Crewman Response HotlineGeneral Delivery

ARMOR - March-April 1992 3


6/56

MG Thomas C. FoleyCommanding GeneralU.S.Army Armor Center

The Future BattlefieldThe theme of this issue is the ArmorForce in the year 2000 and beyond.Regardless of the continuing budgetcutbacks and reductions in our forcestructure, I can assure you that theArmor and Cavalry forces in the nextcentury will be a vital member of thecombined arms team.

The threat that we face in the nextcentury will certainly be high tech.Presently there are several countrieswhich have fielded main battle tankswith advanced target acquisition capa-bilities and sophisticated fire controlsystems. This technology will con-tinue to spread throughout the worldand we must be ready to defeat it.To the future armored crewmanarmor operations will become morelike the operations of fighter aircraft,extremely high tempo, anticipatingand countering enemy actions, mass-ing to destroy key enemy elementsand quickly dispersing to deny enemycounterattacks. In short, a continuousbut dramatic acceleration of the trendof fast paced maneuver which goesback to the beginnings of the armorand cavalry forces. I cannot imagineamore challenging or exciting environ-ment in which to be a soldier or aleader.

Though the principles of war will re-main unchanged armor leaders will berequired to possess a whole new array

of skills. Just as the founders of thearmor force in the 1930s had to be-come experts in the demands and ca-pabilities of a mechanized force,tomorrows armor leader must be theabsolute master of the application ofadvanced technologies which are thekey to winning the combined armsbattle.

Cavalry forces in the next centurywill be as vital as they were in thedays of Hannibal.The reconnaissancesquadrons of our armored and lightcavalry regiments will go deep intothe enemys reararea and identify hiscenter of gravity. They will continu-ously track these formations, gatheressential information, and bring avia-tion and other fires upon them. At thesame time the other squadrons willidentify the routes and avenues whichallow us to engage the enemy uponground of our choosing. In defensiveoperations the reconnaissance squad-ron will identify the enemys secondechelon, track its movements, avoidan y decisive engagements, and bringfires to bear upon it while the othersquadronstrack the enemys first ech-elon. 7he basics of how the cavahyfights will not change but the pacewill certainly be faster and the battlesshorter but farm m ntense.Tank battalions provide decisive

combat. The arrival of the main battle

tank on the battlefield defines decisiveoperations. This has held true sincethe First World War and will continuewell into the next century. The cav-alry will provide real-time intelligenceand set the conditions for decision.The main battle tank battalions willmaneuver against the enemys weak-ness to destroy him. Future weaponssystems will allow us to shoot accu-rately faster, move massed tank for-mations rapidly across the field, andmaintain constant automated commu-nications with not only the maneuverelements, but also all the other mem-bers of the combined arms team.Just as in the 1930s he first reactionof many armor leaders will be to re-sist new technologies and preservetactics, techniques, and procedureswhich are proven and familiar. Butalso, as in the 1930s. he victories ofthe future belong to those far sightedenough to harness men and unfamiliardevelopments making our soldiersmasters of the battlefield.Future battles will certainly be hightech. Armor and cavalry will be inthese battles, and as always they willplay the decisive roles. We must besmart in how we evolve to the futurebattlefield. We must forge tomorrowsthunderbolt today in order to maintainour edge tomorrow. FORGE THETHUNDERBOLT!



7/56

LettersContinued from page 2

Clemens cogent Quotes box repeateda number of remarkably shortsighted. a m -gant. and militarily naive comments madeby the author Norman Friedman. I wasdumbfounded that statements like ThirdWorld countries are unlikely to defeat com-petently handled First World forces unlessthey modernize their societies were printedwithout rebuttal. The tens of thousands ofFrenchmen and Americans that lost theirlives in the thirty-year war for SoutheastAsia might tend to disagree. No, we did notlose the war in Vietnam, but Third WorldNorth Vietnam certainlydid win it.Clemens goes on to quote Friedmanwith

...any society wishing to stand up to West-em Forces will have to modernize..he so-ciety itself has to change .. t must producea larger leadership and technically adeptclass. Soviet field commanders who hadtheir armored columns stopped and effec-tively destroyed by illiterate men firing 90-year-old Lee-Enfield rifles and 1950s-eraRPG-7 rocket launchers would have sin-cerely wished for the guidance of Mr. Fried-man on subsequent forays into the moun-tains of Afghanistan.Technology and education are definitecombat multipliers, but they are far from

the be-all end-all components of victorythat Friedman describes. As always, t isthe desire, will, and fortitude of the individ-ual soldier that more often decide victory.The Iraqi Army, as a whole, simply did notwant to fight the Coalition Forces. Hadthose hungry, sporadically equipped, andpoorly supplied soldiers fought with thecourage and conviction that an able leaderand righteous cause would have giventhem. the sands of Babylon might still bewet with the blood of the Coalition Forces.

Self-satisfactionwith our own success isdangerous. Blanket approbation of ourtechnology, education level, and militaryability is tantamount to spitting in the faceof the many examples in history whenthose factors were less than relevant to theoutcome of a particular campaign. We havereason to be proud of our accomplishmentsin Southwest Asia, but we can never be-lieve that our relatively advanced society isa free pass to military success, regardlessof the enemy.CHARLES L RUMRILL1LT. ArmorFt. Polk, La.ARMOR - March-April 19!

1

+CSM Jake Fryer i.Command Sergeant Major $U.S.Army Armor Center

A Farewellto the ForceSince I was twelve years old, I

dreamed of, and aspired to be, atanker. The day after graduationfrom high school in a small ruralcommunity in central Pennsylva-nia, I entered theU.S.Army to bean armored crewman with all ofmy worldly possessions, whichconsisted of a toothbrush. In avery short 23 years, Ive served inevery crew and leadership posi-tion available to an enlisted sol-dier in Armor and cavalry.

In this, my last Drivers Seatcolumn, I reflect on my career asa very profitable (memories-not

money) and rewarding experience.Id like to thank the many soldiersIve had the privilege of servingwith and for. I hope in some smallway Ive made contributions tosoldiers and their organizations.

Now, as I retire from our greatArmy, I do it with a feeling ofknowing there are dynamic youngsoldiers and capable enlisted lead-ers to follow in my footsteps, andin the footsteps of those Ive fol-lowed.TANKS!

Forge The Thunderbolt!1 5


8/56

The Armys KeyEmerging Technologiesby Captain (P) EdwardW. Payne

The A m y TechnologyBase Master future combat systems. The ATBMPPlan (ATBMP) outlines 14 key serves as top down guidance to allemerging technologies that will give Army laboratories: Research, Devel-the future Annor Force the capabili- opment, Engineering Centers (RDEC),ties it will need to win future wars. and other technology-based organiza-

I /j (Figure1. Morelethal. high-veloc-ity projectiles willbecome availableas new propulsiontechnologiesaredeveloped.

ThermalVELOCITY

I I1970 Today 2010Gun Propulsion TechnologyThe Department of the A m y feelsthat the development and applicationof these technologies will increase thecapability of future vehicles and sol-diers, helping to insure their surviv-

tions. This article discusses the keyemerging technologies and the impactwe believe these technologies willhave on Armor Force modernizationand performance. Some results of this

ability, -lethality, mobility, anddeployability. Despite decreasing bud-gets, the Army appears to have de-cided to continue investing in keyemerging technologies.

Historically, the Army devotes 25percent of its technology-based IC-sources to further the development ofkey emerging technologies that allowthe Armed Forces to maintain thetechnological advantage on the futurebattlefield. These 14 key emergingtechnologies are derived from theTraining and Doctrine Command(TRADOC) attlefield DevelopmentPlan (BDP), and the technologies thatare believed to represent the greatestbarriers to successful development of

6

mearch have already been integratedinto fielded or soon-to-be fielded sys-tems.

Perhaps the most important of thesetechnologies is protectiodethality.The goal of lethality is killing th eenemy. The technology is oriented to-ward electric guns (Figure 1). lasers,and munitions. These technologieswill allow future combat systems todeliver a killing mechanism to the tar-get at its most vulnerable time and po-sition, from as far away as possible,and with the lowest cost and logisticsburden.

The applications of this technologyinclude smart munitions, electromag-netic (EM) rail guns, electrothermalchemical (ETC) uns, propellants,andunconventional munitions, such asfuel-air explosives. The goal of pro-tection is the inverse of lethality.These technologies enhance the coun-termeasures that prevent the enemyfrom killing us (Figure 2). Protection

~

ProtectionScattering CdllsNonlinear/ProcessesBROADBAND SacrificialCoatings

/

1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 Today 2000Armor Technology Soldier Protection From Laser

Figure2. The ballistic protectionof armoredvehicles mi continue to be improved asimproved materials are fielded. Soldier protection from laser weapons will continue to beimproved as more effective materialsam developed, e.g., for eye protection.ARMOR - March-April 1992


9/56

50

E $Figure 3. Ad-vanced materials -for am or will pro-vide increasedpro- Q ~2tection at reduced ggE,cost. - _m11s

. m

1990

technologies range from improvingthe ballistic protection of m o r s tothe electronics and munitions neces-sary for a Vehicle Integrated Defen-sive System (VIDS). products of pro-tection technologies include insensi-tive munitions: nuclear, biological,chemical (NEE) equipment; and lasereye-safe goggles. Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency's @ARPA)Kinetic Energy, Armor, and VehicleSurvivabilityPrograms are greatly en-hancing the developments in this

arena. These technologies combine le-thality of the future battlefield withthe Survivability of future systems andthe soldiers who will man these sys-tems.

Another technology closely relatedto survivability is advanced materi-als and material processing, such asadvanced metals, ceramics, compos-ites, and hybrid materials for futurecombat vehicles, aircraft, and personalarmor.Examples are ductile ceramics,light-weight and high strength com-

k$Iiewing Angle Traditional:Optimized for range, payload,maintenance, cost, etc.Faceted:Make.surfaces arge andflat compared towavelengthspikesangleAlign surfaces to combineDirect spikes to favorable, "Apodi2e"facetsBlended (contoured):Eliminate spikes altogether, butat risk of larger RCS for mostangles compared to facets- - - - - Threshold

Figure4. The effect of various shapeson the signature of radar cross sections atvarious viewing angles.

posites, advanced polymerdelastornersand novel electro-optical materials.New materials are being developedfor heavy mor applications, whichare producing improvements in ballis-tic performance and cost reductions(Figure 3). Materials with high spe-cific strength are being produced asmaterials for more efficient weaponsplatforms. Ceramics in diesel enginesare significantly reducing the weightand may totally remove the need for acooling system. The potential advan-tages of these materials are lighterweight, increased system perfor-mance, a significant enhancement ofmaneuverability and an increase inoperational effectiveness. The Armyhas already fabricated a BradleyFighting Vehicle hull of compositematerials that resulted in greater than10 percent reduction in systemweight. Future demonstrations of thistechnology include the FY97 Com-posite Armored Vehicle (CAV) Ad-vanced Technology Transition Dem-onstrator. If successful, this technol-ogy will make the Future Scout Vehi-cle (FSV) and the Future Main BattleTank (FMBT) more strategically de-ployable, while increasing their sur-vivability.

Another contributor to survivabilityis low observable technology. Al-though most of these programs areclassified, this is "stealth technology.It could be used to reduce the signa-ture of battlefield assets below the de-tection threshold of threat sensors(Figure 4). Low observable technol-ogy is most effective when designedinto a system. The development of thetechnologies will permit a combina-tion of optimal shaping, radar absorb-ing material, designs, which minimizethermal and acoustic signatures; andthe apptopriate manufacturing pro-cesses should greatly reduce the bat-tlefield signature of the system. Thistechnology has the potential to makecombat vehicles nearly undetectable,ARMOR - March-April 1992 7


10/56

Figure5. Low Ob-servable Technol- 1OOogy. Numerouscorn-ponents of military ,75vehicles or aircraft, Ee.g. helicopters,con-tribute to radar de- ptection. Survivabilitywill continue to be .25-dramatically im-proved as means toreduce detectable 0 5 10 15 20 25 Typical Rad arFlareSpotsradar cross section Range (km) on a Helicopterare developed. RadarCross Section and Survivability

increasing combat effectiveness andsurvivability. The application of thistechnology will allow combat vehiclesto be lighter, while significantly in-creasing the soldier's probability ofsurviving combat (Figure 5) . Systemssuch as the Future Scout Vehicle, theArmored Gun System (AGS), and theFuture Main Battle Tank (FMBT)could rely heavily on low observabletechnology to increase survivability.A key to all survivability and lethal-

ity systems is microelectronics, pho-tonics, and acoustics. These technol-ogies underpin all Army systems forsignal acquisition, communication,Computation, and processing. The ca-pabilities of these technologies deter-mine the limits of performance forsystems such as smart weapons, firecontrol systems, warning receivers, in-telligence collection devices, andother sensors. The potential advan-tages of these technologies include thereduction of the magnetic signature ofvehicles; small, high defmition, colorflat-panel displays for gun sights andhelmet mounts: and integrated m i m -

the electronics of X-ROD, "smart"kinetic energytank round.

Nearly all systems use advancedsignal processing and computing toperform a variety of tasks in com-mand and control, position/navigation,electronic intelligence FLINT),reconnaissance, automatic target rec-ognition ( A m , Figure 6).fm control,guidance and control, communica-tions, and traininn. These technologies

electronics for future Army allow for the simkation and modelingRSTAEMK3I systems. This technol- of command and control, hardwareogy includes second-generation systems, and wargaming to reduceFLIRs, which will provide improved training costs and to improve readi-

Past cwrent FutureFigure6. Processing technology developmentsare critical to provide AT R operationalcapabilities or brilliant weapons.

resolution in sights and will improvecombat identification range determi-nations. This technology will be usedin second-generation tank sights, and

ness (Figure 7). Optical and digitalprocessing provide more power forbattlefield management and weaponssystems. These technologies will pro-

I vide and advance the Standard Army1 Vetronics Architecture (SAVA), thestandard electronics modules for allfuture combat systems. Other qplica-tions of this technology include thecomputers and processors of theGlobal Positioning System (GPS),Intervehicular Information System(IVIS) and the Close Combat TestBed (CCTB) at Ft. Knox.A technology closely related to thecapabilities of future computers andinformation processors is artificial in-telligence (AI). AI can be applied to

Iment and testing.



11/56

1990 2000 2010 2020Figure 8. AI Application- irLand Battle Management. Coordinatedvia AI, battle ele-nents will operate m ore effectively. Effectiveness is measured by Lanchester Equationmefficients that describe combatant strength and forecast battle outcome.

Sensors mondor wearEmbedded AI\ redicts breakdowns FigUte 9. AI Application- rognos-tics.AI-based prog-nostics, in conjunc-tion with embeddedsensors, will reduceannual maintenancecost per vehicle (amreduce downtime)through more effi-cient scheduling of1990 1995 2000 2005 preventive mainte-nance.

igUW 10. Re- 9tuction of the num- 2gIer of crew in fu-ure combat vehi-

assity of the appli- zation of AI in theiutomationofnany crew tasks.

a

:lesdictates the ne- ;

improve battlefield management (Fig-ure 8), intelligence analysis, autono-mous weapons and vehicles, and othersystems. AI has the potential to coor-dinate an AirLand Operation, makingthe elements engaged in the battle

more effective. AI-based prognostics,in conjunction with embedded sen-sors, will reduce annual maintenancecosts per vehicle through more effec-tive scheduling of preventive mainte-nance (Figure 9). The effective use of

AI decision aids will improve theman-machine interface and improvecombat effectiveness.An applicationof this technology is the researchbeing done to reduce crew workload(Figure 10). The joint Human Engi-neering LabDACOM project, Inte-grated Two-Man Crew Station (lTCS)will employ AI to automate many ofthe crews routine duties, freeing it toconcentrate on more critical matters.Artificial intelligence will help de-termine the capabilities of futurerobotic systems. On the battlefield,tele-operated and autonomous vehi-cles can be deployed in reconnais-sance (Figure 1 ) , countermineopen-tions, rearming, refueling, sentry duty,environmental sensing, and routeplanning. Already, robotics technol-ogy exists to create systems with theability to perform routine tasks suchas ammunition handling, refueling,assembly line activities, material han-dling, and explosive ordnance dis-posal. Robots have potential as forcemultipliers, decoys, and for the re-trieval of damaged vehicles. Roboticsimulators will provide safe, low costrealistic troop training. Robotics havethe potential to enhance automotivecrew functions, ammunition loading,target acquisition, and maintenanceprognostics and diagnostics. Currentuses of robotics in the Armor Forceinclude the development of the mainbattle tank autoloader, and the devel-opment of the Tactical UnmannedGround Vehicle (TUGV). CurrentTUGV programs, such as TACOMscomputer-assisted remote driving,DARPAs autonomous navigation,and MICOMs mission module re-search potentially will give robots thesame capabilities as manned systems.Robotics also have the potential to in-crease force effectiveness and soldiersurvivability by augmenting the forceand the current inventory.

Many of the technologies discussedso far will depend on the advances ofpower generation, storage and con-ditioning. To facilitate use with elec-tric guns, ground-based lasers, andelectric drives, very large, repeated



12/56

energy pulses will be required. Powergeneration, storage, and conditioningresearch involves the reduction in sizeand increased efficiency of batteries,capacitors, switches, resistors, induc-tors, and compulsators. Advancementsin capacitor technology have reducedthe size of a 5 MJ energy store from63 cubic meters to 0.9 cubic meters.Fuel cells, similar to those used on theNASA shuttles, have the potential topower future combat vehicles.Smaller, more efficient power sup-plies are necessary before the more le-thal weapon systems can be integratedinto future combat vehicles. Thesetechnologies also have the potential toincrease tactical and strategic mobilityby decreasing the sue and weight re-quired to power combat vehicles.Electric drives will make combat ve-hicles more responsive and maneuver-able, while decreasing the logisticsburden.

Advanced propulsion technologieswill also increase the maneuverabilityof future combat vehicles. These tech-nologies address increasing power-to-weight and power-to-volume ratios invehicular platform performance, andefficiencies of their propulsion sys-tems. Research is looking into replac-ing the mechanical transmission withan electric drive (Figure 12). Other

Remotalv driven reconnaissance vehicle I1995 2000 2005Time

~2010

Figure11. Robotic reconnaissance will provideanexpanded point of view and com-mand of the battlefield from a rehtiwely safe vantage point.critical ingredients of this technologyinclude research into active suspen-sion, lightweight track, and methodsof reducing fuel consumption (Figure13). Advancements in this technologyhave already allowed the size of th epower-pack for the next generationtank to be reduced by 50 percent.Current propulsion research workswith diesel, turbine, and allelectricsystems. This technology has the po-tential to increase vehicle survivabilitythrough signature reduction, increasedcrosscountry speed, and increased ve-hicle range. Smaller more efficientpropulsion systems will increase reli-ability, availability, maintainability,and durability (RAh4-D).

23ichemgrnIToday Dollar-Years Parameter'0.g.. evolvingAlPSFigure 12. ElectricDrive:Two S c u m Jumps. Advances h everal technologiessup-port the use of electricdriws for m i l i ehides and greatlyease logistics fuel burdens.

Directed energy weapons (DEW)may represent the ultimate futureweapon system. There are significanttechnological barriers to the advance-ment of large-scale directed energysystems. These baniers include sizeand weight reduction, power require-ments, higher energy/power input andbetter control of the radiated beam.However, the short time of flight ofthese systems, limited only by thespeed of light, offer novel potential tocause damage and disruption toenemy forces. Lasers, radio frequencydirected energy, and particle beamtechnologies have made possible thenearly instantaneous projection oflarge bursts of energy into targets. Di-rected energy weapons may causedamage to mechanical and electronicsystems by ablation, melting, shockand spall, and interference with cir-cuitry and information networks.These systems may cause damage tohumans by incapacitation, tissue dam-age, and blinding. Applications of di-rected energy technology include laserrangefinders and low energy lasersdesigned to disrupt optics (Stingrayand Laser Countermeasure System).Other applications of this technologywill include nonlethal systems used totemporarily disrupt the operations ofenemy systems, making them useless.High power microwaves ar e beingconsidered for use in countermineo perations.DEW esearch has unimagin-



13/56

CrHkal Technologies:Advanced Mobility Sys erns

f

Dramatic Payoffs:

I

NI.41Figure13

able potential and may eventuallybring combat vehicles into the realmof what used to be science fiction.There are other technologies thathave less obvious relationships to thedevelopment of future armor combatsystems. However, these technologiesmust be developed if we are to win onthe future battlefield.Future space-based systems will pro-vide surveillance, communications,

weatherherrain data, positioning, andtargeting capabilities. When merged,they will provide a tactical com-mander with a comprehensive knowl-

edge of the battlefield (Figure 14).The ability to assess the enemysstrength, location, and movement, andthe ability to communicateand coor-dinate ones own forces over greatdistances, argue convincingly for thedevelopment of technologies to beused in space. Space technologieswill result in active and passive sen-sors, on-board signudata processorswith real-time delivery of information,and communication relays from satel-lites. Current application of space-based technologies are the Global Po-sitioning System (GPS) and JSTARS.

~ ~

Navigation8 Communications-Microelectronics PS 1 Meter Caprcity*ECM (AntiJam)*Signal Processing Intelligence Processing*Photonlu *Man-PorlaMeCommuni~h

Remote Sensing of the BattlefieldTechnologies -Ta ctica l Wemther IntdligcMceeMuIti-SensorFurlon ---.Rain, Rain RateeArtificla1 lntelllgenca*Signal Processing*Microelectronics - Soil Moisture*Humidity and Wind Pmfllo--Map and Terrain Information*Deep Fire ContrdlRSTA

Satelllte Launchc.u)s

Figure 14. Space Technology Innovations. The Armys use of space will greatly im-prove the battlefield management of communications intelligence, position locations. re-mote sensing, and h e ability to strike deeply behind enemy positions.

In another program, Tactical Exploita-tion of National Capabilities (TEN-CAP), he Army has fielded special-ized ground terminals designed to pro-cess signal and imagery intelligencein support of corps and division oper-ations. This program provides amethod of passing satellite-derived in-formation to the tactical commander.There are two technologies that dealdirectly with improving soldier perfor-mance. Biotechnology involves thetechniques .of manipulating and con-trolling living cells, and the exploita-tion of biological processes and prod-ucts. Current uses of biotechnologyinclude the use of microorganisms todissolve oil slicks and to control in-sects in agriculture, in lieu of harmfulpesticides. Biotechnology is also usedto genetically engineer spider silk.which has potential applications inbody armor. Future applications ofbiotechnology include the use of bio-Senson for the detection of chemi-cal/biological agents, the developmentof better vaccines, and bioengineeredrations, which will enhance soldierperformance.Neuroscience technology hived-gates how information is processed inthe body. The brain is very effectiveat detecting, recognizing, categorizing,and discriminating between objectsand events in our environment, andthen deciding on a come of action.Neuroscience technology is attempt-ing to mimic this ability. A better un-derstanding of the brain will allow amore effective interaction betweenman and machine, enhancing AI-based systems and robotics.Perhaps the most overlooked of a ll

technologies is advanced manufac-turing. This technology dealswith theproduction of goods in a moreresource-efficient manner. Better man-ufacturing techniques have the poten-tial to increase product life, reliability,maintainability, and cost savings.These product enhancements will bereached through the use of advanced

ARMOR - March-April 1992


14/56

materials, increased automation, andsystems integration.

The Department of the Army hasover 40 research and development lo-cations, staffed with some of the bestscientists and technicians in the world,committed to the technologies thatwill most enhance the capabilities ofthe future force. Lethality, survivabil-ity (including mobility, agility, andpenetration), deployability and sus-tainability are the TRADOC prioritiesfor the Future Main Battle Tank(FMBT). Although these prioritieschange slightly for other vehicles,consistent with roles and missions, thetechnology base is supporting ourneeds. Lethality increases will be real-ized through microelectronics, photon-ics, and acoustics; advanced signalprocessing and computing; protec-tioflethality and directed energy tech-nologies. The protection aspect of sur-vivability will be enhanced with pm-

tectiodlethality, low observables, ro-botics, pmtectiodlethality and ad-vanced materials and materials pro-cessing. Tactical mobility will be in-creased by advances in power genera-tion, storage and conditioning, and ad-vanced propulsion technologies. Theneed for strategic deployability willbe attained through advanced materi-a ls and material processing. Sus-tainability will be enhanced throughadvanced propulsion; power genera-tion storage and conditioning, andbiotechnology. AU of these technolo-gies, when combined to develop theoptimal combined arms fighting force,will e n m hat the Armor Force willwin and survive on the future battle-field.NOTE: The definitionsof these tech-nologies and all the figures are fromthe Army Technology Base MasterPlan.

CPT(P) Edward W. Payneis a 1980 graduate of theUnited States Military Acad-emy and has a Masters De-gree in Organic Chemistryfrom Purdue University. Hehas attended AOBC, AOAC,CAS3, Ranger and AirborneSchools. He has served as atank platoon leader, supportplatoon leader, tank companyXO, headquarters companyXO, and tank company com-mander in 5-32 Armor, 24thID (Mech). His most recentassignment was as an Assis-tant Professor of Chemistry,United States Military Acad-emy. He is currently servingas Chief, Technical Develop-ments Branch, Directorate ofCombat Developments, Ft.Knox, Ky.

0900-22000800-1 001530-1301645-1 301800-2OoO2030-2200

0630-07300700-lo000800-081081 5-091 .0910-09300930-1 301030-1 301 130-1 001200-1001300-1301530-1001800-2200180019000800-1 00

0630-08000800-12001200-13151330-15301530-1450800-1 00

1992Armor Conference Schedule5-7May 1992"TheAtmor/Cavalry Soldier"

Tuesday, 5 May 1992EventRegistrationDisplaysHonorary Colonels of the RegimentRetreat CeremonyKorean War Armor/Cavalry Units

CG'sGarden PartyBuffet8 RegimentalAssembliesStandto BreakfastLate RegistrationWelcome/OpeningKeynote AddressBreakReportto the ForcePresentationArmor Assn. General MembershipMtg.LunchPresentationsPanelArmor Association BanquetCocktailsBanquetDisplays

Thursday,7 May 1992Armor Association Executive CouncilPresentationsChief of Armor LuncheonPresentationsFarewell RemarksDisplays

Wednesday, 6 May 1992

LocationBrick MessTBDHQ Conf RmBrooksFieldQbs t lBrickMessBrickMessGaffey#2Gaffey AudioriumGaffey AuditoriumGaffey A ud i i umGaffey AuditoriumGaffey AuditoriumGaffeyAud i i umGaffey AuditoriumPatton MuseumArmor HallTBDBrickMessGaffey Audiionk~mBrickMessGaffey AuditoriumGaffey AuditoriumTED

.POC for General officers billeting:P~O~OCOIf fb , DSN 464-2744/6951,commercial(502)624-2744/6951..Limited on-post billeting may beavailable for other personnel. ContactDEH, ME. Easter, DSN 464-313813943, commercial (502)624-313813943.

oPOC for equipment displays: DCD,1LT Bymgton, DSN 464-125W1838,commercial(502)624-1250/1838..Overall POC for Armor Conference:CPT Fm n~ , DSN 464-1050/1441,commercial(502)624-1050/1441..Conference uniform is battle dressuniform; banquet is coat and tie;gar-

den party is BDU, casual, or Class Bwith short sleeve shirt and open collar..Tickets for social functions will be

sold during registration. Ticket saleswill smp promptly at lo00hn. 6 May92 estimated cost of soda1 events -

.Transportation to and fromStandiford Field, Louisville, Ky., will beavailable on a limited basis..Security clearance noCfications forthis conference are not necessary be-cause this conference s undassified.omsit requests for foreign nationalsmust be submitted through their em-bassies in time m allow for normal

$60.00).

processing.

12 ~ARMOR- March-April 1992


15/56

The ArmoredGun Systemby Directorateof Total Armor Force Readiness,Diriectorateof Combat Developments, andTRADOC System Manager for Armored Gun

The climatic events in Europe overthe last, hree years have expanded thepotential for contingencies in any areain the world. The problem, now andin the future, is the cascading of mod-em weapons systems into the ThirdWorld countries. Coupled with tech-nology transfer, many countries con-tinue to modernize their weapons in-ventory. There are 28 countries thathave more than 1,OOO main battletanks. Our changing commitmentsconfronted by a lethal and high-techthreat dictate that we be able to de-ploy highly mobile and lethal forcesrapidly.

The Armored Gun System answersthe need for a rapidly deployable,lightly annored system that can sup-port the contingency forces in offen-sive, defensiveand MOUT lose com-bat operations with CE and KE directfire that is accurate and lethal. TheAGS is not solely a direct fire supportasset for the dismounted infantry noris it a light tank to replace the mainbattle tank. The AGS is a readily de-ployable, versatile and flexible firesupport and maneuver asset that pro-vides significant combat power whenand where MBT's are not available.The AGS's enhanced mobility andhigh volume of firepower permit lightforces to mass firepower quickly. Thismobile direct fire support can fire an-tipersonnel, antimateriel, and antitankammunition. Basic loads can be

tailored for themission with amix of HEAT,SABOT, HEP,AF'ERS andsmoke to destroythe expected tar-gets during themission.

The ArmoredGun System hashad a long evo-lutionary history.In 1978 it beganas the DARPAfunded High Sur-vivability TestVehicle-Light, orHSTV-L. In1980, the Infan-try School corn-pleted the costand Operational

A Sheridandropswith troops at Fort Bragg.Officials expect to se-lect its replacementthis spring.

Analysis (COEA) on the Mobile Pro-tected Gun System (MPGS). TheMis-sion Element Need statement thatfmly established a need to replacethe M551 was approved by Depart-ment of Defense (DOD). In 1989, theXVIII Airborne Corps stated its ur-gent need to replace the Sheridan. Asa result, a General Officer Steering

were redefined, and in August of1990, the Army Acquisition Executivedesignated the AGS a project underthe Program Executive Officer Ar-mored Systems Manager for the pur-pose of acquiring a weapon system.

The program is supported through-out the Army and in Congress. As

Committee (GOSC) convened, re i -fmed the need for an AGS and out-lined the resource requirements for anacquisition program. The requirements


you read this, the Source SelectionBoard is reviewing all submitted pro-posals and working toward a contractaward date in the spring of 1992.


16/56

The AGS has operational require-ments in the areas of deployability, le-thality, survivability, and sustainabil-ity, in that order of priority.

enhance the survivability of the vehi-cle by using sound tactics, techniques,and pe du re s.Sustalnablllty

Key to AGS equipped units' missionaccomplishment is its deployability.The AGS must be capable of LowVelocity Air Drop (LVAD) rom the(2-17 if that system is available duringfielding. LVAD from a C-130 is de-sired rather than required to reducethe technical and program schedulerisks. After deployment by LVAD, itmust be able to fight immediatelyafter derigging. The AGS must beroll-odroll-offcapable from a l l strate-gic and tactical transport aircraft.LethalityThe AGS will mount the govern-

ment furnished XM35 105-mm gun. Itganization (NATO) standard and Ar-mament Enhancement Initiative am-munition. This gives the AGS the ca-pability to engage a myriad of targets,from tanks to personnel to bunkers.The fm control will be roughlyequivalent to the M6OA3. The systemwill have either a four-man crew or athree-man crew with an autoloader. Italso will have a 7.62mm coax ma-chine gun, and the commander'sweapon station will be able to mountthe M2 machine gun or the Mark 19grenade launcher.

can fire all North Atlantic Treaty Or-

SuwhrabllltyThe AGS will have greater mobility

than the Sheridan and may incorpo-rate crew protection features similar tothose of the Abrams. It also will havethree levels of armor protection tomeet various threats. The base vehicleis level 1, and there will be two addi-tional add-onannotpackages. Add-onarmor must be able to be installedquickly and easily by the crew. Ar-mored Gun System commanders must

Sustainability will be critical to anycontingency force. We may not havethe luxury of a DESERT SHIELDwith its long build-up time and so-phisticated air and sea port facilities.Air lift assets may be constrained,thereby restricting spare! parts flowand limiting the deployment of main-tenance assets. To this end, the AGSwill have a power pack that can be re-moved and replaced quickly. It will beable to do like-vehicle recovery. Mod-em diagnostic methods will contributeto system maintainability. Built-inTest Equipment (BITE)will be usedto the maximum extent possible and itmust be able to sustain a 90 percentoperational availability rate.

The AGS will deploy as an integralpart of a combined arms team to anycontingency area and provide directsupport to airborne, air assault, andlight infantry as a mobile reactionforce. That force with the AGS is ca-pable of containing and repulsing apenetration by threat armored forcesthrough counterattack by fire.Also, itwill provide a lethal presence thatforces the enemy to mass, thereby ex-posing himself to attack by air and in-direct fm.The system is capable ofnight forced entry operations and cansupport the light force at squadthrough division level with direct fm.Units can be employed as AGS pureor can be task organized to suit themission. When inserted (LVAD) atnight with the initial infantry ele-ments, the AGS can secure an airfieldcomplex, block high speed avenues ofapproach or react rapidly to blockenemy penetrations. When insertedwith the follow-on forces by airland,or roll-on/roll-off operations, AGSunits can conduct hasty attacks to de-stroy threat positions and obstacles,enhance security through reconnais-sance, block high speed avenues of

approach and serve as a reactionforce. Follow-on missions include pla-toon- to battalion-size operations, in-cluding limited offensive operations,also defense, security, restoration ofcommand and control, extended pa-trolling, convoy escort, rear area secu-rity, and non-combatant evacuation@EO) assistance.The current force calls for 300 sys-tems to be built over a period of sev-eral years.The first unit equipped willbe the 3-73 Armor (Airborne), a lightarmor battalion of the 82nd AirborneDivision, in 1998. The AGS will re-place its M551A1 ( ' I T S ) Sheridans.

Next year, the 2nd ACR will be re-organized but will not receive theAGS until after 1998. In this newlight cavalry organization, the AGSwill give those units the stayingpower for day and night all weatheroperations. The AGS will help thelight cavalry units win the recodcounterrecon battle, and cause massedtargets for the tactical air, attack heli-copters, and indirect fm. hese lightcavalry units will be most effectiveat providing reconnaissancdcounter-reconnaissance, delay, raid, and ex-ploitation operations. Light cavalrygives the contingency force com-mander a force capable of perfumingsimilar missions and roles as armoredcavalry units.

This new reality of force projectiondemands that we resolve the problemof how we project a force that is bothdeployable and lethal enough to de-fend against or deter attacks by a de-termined enemy. In the past, we haveconcentratedon forces that are rapidlydeployable. In doing so, we have hadto sacrifice lethality. The AGS willprovide tenacious lethality to the con-tingency force that will enable theseforces to set the conditions for thebattle and to allow the commander toshape the battlefield. The troopers of3-73Armor in Panama and SouthwestAsia have laid the foundation of thisnew era of light armor and cavalry.We must continue to build upon theirefforts.



17/56

Training With Technology:Armor 2000 and Beyondby Ms. LouEdrnondson

Racing across the frozen winterlandscape, the gunner suddenly recog-nizes his target in the primary sight ofthe MlA2. He checks weapon systemstatus, zeroes his aimpoint, and lasesfor range to the target, th e turret of aT-72 almost hidden in a drainageditch to his left front, 3200 metersaway.

Meanwhile, the driver slews the ma-chine into a 45degree turn, keepingthe tanks frontal armor facing th eenemy. Excited frre commands echoon the intercom system just before thefirst round goes out, rocking the tankand inundating the crew in a wave ofblast and sound. Almost instantly, thetarget disintegrates in a blinding flashof light.All motion ceases, and the lights goon. The gunner notices that he is per-spiring. The crewmen, still riding anadrenaline rush, talk nervously abouttheir close call. But this was not real.This was simulation. The crew wasnot inside a tank,but in a virtual real-ity facility that may be a lot closerthan you think.

In the past 100 years, we have gonefrom telephones and talking movies toVCRs, teleconferencing, and interac-tive video games. Applied science andtechnology, racing along at increasingspeed, have produced a cornucopia ofnew goods and services, spurringgreater and greater productivity andadvancement. It is hard to imaginethat, about 100 years ago, theU.S. Pa-tent Office foresaw a new age whenthere would be nothing left to invent,when human improvement muststop.

It hasnt... and it wont. Only thosewho are ready for it will be able tokeep up. The U.S.Army Armor Forcehas made the commitment to beready, and has set forth its blueprintfor the future in a study called Armor2000. The study defines how Armorsroles and missions will evolve, inkeeping with the evolution of AirLandOperations.A major part of the studyconcerns the increasing use of hightechnology for training. As we ap-proach the 21st century, technologypromises to change the way Armorfights, and how it acquires, manages,and communicates information. Butthe greatest impact of technology willbe on training. The scope of this po-tential change is staggering. At FortKnox alone, the advent of technology-based training will affect the 30,000Armor and Cavalry soldiers attendingthe Armor Schools resident courseseach year, and thousands more in non-resident training.

We enter this era with an attitude ofenthusiasm, rather than apprehension.While many training challenges lieahead, we should realize that armoredforces have gained unprecedented es-teem as a result of DESERT STORM.Programs such asArmor 2000 guaran-tee that we build on that success,combining the traditional resourceful-ness of our soldiers and our civilianwork force with an m y f techno-logical advances to develop an effec-tive training program for the 21st cen-tury.The followingare a few of the tech-nology-based developments that willdetermine how Armor trains in theyear 2000 and beyond.

VIDEO TELETRAININGBreaklng the DistanceBarrierLong before the information age, a

student sent in his money and re-ceived. by return mail, the very firstcorrespondence course. Over theyears, correspondence courses haveremained a popular and effective wayto gain knowledge. But in the past 10years, electronic training media havebegun to replace the written packetsthat arrived in a students mailbox.Corporations and universities theworld over have been quick to recog-nize the instructional potential ofbroadcast media to extend instructionto people in their homes and otherplaces outside the workplace. Sincethe early 80s. for example, AT&Tand the National Technological Uni-versity have used television to offertraining programs and advanced de-grees to people in widely-dispersedlocations. These transmissions, whichoriginate at the corporations home of-fice and on the campuses of the par-ticipating universities, are deliveredlive via satellite directly to the techni-cal professionals and managers attheir work sites and to students at re-gional campuses.Trainers and educators know thattelevision is an efficient and effectivemeans of delivering information. Itlets you reach many groups of peopleat the same time, when it is needed,and to gain access to experts any-where in the world. These capabilitiesadd up to a more efficient, faster de-livery of resources. Today, militarytrainers are faced with a similarchdlenge, to provide quality training



18/56

for an ever-increasing number ofgloballyaispersed soldiers.

Currently, the National Guard andthe U.S.Army Reserve (NGKJSAR)make up 50 percent of the ArmorForce. These units must have continu-ing training to en= that they can becommitted to battle because they willbe essential to any future operationsuch as DESERT STORM.' TheArmor Force is committed to ensurethat its NGRJSAR forces are just ascapable of playing a combat role astheir Active Component (AC) coun-terparts.

The NGIUSAR urgently need moreeffective training methods becausethey have so little time to lrajn andbecause these units are so dispersedgeographically. Future training needsmost likely will require a multimediaapproach, to include television. VideoTeletraining (VIT), one approach thatmaximizes the potential of television,might well play a strong role in meet-ing the need to train and learn at adistance.VlT is a type of electronic con-ferencing that uses advanced telecom-munication. An instructor in one loca-tion telecasts to one or more remotestudent sites where students respondvia audio and video. The effectivenessof this electronic presentation of mate-rial has already been tested on theKentucky National Guard. UnderTRADOC guidance, the Basic Non-commissioned Officer Course(BNCOC) was delivered directly to19 local armories and Army basesusing a satellite-based distributionsystem. VlT delivery proved success-ful: in fact, the students at the remotesites performed significantly betterthan the control group students, wholearned using traditional instruction.There has been an extremely positivereaction from students, instructors,and training program managers. It issignificant to note that more than 90percent of Kentucky soldiers takingthe BNCOC come via V'IT wereable to pass the examinations on thefirst try, while only approximately 65

percent passed on the fmt try in thetraditional classmm.2

The benefits of VlT are well docu-mented reduced travel costs, presen-tation of timely instruction to agreater number of students, consis-tency of message delivery, i nm e daccess to subject matter experts, andmore cost-effective use of talents,skills, and expertise because so manymore soldiers are sharing these re-sources.

Currently, Fort Knox has two self-contained studios in operation to ex-plore V'IT technology. The ArmorSchool is now determining which les-sons are best trained with video.

By the year 2000, television-basedinstruction, coupled with print supportand other resources, could provide theNG/USAR with the same highqualityinstruction active duty soldiers re-ceive, but without the need for sol-diers to leave home stations, exceptfor the equipment-intensive trainingthat must be conducted at the ArmorSchool.

COMPUTER-MEDIATEDCOMMUNICATIONSManaged Communicationsfor the Soldier

Inside armories across the UnitedStates and in Europe, oldiers at com-puter terminals can access the latestinformation on the FutureMain BattleTank.An instructor at Fort Knox an-swers questions on the tank's under-armor auxiliary power unit withinminutes. A requirement for advancedcommunications has always existed.The Army is not excluded from thisneed.

Although VTT has many benefits, itdoes not provide for further communi-cation between the soldiers and the in-structor between telecasts, or after thetelecast is completed. In the year ZOO0and beyond, computer-mediated com-munications (CMC) may well serveasan adjunct program to fill this void.One of the newer technologies in dis-

tance training, CMC is a means ofsending instruction and communicat-ing with students from different loca-tions at different times, using a com-puter network? CMC supports elec-tronic mail (E-mail), the transmittal ofa message from one terminal to a stor-age location where it can be retrievedlater from another terminal: messag-ing, which allows two users at distantterminals to communicate in real-time; and conferencing, which usuallyincludes both E-mail and messagingcapabilities, and may involve otherusers at multiple terminals.

In a CMC network, soldiers andtheir instructors, using personal com-puters, are linked by modems andphone lines to a central host com-puter. All can participate in the class-mom from an y location, and soldiersand instructors can use the system toreceive or leave messages. CMC J-lows instructors to carry on electronicclassroom instruction with soldiersseparated by time zones and physicaldistance. The network would allowsoldiers to work together in groups, toask questions of their peers and theinstructor, and to informally sharetraining experiences. Instructors couldconduct small-group instruction, pro-vide prompt feedback on perfor-mance, or give remedial instruction.

For example, soldiers could discusshow to evaluate terrain following aV'IT class on Intelligence Preparationof the Battlefield, then receive im-mediate critiques from an expert. Theinstructor could direct his classes towrite company, battalion, or brigadeOFQRDs, discuss their OPORDs withtheir peers, and then receive feedbackfrom the instructor. Individually, sol-diers could access technical data ontanks and gunnery.

Another advantage of CMC systemsis that the CMC class could be open24 hours a day, seven days a week,easily accommodating the time sched-ules of NG/USAFt soldiers at theirhome stations.

The question is not whether weshould use CMC but how best to use

16 ARMOR- March-April 1992


19/56

it. CMC has not yet fully developedits potential, but recent technical ad-vancements, along with increasedcomputer literacy, make it worth ourattention as we move toward the year2000.

DIGITAL VIDEO INTERACTIVEThe ClvilWarM e e t s Super NintendoA collaborative project between his-torian Ken Bums (Emmy-award win-ner far his series The Civil War)

and the Center for Interactive Educa-tional Technology (CIET) at GeorgeMason University uses computers inanother innovative way to teach andtrain. The Civil War Interactive at-tempts to return history to an oral-vi-sual tradition, but in a completely newform, one to which students are cul-turally responsive. The design of thismultimedia application recognizes theimportance of narrative in the study ofhistory, the role of film in relatingnarrative, and the unique nonlinearfeatures of multimedia. The multime-dia environment gives students th eunique opportunity to simultaneouslygather and explore the primary somedocuments, photos, and data fromwhich the narratives are derived. Stu-dents can then trace the numerous re-lationships among the events, linkingideas and recording observations asthey move easily among the manysources.Perhaps most important, the project

acknowledges the need to help stu-dents develop skills in historical in-quiry so that they will be able to deci-pher narrative, interpret documents,and derive meaning from historicalevents? If the optimistic predictionsfor this multimedia approach provetrue, Digital Video Interactive (DVI)may revolutionize interactivecourse-. DVI is a first step in digi-tal multimedia development. It will beable to incorporateanything from textto full-motion video, and will have thepotential to expand the usefulness ofPCS.

DVI technology is based on a simpleconcept: a Il presentation materials arestored together on a random accessdevice, such as a hard disk or CD-ROM, nd accessed difectly by theusers computer? The possibilities forusing DVI in military training aregreat.Soldiers could receive wargam-ing training in exportable DVI pack-ages covering a virtually limitlessarray of subject areas. No additionalequipment or modifcations would benecessary. There would be savingsboth in terms of dollars and in traveltime, both key considerations forNGWSAFt units.

DVI obviously has applications foractiveduty training as well. Thispowerful tool offers many militarytraining benefits: soldiers can receivetraining on their own PCs or on PCsat their home stations; DVI has theadvantages of Computer-Assisted In-struction and Interactive Video Discwith the added plus of full-motionvideo; the speed and the capacity ofinformation storage are increased;DVI provides the variety of attributes- text, audio, stills, and motion video -needed to maintain interest when sol-diersneed to practice skills.

Although DVI technologies are stillsorting themselves out, this multime-dia technology could significantly af-fect future training requirements.

EMBEDDED TRAININGTrain Where You Fight

Simulations combine the best of in-teractive instruction with high levelsof involvement, stimulation,challenge, and success. Typically,simulationsare used when the cost ofalternative training systems are pro-hibitively high, when it is impossibleto study the concepts of interest inreal time, or when the risks aregreat enough to require demonstrationof competence in a controlled, rela-tively risk-free environment.

l?te Army has made extensive useof stand-alone simulations in such de-

vices as the Conduct of Fire Trainerand Simulation Networking(SIMNET). In the near term, we areworking on fielding vehicle-appendedsimulators, such as the Tank WeaponsGunnery Simulation System and theThru-Sight Video.As good as these stand-alone and

appended training devices are, Armor2000 and future programs will pushtechnology even further to bring thereal world closer to the Armor soldier- n this case, so close that the tech-nology is part of the tank. This is theconcept behind embedded training(ET). Embedded training is intendedto be a fundamental characteristic ofthe tank itself, designed, developed,tested, and fielded as an operationalcomponent. Embedded training isunique because it provides standard-ized hands-on tmining for the soldierin the field, on the soldiers ownequipment. It will be capable of train-ing individual, crew-functional, andforce-level collective tasks, and canbe tailored to a wide variety of localesand missions.

Embedded training uses simulationsof realistic mission scenarios and pro-vides realtime cues to which thesoldier must respond, using the actualequipment.For example, if the ArmorForce had been usingJ3apabilitiesduring the build-up to DESERTSTORM, t could have programmedits systems with the actual digitizedterrain data of the future battlefieldwhile still at home station waiting fordeployment. Platoon, company, orbattalion level exercises could havebeen trained in motor pools before de-ployment.The benefits of ET are significant

*Training occurs primarily in thesoldiers field location, at crew posi-tions using actual controls and dis-Plays*An ET system can provide trainingwhile the vehicle is moving, as in atactical engagement simulation*ET can store and retrieve perfor-mance data for an immediate after-ac-tion review (AAR)

ARMOR- March-April 1992 17


20/56

.ET standardizes training by elimi-nating or reducing the need for othertraining devices in the units, and isexpected to provide training equal to,or better than, planned stand-alone orappended training devices.The real plus of ET is that soldierswill literally train as they will fight,using the same operational controlsduring training that they would use incombat. Embedded training for theArmor Force will continue to focus ongunnery, tactics, driving, and mainte-nance. Embedded training simulationwill allow soldiers to acquire, identify,and engage targets; plan, coordinate,and employ combat power, exploitmobility capabilities of the vehicle:and perform checks and fault isolationfor systems hardware.

Some current Anny systems alreadyhave limited ET capabilities, includ-ing the Armys Patriot and ImprovedHAWK missile systems. EmbeddedTraining is under development forother systems, such as the ForwardArea Air Defense Non-line-of-SightSystem (FAAD-NLOS) and the Im-proved 155mm Self-Propelled Howit-zer.

Embedded training is also the pre-ferred training technology to support. the Armored Systems Modernization

(ASM) program, which includes sixnew vehicles scheduled to replace ex-isting armored systems. As envi-sioned, ET systems will be tailored tothe needs of ASM vehicle crew opera-tion and maintenance tasks. TheArmor School is pushing the design-ers of our Future Main Battle Tank toinclude ET in their original design,and the test beds for our ASM effortand subsequent vehicle prototypeswill include ET.

One major testbed, a contract effortthat will provide ET capabilities, isthe Extended Range Gunnery FireControl Demonstration System. Thisis a state-of-the-artfire control systembeing designed to support the FutureMain Battle Tank. It will containcomputer-generated training exercisesequivalent to a Tank Table VIII indifficulty.

Armored Vehicle Technologies As-sociated and Teledyne ContinentalMotors are currently under contract todesign the Common Chassis Ad-vanced Technology Training Demon-strator (CCAITD). Their designs forthis testbed must be able to integratethe fire control system with the firecontrol simulator. If approved, theCCAD, with its common chassis,will support all future ASM programsin the training and combat modes.VIRTUAL REALITYA SimulatingExperience

Imagine visiting General Schwartz-kopf in his headquarters in Saudi Am-bia as he planned the next attack inthe Gulf Ww, or meeting with Colo-nel Creighton Abrams in 1944 as heprepam to lead the 37th Tank Battal-ion and the loth Armored InfantryBattalion in its counterattack to takeJuvelize and break up the German ad-vance in the Arracourt tank battles: orinteracting with Patton in the battle ofSt. Mihiel and in the Meuse-Argonneoffensive, where he proved his highcompetence for command. This kindof realism, called virtual reality, iswhat the Armor soldier can look for-ward to beyond the year 2000.No development in computer tech-nology is as exciting as virtual reality.Virtual reality is a technology that al-lows a user to interact with a com-puter-generated replica of the realworld. Sensory input, provided via avisor, glove, and perhaps a treadmill,feed the senses information about theenvironment. The computer-generatedsensory input responds both to thesimulated world and to the usersmovements in that world. The result isan experience approximating the real-world environment, but without thedanger or expense that might be asso-ciated with gaining the Same experi-ence in the real world.

In 1978, the Department of Defensedeveloped a 3-D display simulator aspart of a project called th e VisuallyCoupled Airborne Space Simulatorfor pilot training. The outgrowth of

this work eventually produced theSuper Cockpit, one of the earliest mil-itary applicationsof virtual reality. In1984, the Human Interface ReservchLaboratory at NASAs Ames Re-search Center developed the firstlightweight, stereoscopic. head-mounted display based on miniatureliquid crystal display (LCD) oni-tors.

Although no past or current systemsare complete virtual realities,SIMNET is an impartant farerunner toa virtual reality system. SIMNETpro-vides a multisensory (sight and sound)immersion in a synthetic environmentin which soldiers interact with manyother participants. But the users win-dows into the virtual world are small -a shell representing an MlAl Abramstank helps improve the sense of pres-ence. SIMNET falls short of virtualreality in part because the interactionin SIMNET is limited to interactionsbetween players?

The data base representing the worldin which a SIMNET exercise takesplace is dynamic and cannot be af-fected by the players. For example,the terrain data base is not affected byoperator-induced actions: if an artil-lery round explodes, it does not leavea hole in the ground. Moreover,SlTvI.NET is two-dimensional. To ad-dress this issue, the Army ProjectManager for Training Devices (PMTRADE) has funded several researchprojects8One involves looking at theintegration of low-cost head-mounteddisplays with several image genen-tors, includingSIMNET?

Perhaps the most obvious use of vir-tual reality technology in support ofArmor training would be to enhancetraining simulations. These enhance-ments could provide for large-saletraining exercises and training in strat-egy and tactics and could allow armorsoldiers to take part in a combinedarms training exercise.A greater challenge for virtual red-ity technology may be to provide a re-alistic battlefield for the individualfoot soldier, or to develop a virtualenvironment using automated

6

i a ARMOR - March-April 1992


21/56

No development in computer technology is as exciting as virtual real-ity. Virtual reality is a technology that allows a user to interact with acomputer-generated replica of the real world.sandtables. Researchers are focusingon this challenge, along with greaterrealism for existing simulators. Virtualreality, when well done, should pro-vide users a sense of having had real-life experiences, like the holodeckon Star Trek The Next Generation.Such learning occurs at an essentiallevel. It will make fundamentalchanges in attitudes and behaviormuch more likely than with an y othertechnology.

COMPUTER AUTOMATIONFOR THE SOLDIERThe Persian Gulf War added to an

existing requirement for simulatorsthat can be deployed with troops.TheArmy CommunicationsandElectronicCommand Research, Developmentand Engineering Center and SoldierC3 Program Offices in New Jersey aredesigning a soldiers computer thatmay meet this need. It is a fully porta-ble, lightweight, hands-free computersystem designed for individual sol-diers.The device will contain a helmet-mounted display, pocket-size com-puter, hand-held joystick, a voice anddata radio, and a Global PositioningSystem. It will integrate other sys-tems, such as night vision devices andnumerous typesof sensors.A soldier will be able to view a mapdepicting infohation such as friendlyand enemy positions or contaminatedareas. Then he can input battlefieldstatus information and transmit thedata to a centralized data base so thatother soldiers and units can be alerted.

Helmet-mounted displays would per-mit crew members to move awayfrom fured computer stations whilemaintaining access to their computer.This capability would allow a driver,for example, to maneuver his vehiclewith his head out of the hatch. Hecould dismount and move away from

the vehicle while still interacting withits computers via radio link or wire.Coupled with the appropriate soft-ware, the soldiers computer couldprovide training to the soldier whenand where he needs it. On-the-jobtraining would be easier because sol-diers could take the computer-basedcourseware with them into the fieldand could also interact with an in-structor via the radio link.

Repair manuals could be stored ondisk, rather than on paper, and couldbe kept at the squad or platoon level,making transmission to the soldierrapid and reliable. More diagnosticsand repair could be conducted in thefield. Soldiers could get expert guid-ance from remote locations. Radioswould permit them to send voice ortext messages through the communi-cations networks to the subject matterexperts providing the guidance. Sub-ject matter experts could even snappictures and transmit them back.

Although not projected for im-plementation until the mid- to late-1990s. the soldiers computer prom-ises to make the best use of technol-ogy to solve problems and enhancetraining capabilities.TOWARD THE FUTURE

The soldiers computer, ET, andother developments will help Armormaintain its edge. The entire ArmorForce takes pride in the quality oftraining it provides, and in the stridesit has made in melding training withtechnology. It also realizes that muchwork lies ahead in maintaining qualitywhile forging new instructional meth-ods.

In a time of shrinking budgets andgrowing demands, the key challengefor military trainers will be to find themost effective, efficient uses of tech-nology to supplement- nd in some

tion. That is the driving force behindcases, to supplant- raditional nstruc-

Armor 2000 and beyond as we meetthe challenge of the future head-on.Notes

1. Armor 2000 - Total Armor Force (whitepaperdistributed at the last Armo r Conference).2. Interactive Video Teletraining. A Break-through Training Strategy for the NationalGuard and Reserves, Program Status Briefing,May 1991.3. Wells. Rosalie. Review of Recent Re-

search on Leamen and Learner Support in Dis-tance Education Delivered by Computer-Medi-ated Communications. Symposium on Re-search in Distance Education. May 1991.4. Fontana. Lynn A.. The Civil War Interac-tive. Instruction Delivery Systems, NovlDec1991.5. Ripley. David G. , VI - A Digital Multi-media Technology. Joumal of Computing inHigher Education. Winter 1990.6. Virtual Reality: A Primer - A Discussionof Defiitions and Possible Applications forMilitary Training Systems. Barcus. George.Barcus Theme. Dunn-Roberts, Richard R.,Proceedings - Intersetvicefindustry TrainingSystems Conference 1991.7. Op.Cit.8. Op.Cit.BibliographyFort Knox Combat Developm ents. Directorateof Combat Developnents. Fort Knox. Ken-tucky, Fiial Draft, September 1990.Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) Pro-gram Economic Analysis (EA) Final Report,IRADOC Program Integration Office-ASM.Combined Arms Combat Developments Activ-ity (CACDA). Fort Leavenworth, Kan., May

1990.Th e Threat, AirLand Battle, and AFV WhitePaper (U), Headquarters. Department of the

Army, ODCSOPS. 1 May 1987 (Secret/NFLD).The Fading Thrcak Soviet C onventional Mili-tary Power in Decline, Report of the DefensePolicy Panel of the Committee on Armed Ser-vices, House of R epresentatives, 9 July 1990.

Lou Edmondson is an edu-cation specialist assigned toFutures Branch, Directorateof Training Development,USAARMS.

ARMOR- March-April1992 19


22/56

Backto 1918?Su vivab tyIs The Best ArgumentFor a Two-Man TankbyCaptalnMlkeNewell

The recent decision to disconnect theBlock III tank program from the Ar-mmd Systems Modernization pro-gram, and to scale back tank researchand development efforts, has created awindow of opportunity to explorenewfuture main battle tank (FMBT) con-cepts that incorporate future technolo-gies and have combat capabilities thatfar exceed those of the Block IlItank.

Electromagnetic guns, active armorand protection, voice activated com-puters, automatic fire control, andhead-up displays are just a few of thetechnologies available for exploitationin the future main battle tank. Someof these technologies could lead to re-ducing the number of crewmen re-quired to operate the tank.There are a number of significantadvantages that evolve from a two-man tank design. They include: in-creased survivability, the possibility ofdecreased total combat casualties inan engaged tank unit, and, dependingon the design, increased agility anddeployability. My intent in this articleis to show the advantages and the fea-sibility of a FMBT concept with atwo-man crew.Any future MBT design is likely toplace a reduced crew in the tank hull,

mount an external gun, have an auto-matic loader, and depend on indirectoptics for viewing. On a conventionalturreted tank, the most exposed areaof the tank, the turret, contains themaprity of the crew. In the future, es-pecially with the advent of smart top-attack weapons, it will be prohibi-tively expensive (both in weight andcost) to continue to protect the turretof a tank.The best answer seems to

be to put the crew down into the hull,the most protected part of the tank.This will require an external gun withan automatic loader. This crew posi-tion and the proliferation of blindingbattlefield lasers will force us to useindirect vision optics to view the bat-tle area Because there isnt enoughroom for four crewmen in the hull ofa tank, the crew will be reduced totwo or three. This is the basic FMBTdesign used throughout my discussion.The basic rationale for a two-man

tank is brutally simple. A two-mantank is potentially m m survivablethan a three-man tank Survivability isthe critical issue. Two-man tanksmaynot be cheaper to build, operate, orman. Sliding off into these argumentsdilutes the hue advantages of a two-man tank- t saves lives and is morecombat effective! The questionhounding the two-man tank design inthe minds of doubters is: can two meneffectively fight the tank in sustainedcombat operations? The ability tofight a tank well is a component oftank survivability. If a two-man tankcant be fought effectively, all the sur-vivability advantages in the worldwont make it an effective combatsystem.The increased srwivability of a two-man tank is a product of reduced crewcompartment sue and a smaller tanksilhouette. In 1991,The Rand Corpo-ration completed a study on futuretank systems designs called An Ex-ploration of Integrated Ground Weap-ons Concepts for Armor/Anti-AnnorMissions. Included in this study is atwo-man tank design and a number ofthree-man tank designs, all incorporat-

ing neat term (4-5 years) technologiesand equivalent capabilities.This studyindicates that the crew compartmentof a two-man crew, seated two-abreast, is significantly smaller thanan y three-man crew configuration.This should be apparent to most of us.Generally, the two-man crew com-partment design is 30 percent smallerthan the most workable three-mancrew compartment design, two crew-men up and one crewman back. Thisreduction in size occurs in the lengthof the crew compartment, reducingthe probability of an antitank weaponstriking the crew compartment fromfrontal oblique, flank, and overhead(the most vulnerable angles) attacks.If the probability of a round hittingthe crew compartment is reduced, theprobability of crew casualties is alsoreduced. In the Rand study, the two-man tankwas 30 inches, or 10percentshorter than a three-man tank. This-presents a 10 percent smaller flankand top aspect (the most vulnerable)target to the enemy. This reduced tar-get signature makes a two-man tankmore difficult to acquire and moredifficult to hit. The combination of areduced probability of acquiring thetank, hitting the tank if its acquired,and striking the crew compartment ifthe tank is hit equals greater surviv-ability.

Another potential advantage of thetwo-man tank is it can be more heav-ily armored than a three-man tank ofequal weight, In other words, a 45-ton, two-man tank can have morearmor protection than a three-mantank that weighs 45 tons, and stillhave a smaller silhouette. This smallersilhouette allows consequently more



23/56

World War / World War I1

RENAULT P-MANCREW SHERMAN HAD A S-MANCREW

armor protection for a given tankweight. The weight savings incurredby reducing the length of the tank by10 percent can be turned around andput back in the tank in the form ofmore armor protection. The weightsavings gained enables the two-mantank to have roughly 10 percent morearmor protection by weight than th ethree-man tank.The use of very highdensity armors enables the two-mantank to add additional armor protec-tion without losing the size advantage.This obviously makes it more difficultto penetrate a two-man tank if it is ac-quired and hit. This additional armorprotection, combined with the in-creased survivability brought about bythe smaller tank silhouette and crewcompartment, should result in poten-tially even greater tank survivability.Alternatively, an advantage of thetwo-man tank design could be a light-er tank with the same protection lev-els as a larger three-man tank. In theRand study, although all the tank de-signs where developed with equalarmor protection levels, the two-mantank design was 10 percent lighterthan the lightest three-man tank de-sign. Given equal protection levels,the smaller, lighter tank has a numberof potential advantages. The two-mantank could have increased cross-coun-try, road, and dash speeds as well ashaving reduced fuel consumption. Amajor argument for the lighter two-man tank would be th e increase intactical mobility and strategic

deployability. All these advantagesare gained while still retaining thesurvivability advantages of a smallercrew compartment and smaller tanksilhouette.

The argument that a two-man tank scapable of reducing total armor crewcasualties is self-explanatory. Theconcept of a two-man tank crew re-duces the number of tank crewmen ina tank unit by a third, versus a three-man tank.Futm tank units equippedwith two-man tankswould have fewertotal armor crewmen exposed toenemy fire and therefore have the po-tential for a third less casualties thanunits equipped with three-mantanks.

There are two main questions aboutthe two-man tank concept we don'thave the complete answer to yet.(Two-man tank detractors would callthese potential disadvantages!) Can atwo-man tank crew maneuver thetank, acquire and engage targets, andexercise command and control of thetank (and tank unit for leaders)? And,can a two-man tank crew remain com-bat effective during sustained combatoperations? Although we don't havethe complete answer to these twoquestions, there is a body of researchthat strongly suggests that a two-mantank design is fully capable of execut-ing all assigned tactical missions.

During the summer of 1990, theGerman Ministry of Defense con-ducted the first round of the VT 2x2Experiments. These experiments, su pported by some personnel from th e

DESERTSTORM.- I -*

WESTERNMBTsHAD W A N CREWS

U.S. Army, tested the concept of atwo-man tank using modified Leopard2 two-man tank demonstrators. TheVT 2x2 Experiments are field trialswith maneuver, gunnery, and force-on-force tests of two-man tanks fromsingle tank level to platoon level. Dur-ing the test the two-man crews suc-cessfully demonstrated the ability tomaneuver, acquire and engage targets,command the tank, and control a tankplatoon simultaneously in scenarioslasting up to 24 hours.

After the fmt round of experiments,the German Army concluded the two-man tank concept was feasible andwarranted further testing. The secondround of VT 2x2 Experiments arescheduled to begin in early 1993. Alsoin 1990, a joint PM-TRADE/NTCstudy was conducted at TACOMusing the Vetronics Crew DisplayDemonstrator (VCDD). The study in-volved OPFOR personnel from theNTC and was designed to test the fea-sibility of using two-man combat ve-hicles in the NTC. The study con-cluded that two-man tanks were feasi-ble if automated gunnery functionswere incorporated in an OPFOR vehi-cle.

Both tests concluded that a twemantank is feasible through at least pla-toon leader level and for at least 24hours of continuous combat opera-tions. Some existing and near-termtechnology improvements are re-quired The VT 2x2 tests found that360-degree vision is required for both



24/56

crewmen,as well as duplicate driving,viewing, and weapons controls. Thesetechnologies exist today. The PM-TRADE/NTC study found that an au-tomated acquisition and engagementsystem was required. Automatic targettracking and engagement technologyis being developed for the LOSATprogram and has been demonstratedin the Close Combat Test Bed(CCTB) at Fort Knox, Kentucky. TheU.S.has a working autotracking pro-gram, and the Japanese have alreadyincluded automatic tracking on theirnew Type 90 tank. The technology ishere! We have the capability to buildan operationally effective two-mantank prototype within five years-tank that all of our research says isfightable for at least 24 hours of sus-tained operations and suitable forcommand and control activitiesthrough at least platoon leader.

The question we know a lot lessabout is how well will a two-mancrew perform in continuous combatover an extended period of time. Verylittle has been done to study the ef-fects of continuous operations greaterthan 24 hours on two-man crews.The 1979 British ENDURA 2 test(UK CONFIDENTIAL) is the onlytest that has taken a hard look at re-duced crew capability in continuousoperations. They determined that therewere no tasks required of a tank crewthat cant be executed by a two-mantank crew; the sm

armor magazine, march-april 1992

Documents