i lflflfflfllfl. - defense technical information centersoldier dtic sys-ffo sep 2 8 1983'...

AD-A132 962 REDUNDANCY IN INFANTRY OFFICER BASIC COURSE (IOBCl /TRAINING(U) ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL FORT BENNING GAJH KYICALA ET AL. JUL 83 DOES-1-83

UNCLASSIFIED F/G 5/9 NL

I lflflfflfllfl..flof

L 3 6

1. ____ I 1.8

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BURLAL, Of ' TANDARL) :P A

A.,'

DIRECTORATE

EVALUATIONAND

STANDARDIZATION

0r

SOLDIERDTIC

SyS-ffo SEP 2 8 1983'

REPORT NO.

1-83 REDUNDANCY IN INFANTRY OFFICER BASICCOURSE (IOBC) TRAINING

UNITED STATES ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOLFORT BENNINGo GEORGIA 31905

Lm.pufJ 83 09 02 044

DISPOSITION FORMFor uS* of this form, s AR 340-15. Ch proponent agency is TAGO.

REFERENCE OR OFFICE SYMBOL SUBJECT

ATSH-ES DOES Report Number 1-83: Redundancy in IOBC Training

ANTHRU DX FROM DOES DATE /0 TI

TO Mr. Kvica bta/5-1589

1. This is a DECISION PAPER.

2. PURPOSE: To obtain approval of the report at TAB A.

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

a. This evaluation was conducted in response to the former AC's directive to determinethe extent of redundancy in IOBC training.

b, The evaluation focused on four consecutive IOBC classes in an effort to determine notonly whether students perceived any redundancy in their training, but, more precisely, thenature and extent of the redundancy.

c. General findings were that students showed a tendency to:

(1) Agree that instruction within IOBC was not unnecessarily repetitious (redundant).

(?) Agree that training was not repetitious with regard to precommissioning training(especially FTX's). However, many (particularly USMA & OC) found that other, committee andpeer-trainer taught instruction was repetitious in some cases.

(3) Agree that repetitious training was valuable for reinforcement/refresherpurposes.

4. DISCUSSION:

V/a. The evaluation report draws conclusions and makes recommendations suitable as inputfor the next IOBC curriculum review.

4b. The report will be given wide dissemination within USAIS and TRADOC as a baselinestudy.

5. ALTERNATIVES: None.

6. RECOMMENDATION: That DOES Report Number 1-83: Redundancy in IOBC Training be approved.

7. COORDINATION: None appropriate.

1 Encl JAN CHERVENAKas GM-13, DAC

Acting Director, Evaluation andStandardization

DA U '0 to PREVIOUS EDITIONS WILL %E USED 2. OV I I ,NT[i orri ,... . ,.-USAU FOT049

UNC AS I F T FISECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("aein Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUIMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

DOES Report No. 1-83

4. TITLE (and Subile) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVEREDRedundancy in Infantry Officer Basic

Course (IOBC) Training Final, Jun 82 - Feb 836. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(q) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(O)

JAMES H. KVICALARALPH B. HAMMOND

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

United States Army Infantry SchoolFort Benning, GA 31905

I I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS tZ. REPORT DATE

Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization diA ,) /V /le 1 -PATTN: ATSH-ES 13. NUMBER OF PAGESFort BenninQ.G 104. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controllind Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thia report)

UNCLASSIFIEDISa OECL ASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tail Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

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

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Continue on revere* side It necesery and Identify by block number)

Training RedundancyEducation Refresher Training . -

Officer Repetitious TrainingInfantry Redundant Training .. ,

20. ASTRACr Fcatd.e v Peverea N weeeZ mE ideatif by block number)

>"End-of-course questionnaire and written comments from JIOBC 'students indicated anindeterminate amount of perceived redundancy in the course curriculum. A specialquestionnaire was constructed and administered to a number of students chosen atrandom from four consecutive classes. The students were also invited to addwritten comments on any subjects about which they had strong feelings, positiveor negative. Three separate questions were asked about each block of instruc-tion: (1 (Was) Training---unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) when compared '>

DO , 1473 mmow OV.SoIS OSOmLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SEC URTY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whit Dara Entered) :.A

k. -. .JL, - . .. . . Ilkll .. ." -

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS P he(W Data Ent d)

to---instruction within.IOBC'? U) (Was) Training unnecessarily repetitious(redundant) when compared with precommissioning training (ROTC, OCS, USMA)f?And (* (Was) repetitious training that o~curred---valuable for reinforcement/refresher purposest? Overall findings indicated that there was less redundancy(in the negative sense of unnecessgry repetition) than had been formerlypredicted. Subjects which were rdnked lowest on the average response and ranktables in the study (and, therefore, considered suspect for redundancy) wereOfficer Evaluation Reporting System, Enlisted Evaluation Reports, Individual/Collective Training, Military Leadership, Map Reading/Land Navigation, Commandand Staff/OPORD, Security/Intelligence/PW, Physical Fitness Training, HandGrenades, and M72A2 LAW.

Unannounc-1 [

Justification

ByDistribution/

Availability Codes

UNr-LA-qTF~rn

SECURITY CLASSIFICAT10% OF THIS PAGIfen Date Rnew")

REDUNDANCY IN INFANTRY OFFICER BASIC

COURSE (IOBC) TRAINING

James H. Kvicala

and

Ralph B. Hammond

DIRECTORATE OF EVALUATION AND STANDARDIZATION

U.S. ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOLFORT BENNING, GEORGIA

JULY 1983

mm i ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

General 2

Methodology 2

Res t ls 3

Coniclus ions 5

Recommendat ions 6

DATA ANALYS IS/EVALUATION 7

Introduction7

Analysis 8

Summary 13

ANNEXES

A. TO13C end-of-course questionnaire--Form B (Redundancy).

B3. Tables I through IX--Suniary statistics on questions by source of

commis~sion.

C. Tables A through I--Average response and rank (of blocks of instruction)

by source of commission.

D. Matrices of objective data by each IOBC class, on each block of

instruct ion.

E. Selected subject area comparison (subjects taught by precommissioning

sources).

F. Distribution List.

A-I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted by the Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization 4

(DOES), United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, at the

direction of the School Commandant.

Data was collected by personnel of the External Evaluation Division of DOES and

analyzed by the Internal Evaluation Division under the supervision of the

Acting Director, Jan Chervenak. Clerical assistance was provided by

Mrs. Blanche Anderson, Mrs. Kathy Corizzo, and Mrs. Deboarh Cavins.

DISCLAIMER

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department

of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

I

. .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GENERAL

The question of redundancy in IOBC training has been raised periodically over

the past several years. In a more recent attempt to gather meaningful data on

this topic, DOES included a question on the subject in the IOBC end-of-course

questionnaire, "Was there any redundancy in the course with respect to your

precommissioning training?" A high percentage of student officers invariably

answered yes. Investigation revealed, however, that the term "redundancy" was

a confusing one to many. The term commonly has a negative connotation in revaluation circles, but many students view it as simply meaning repetitious.

Repetition, on the other hand, may well be considered a necessary means of

reinforcement or refresher training for those blocks of instruction with

sufficiently critical training objectives or learning decay rates which

necessitate periodic updating. Furthermore, students arriving at IOBC from

different commissioning sources (ROTC, USMA, OCS, etc.) registered different

opinions about the type and amount of redundancy in the program of instruction

(POI). Curriculum developers, contending with the overall problem of time and

resource constraints, have always experienced problems with students' varied

perceptions of repetitious training and how to accommodate these perceptions

while still conforming to DA and TRADOC training requirements. Until recently,

no comprehensive study has satisfactorily established what blocks of

instruction within IOBC were truly redundant (in the negative sense) and,

therefore, should be either eliminated from the POI or drastically reduced in

alloted time and resources. This study is a different approach in an attempt

to identify such subjects.

METHODOLOGY

A special questionnaire was constructed and given to thirty students in

each class, randomly selected from four consecutive classes (6 thru 9-82). The

questionnaire (Annex A) asked three questions about each block of instruction

in the curriculum. Students were to indicate whether they could Mostly Agree,

Slightly Agree, (were) Neutral, Slightly Disagree, or Mostly Disagree that the

blocks were:

2

a. Unnecessarily repetitious with respect to other blocks in IOBC.

b. Unnecessarily repetitious compared to precommissioning training.

c. Repetitious, but valuable as reinforcement or refresher training.

The questionnaire is comprised of three sections, each made up of various

individual blocks of instruction. Committee-taught blocks form the first

section, beginning with Artillery Operations and ending with the

Security/Intelligence/Prisoner of War (Procedure) block. The second section

begins with Guard Mount and ends with Formal Reception. The responsibility for

teaching these blocks rests with the IOBC trainers and, to some extent, peer

instruction provided by the IOBC students themselves. The last section, which

begins with Individual Combat Techniques/Squad Tactics FTX (Field Training

Exercise) and ends with Close Combat Course I, is a series of eleven blocks of

instruction dealing primarily with field-related activities.

The procedure for student response was identical in all three sections of

the questionnaire. The students were asked to consider each block with respect

to each of the above three statements about repetition. In addition to these

objective responses, the students were given separate comment sheets and

encouraged to make written comments that would further add to the information

about possible redundancy problems such as the nature of the repetitive

instruction, the blocks or previous training in which the repetitive

instruction was given, how much Lime was spent on unnecessarily repetitive

instruction, etc.

RESULTS

As a result of providing more differentiation of degrees of "repetitious"

training in the special questionnaire, students generally indicated that they:

a. Tend to disagree with the statement that unnecessarily repetitious

(redundant) instruction occurred within IOBC.

3

" : *L .... . I M--... . ... ..... ' r4.,l,

b. Tend to disagree that training on the FTX's was repetitious with regard

to precommissioning training. However, many (USMA and OC in particular) agreed

that committee and peer/trainer-taught instruction was repetitious in that

category.

c. Tend to agree that any repetitious training was valuable for

reinforcement/refresher purposes.

Written comments were solicited to further explain students' objective

choices on the questionnaire. Following are some representative statements by

students, exemplifying their perceptions of the instruction (reflected by a

preponderance of comments):

"West Point graduates were familiar with all weapons, leadership (done

better at USMA),---Military Justice." (Nevertheless, leadership instruction is

usually well accepted in IOBC and Military Justice is one of the highest in

ratings. Furthermore, as indicated by the breakout in Annex D, USMA conducts

little formal leadership training.)

An OCS graduate was one who said, "... much repetition.. .same instructors,

same bad jokes, advance sheets. Could PRETEST be answer? On the other hand,

much redundancy pertained to important info ...reinforcing. Catch 22?" Detailed

responses at Tables C, F, and I show that students often affirm the

reinforcement value of a subject after labeling it redundant.

"(I am) both prior service and USMA grad.. .seen everything...however,

leadership is redundant and complete waste of time." (Prior service personnel

tended to be substantially more critical than others in written comments;

however, objective response data indicate a satisfactory to high level of

acceptance.)

d. Written comments further indicated some cogent points.

Allegations of redundancy in physical training (PT) are misleading, in that

its very nature requires constant repetition. Students actually mean that they

view the "by-the-numbers" PT, led by fellow students, to be boring--especially

when compared to running, personal PT, or organized sports. Students were

4

. .- - - - - - 4

relatively emphatic in their written comments about instruction they peroeivod

as not redundant: .50 Cal training, Firing from an APC (hut not well

accepted), Track Vehicle Maintenance, TOW/Dragon, Soviet Army, How to Kill

Tanks, 81mm Mortar Training, and Mechanized Infantry Operations.

Military Leadership, as indicated earlier, was identified by the objective

data as redundant, and reinforced by some written comments in that vein.

Conversely, the standard questionnaire (not concerning redundancy) routinely

indicates a relatively high level of acceptance of this block by IOBC students.

Table A's figures indizate slight agreement that the instruction within IOBC

was repetitious; Table B - it was also repetitious with respect Lo

precommissioning training; but Table C indicates that the repetition is

valuable for reinforcement/refresher purposes. This particular block is used

as an example to stress caution regarding seeming contradictions between thefigures on the survey findings. In most cases, the contradictions will hereconciled by a careful reading of the figures and an occasional discussion, as

needed, with a subject-matter expert in the particular course.

CONCLUSIONS

Following are subjects which are listed on the average response and rank

tables (A thru I) with a ranking sufficiently low on one or more of the three

questions to warrant close scrutiny as being suspect.

Officer Evaluation Reporting System

Enlisted Evaluation Reports

Individual/Collective Training

Military Leadership (see comments above)

Map Reading/Land Navigation

Command and Staff/OPORD (The Operations Order portion is under

consideration for elimination since this is also taught in Tactics and in some

field problems).

Security/Intelligence/Prisoner of War

Physical Fitness Training (New PT program has already received

substantially better ratings).

+ ,!5

Hand Grenades (To be eliminated because of adequate training given by

precommissioning sources).

M72A2 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon training to be eliminated because of

established redundancy).

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That each USAIS instructional department, the training developer, and the

School Brigade consider the contents of this study (preceding Conclusions and

the contents of Annexes C, D, E) in future training management decisions.

2. That the findings of this study be included in the decision-making

processes of FY84 curriculum reviews.

6

DATA ANALYS IS/EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

The subjects chosen to participate in the redundancy survey were randomly

selected, through the use of random number tables, from IOBC Classes 6, 7, 8,

and 9-82. Each subject was administered Form B of the IOBC End-of-Course

Questionnaire (Annex A) which was especially designed to address specific

questions about redundancy of instruction as it relates to IOBC. Students were

asked to consider the following statements for each block of instruction and

indicate their preference on a five-choice scale of agreement (Mostly Agree,

Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, Mostly Disagree):

a. Training occurred in this block that was unnecessarily repetitious

(redundant) with respect to each block of instruction within IOBC.

b. Training occurred in this block that was unnecessarily repetitious

(redundant) when compared with my precommissioning training (ROTC, OCS, USMA).

c. Any repetitious training that occurred in this block was valuable for

reinforcement/refresher purposes.

Annex B is comprised of the summary statistics emanating from the results

of the three questions asked about all blocks of instruction. Annex C is the

detailed average result of the questions, with the rank order of each block of

instruction by students' source of commission. Annex D is a series of matrices

representing the objective data garnered on each block of instruction, by each

class, concerning each of the three questions. Most of the analyses and all of

the statistical material originate from this objective data. And finally,

Annex E is a list of subjects with the number of hours taught for each one

within each source of commission (to be used for purposes of comparison).

The administration of Form B (redundancy questionnaire) was completed with

as little disruption as possible to the usual IOBC end-of-course questionnaire

effort. The students (30 per class), who had previously been randomly selected

7

.i J . .' ' t' •, .

from each class roster, were identified as they entered the classroom. The

students were then directed to a separate section of the classroom where they

received Form B instead of the regular end-of-course questionnaire. Although

it was obvious to all that these students were being administered a different

questionnaire, the instructions on making scoring sheets, making written

commt ts, and allowances for time needed to complete the questionnaire were

ahnost identical to the regular end-of-course questionnaire. The questionnaire

administrators reported no adverse reactions due to this parallel survey

adininistrat ion.

ANALYS IS

In order to facilitate a quantitative analysis of the redundancy

questionnaire data, the response scale alternatives were assigned numerical

values as follows:

Mostly Agree = 1, Slightly Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and

Mostly Disagree = 5. The assignment of these numerical values made it possible

to summarize the data along several dimensions. Also, given the potential

impact that the various sources of commission might have on the students'

responses, it was decided to present the data categorized by the source of

commission. The overall sample included the following numbers of students by

source of commission:

ROTC 63 (54%)

USMA 31 (27%)

OC/OC-RC 12 (10%)

NGOCS 8 (7%)

DIRECT 3 (2%)

117

Given the extremely low number of direct commission students and the fact that

there would be no consistent patterns of precommissioning training associated

with a direct commission, these students were eliminated from the analysis.

Tables A through I present (by source of commission) the average responses on

the five-point scale to each block of instruction by questions. This is dont,

for each section of the questionnaire (committee-taught, peer/trainer taught,

and field training exercise). Also presented with the average responses for

each block is the rank of that average when compared to other averages within

each source of commission. This will allow the reader to compare how the

various sources of commission ranked each block of instruction. These averags

and ranks are further summarized in Tables I through IX. These tables contain

summary statistics based on the average response across all blocks within each

source of commission by question by each section of the questionnaire. Also

included with these summary statistics are Spearman Rank Order Correlation

Coefficients (corrected for ties) which show the amount of agreement on the

rankings (in Tables A through I) between the various sources of commission.

Those correlations which are significant at the .05 level of probability (p<

.05) are indicated in each table. Correlation coefficients that are designated

as being statistically significant have a low probability of having occurred by

chance alone. In reviewing the averages, ranks, and summary statistics on

Tables I through IX, the following observations were made:

a. In response to the statement, "Training occurred in this block that was

unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) with respect to each block of instruction

within IOBC," the average response across all blocks for each source of

commission usually fell around the midpoint (3.5) between Neutral (3) and

Slightly Disagree (4). This is indicated by an examination of Tables I, IV,

and VII. The notable exceptions were the average responses from OC/OC-RC

students on committee-taught blocks (3.290) and peer/trainer-taught blocks

(3.141); and the responses of NGOCS students to committee-taught blocks (3.927)

and FTX's (4.246). It would appear that even though all sources of commission

tended to disagree that unnecessary repetition was presented in IOBC, OC/OC-RC

students in general would be less likely to disagree (i.e., they were more

likely to say there was unnecessary repetition). In contrast, NGOCS students

had average responses that were noticeably farther out toward the disagree end

of the scale. These students were less likely to feel that any of the IOBCs

instruction was repetitious.

9

An examination of the correlation coefficients between the various

combinations of commission sources yields varying results. These correlations

show the amount of agreement between any two commission sources on how the

various blocks were ranked according to tile average response. For example,

there is a high positive correlation between ROTC and USMA students' ranks

(.744) in the committee-taught subjects. This means that if the average

response for a particular block ranks low for ROTC students, then the

probabilities are good that the same block will be ranked low by USMA students.

In looking at the correlations given on Tables I, IV, and VII, several strong

positive correlations appear, indicating some agreement in the ranking across

source of commission. There seemed to be more consistent agreement between

ROTC and USMA students on both the committee-taught blocks (.744, significant

at the .05 level) and the FTX's (.509, not significant at the .05 level).

There was a strong correlation between NGOCS and OC/OC-RC students (.592, not

significant at the .05 level) on the rankings of the FTX's; and there was

noticeable agreement on committee-taught blocks reflected by coefficients of

moderate size between ROTC and OC/OC-RC (3.77), ROTC and NGOCS (.485), and

between USMA and OC/OC-RC (.456). There were no significant correlations among

the sources of commission on the peer/trainer-taught blocks and all of the

coefficients approached zero (no relationships between the ranks). This

indicates that the various sources of commission were less likely to agree on

what blocks contained repetitious training in the peer/trainer-taught blocks

than in either committee-taught blocks or the FTX's. Also, a negative

coefficient of moderate size (-.379, not significant at tile .05 level) occurred

between OC/OC-RC and USMA students on the FTX's, indicating some predictability

in the disagreement between ranks. If USMA students ranked a certain FTX high,

there is some probability that OC/OC-RC students ranked the same FTX low.

b. In response to the statement, "Training occurred in this block that was

unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) when compared with my precommissioning

training," USMA and OC/OC-RC students were more likely to agree with this

statement than the ROTC and NGOCS students. An examination of Tables II, V,

and VIII shows a noticeable difference in ROTC/NGOCS averages compared to USMA

and OC/OC-RC averages on committee and peer/trainer-taught blocks. Three of

the USMA and OC/OC-RC averages fall toward the agree side of the scale (2.931,

10

2.445, 2.848) with the USMA average on committee-taught blocks (3.063) right at

the neutral point and considerably closer to agree than either ROTC or NGOCS.

However, when comparing the averages on the FTX's, there seems to be an

increase in the average responses indicating more disagreement with the

statement that the FTX's were unnecessarily redundant. In fact, the USMA

average (3.431) more closely approximates the ROTC average (3.496) than

occurred in committee or peer/trainer-taught blocks. OC/OC-RC students were

more in agreement with this statement than were the other three groups.

An examination of the correlation coefficients indicates that on this

statement, there was more agreement among the rankings of blocks among the

committee-taught subjects than among the peer/trainer blocks or the FTX's. On

the committee-taught blocks, all of the correlations were positive and above

.30. Although two were not significant at the .05 level (3.63 between USMA and

OC/OC-RC was .001 below the critical value for the .05 level), the trend is

toward agreement among the sources of commission as to how the committee-taught

blocks should be ranked using average response to each block based on the five-

point scale. In other words, if one group's average response to a particular

committee-taught block caused that block to be ranked low, there was a tendency

for either of the other groups to also have an average response that placed

that block in the lower ranks. This tendency gets stronger as the positive

correlations get higher. The correlations among the groups on the peer/

trainer-taught blocks are considerably lower with two negative correlations.

One of these is fairly strong (-.474) indicating that USMA students tended to

rank the blocks in a somewhat predictably opposite manner from the OC/OC-RC

students. If a block was ranked high by USMA, there was a tendency for the

OC/OC-RC students to rank the same block low. None of the correlations in the

peer/trainer-taught blocks were significant. Table VIII (FTX's) shows one

significant and highly positive correlation between ROTC and USMA students

indicating a high rate of agreement between these two groups on the rankings of

the various FTX's. With the exception of the correlations between NGOCS and

ROTC (.389) and between USMA and OC/OC-RC (.379), the other correlations

between the various groups were low and negative. These combinations of high,

moderate, and low coefficients that are both negative and positive indicate a

wide variance on agreement as to what FTX's are more repetitious when compared

to precommissioning training.

III

c. The third statement to which the students were asked to respond was

"Any repetitious training that occurred in this block was valuable for

reinforcement/refresher purposes." All of the average responses across all

blocks (Tables III, VI, and IX) fell below the midpoint of the scale

(Neutral = 3) indicating a tendency to agree with the statement. NGOCS

students had lower average responses across all these types of instruction

(committee/peer/trainer, and FTX) which leads one to conclude they were more

likely than other groups to feel that any repetitious training was valuable.

The magnitude of the average responses was lower across all groups for the FTX

blocks (indicating higher agreement with the statement) than for the committee-

taught blocks or the peer/trainer-taught blocks. There was less agreement with

the statement on the peer/trainer-taught subjects as reflected by the slightly

higher average responses to these blocks. The highest average response to this

statement (2.934) was given by USMA students to the peer/trainer-taught

subjects, indicating less of a tendency for these students to think the

repetitious training was valuable. Historically, our surveys have shown that

students in general, and USMA students in particular, report a less favorable

impression of peer/trainer-taught subjects than of committee or FTX subjects.

An inspection of the correlation on the rankings of the average response

for the various groups reveals a continuing trend of agreement between USMA and

ROTC students. Two of the three correlations between these two groups are

significant and all are .500 or higher, indicating a strong tendency toward

agreement between them across all three sources of instruction. There were

also substantial positive correlations between OC/OC-RC and ROTC students

(.580) and OC/OC-RC and USMA students (.498) regarding the various FTX blocks;

and a moderately strong positive correlation between OC/OC-RC and USMA students

on the committee-taught blocks (.402). However, there was a significantly

large negative correlation (-.642) between ROTC and NGOCS students on the

FTX's, which indicates opposing opinions as to which training was more likely

to be valuable reinforcement. Except for the high correlation (.629) between

USMA and ROTC, there were no other correlations of noticeable magnitude or

significance to be found regarding the peer/trainer-taught subjects.

12

A%

SUMMARY

Across all types of instruction (committee, peer/trainer, FTX) all sources

of commission tended to disagree with the statement that unnecessarily

repetitious (redundant) instruction occurred across the various blocks within

IOBC. OC/OC-RC students would be somewhat more inclined to agree with the

statement than the other groups; and NGOCS students had the highest rate of

disagreement with the statement.

On committee and peer/trainer-taught blocks of instruction, USMA and

OC/OC-RC students tended to agree with the statement that the training was

repetitious when compared to the precommissioning training. There was less

agreement with that statement across all groups on the FTX's, with NGOCS

students tending to show even less agreement than the others. OC/OC-RC

students were more likely than the other groups to think the training was

repetitious compared to precommissioning training. This finding was not

surprising, in that these students often receive certain training in IOBC

within weeks of having had it with the same instructor in OCS.

Across all types of instruction (committee, peer/trainer, FTX), all sources

of commission tended to agree with the statement that any repetitious training

was valuable for reinforcement/refresher purposes. NGOCS students were more

likely than the others to agree with this statement, and all sources of

commission seemed to show more agreement with this statement when it concerned

FTX's as compared to committee and peer/trainer-taught blocks.

Across all three statements, there are noticeably more positive

correlations of substantial magnitude between the various comparison groups on

the committee-taught blocks and FTX's than on the peer/trainer-taught subjects.

In other words, there was less agreement on the frequency and value of any

repetition that may have occurred (as reflected by the average scale responses

given to the various blocks by the four sources of commission) in the

peer/trainer areas than in the other types of instruction.

13

Across all statements and types of instruction, ROTC and USMA students were

much more likely to agree on the average scale response rankings of the various

blocks than any other combination of the four groups. This is demonstrated by

the large number of high positive correlations between these two groups

throughout Tables I through IX.

14

I,

.DSC Fna-of-Course .uesti,.nnare

3

;:STRUCT2Or{C: D3 :T .- :-: T'il 'T N.AE. se pace iJ', answers on :he .'jitek sheets,povidea. Comments snouto De written on Comment Sheets. If you nero more Cormment Sheets, p*eiseraise your hand.

1. To which platoon were you assigned?

a. Istb. 2dc. 3dd. 4the. None of the above (Go to next question)

2. To which platoon were you assigned?

a. 5thb. 6thc. 7thd. 8the. None of the above

3. What is your source of commission?

a. ROTCb. USMAc. CC/OC-RCd. NGOCSe. Oirect

If jour source.of cc rission is ?T0,, n .icn -CTC ,egion Vjs the coilere -n,:2(11iSS:one", ",Lated?

a. Ft Braig ,,ncludes Connecticut, Maine, 'lass acnusetts, Maryland, Vermont, '%ew Ha;,cshire, ',ew

York, Pennsylvania, Celaware, Thoce :slano, "Iew Jersey, ";orTh 3rolina, South *.rc nia,Georgia, Florida, Virginia, 'Washington DC, ?uerto Rico)

b. Ft Knox (Includes West Virginia, Chio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, '.issouri, jiscons.n,Illinois, Michigan)

c. Ft il (Includes Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Alabama

d. Ft Lewis (Includes Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa, Guam, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utan,Arizona Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Minnesota,

Iowa)

Annex A A-I

THE FOLLOWING BLOCKS OF INSTRUCTION ARE THE MAJOR AREAS COVEPED III i0BC. FOR EACH aLCCI' UF INST Ru-TION, PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

3. Training occurred in this block that was unnecessar-l' repetitious 'cecinddnt; with respectto each block of instruction within IOBC.

b. Training occurred in this olock that was unnecessarii- rletitious (redundantl when compareowith my preconmislioning training (ROTC, OCS, USMA).

c. Any repetitious training that occurrea In tnls olock was valuable for reintorcement/refresherpurposes(IF NO REPETITION OCCURRED, LEAVE BLANK).

USE THE SCALE BELOW TO INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT WHEN COMPARED TO EACHBLOCK.

a b c d eMostly Agree Slightly Agree Neutral Slightly Disagree Mostly Disagree

We would greatly appreciate any written comments - such as the nature of the repetitive instruct. n,the blocks or previous training in which the repetitive instruction was given, how much time wasspent on unnecessarily rppetitive instruction, etc. - that would aid JSAIS 4n this e~aluation effort.Please write such comments on the Convent Sheet.

Unnecessarily Unnecessarily Repetitious tralningrepetitious reDetitious ,.iatle re1f':r'.e-with respect compared to ment/retresne,

to other blocks .ecomiissioninC 3LA:K :F '10BLOCKS in TIO.Ctraining __T_':,_.

DIGITEK ITEM i DIGITEK I'E 'A "G'. :"

Artillery Operation 5 6

)emolition Techniques 8 9

'2- 're~ations 11

Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) 14 15 "6

7actical Air Support 17 18

Officer Evaluation Reporting System 20 21 22

Enlisted Evaluation Reports 23 24 25

Soviet Army 26 27 28

Logistics/Supply Procedures 29 30 31

Individual/Collective Training 32 33 34

Military Leadership 35 36 37

Fundamentals of Map Reading/Land Navigation 38 39 40

Law of Land Warfare 41 42 43

Military Justice 44 4S 46

TOW Weapon System 47 48 49

Dragon Weapon System so 51 52

How to Kill Tanks 53 54 55

Medical Considerations for Leaders 56 57 58

Fundamentals of Offense 59 60 61

Fundamentals of Defense and Retrograde 62 63 64

A-2"

a b c eMostly Agree Slightly Agree Neutral Slightly Disagree Mosti.,' >32sree

Unnecessar-ly !nnecessariy epetitious trainingrepetitious !eet4tious wauaoe reinforce-with respect compared to -en:irefres~e,to other blocks precommissioning ,LANK IF '4Oin ITQBC trTiNig REPETTCi,

DIGITEK ITEM # IGITEK ITEM 0 DIGITEK ITEM

Fundamentals of Mech Infantry Operations 65 66 67

Command and Staff Functions/Operations Order 68 69 70

Communications 71 72 73

Fundamentals of Airmobile Operations 74 75 76

81mm Mechanical Training/M16 Plotting Board 77 79 79

Fundamentals of Patrolling (Ranger)- Classroom 80 81 92

Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance 83 84 35

Track Vehicle Operation/Maintenance 86 87 33

Firing from an APC Battlesight Zero AN/TVS-5 89 90 91

.50 Cal MG, .45 Cal Pistol, and SAFAD 92 93 94

*Bivouac 95 96 37

Security/Intell/PW (Procedure) 98 9 _C

(GO TO SECOND DIGITEK SHEET:

Guard Mount 1 2 3

Bayonet Training 4 5 6

Land Navigation 7 8 9

Physical Fitness Training 10 11 12

Road M.lrches 13 14 15

Code of Conduct 16 17 1"

Leadership Reaction Course 19 20 2i

Bayonet Assault Course 22 23 24

M16 Rifle 25 26 27

M203 28 29 30

Countermobiltty 31 32 33

Hand Grenades 34 3S 36

M60 Machine Gun 37 38 39

M72A2 LAW 40 41 42

Dining-In 43 44 45

Formal Reception 46 47 48

*Erroneously placed in committee-taught subjects. Belongs and is counted with

peer/trainer-taught subjects (Guard Mount, etc.).

A-3

• ' ... . .

a b c d eMostly Agree Slightly Agree Neutral Slightly Disagree Mostly Disagree

Jnnecessarily Unnecessarily Repetitious traininrepetitious repetitious valuable -einfnrce-with respect compared to ment/refresnerto other blocks 'recommisslonlng (BLANK IF 40in 108C trainin REPETITION).

OIGITEK ITEM # DIGITEK ITEM 4 OIGITEK ITEM 4

Individual Combat Techniques/Squad Tactics FTX 49 50 51

81mm Mortar Field Firing Exercise 52 53 54

Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise (CALFEX) 55 56 57

Mechanized Platoon Tactics FTX 58 59 60

Maintenance Before and After Mech PlatoonTactics FTX 61 62 63

Mechanized Infantry Platoon Live Fire 64 65 66

Maintenance Before and After Mech Inf PlatoonLive Fire 67 68 69

Fundamentals of Patrolling (RANGER) - FIX 70 71 72

Fundamentals of Patrolling (RANGER) -- Round

Robin 73 74 75

Close Combat Course 1 76 77 78

Close Combat Course II 79 so 31

YOU ARE FURTHER ENCOURAGED TO ADD ANY OTHER SPECIFIC COMMENTS, REGARDING PARTICULAR SUBJECTS, WHICHIOU FEEL 4OUL3 SE CF ASSISTANCE IN IMPROVING THE COURSE.

THANK YOU FOP YOUR ASSISTANCE IN HELPING US TO IMPROVE THE COURSE FOR FURTHER CLASSES.

*BEFORE TURNING IN YOUR MATERIALS, PLEASE CHECK EACH:*

--BOTH DIGITEK SHEETS, to insure: you have posted the correct admininformation; coded correctly; no stray marks.

--COMMENT SHEET(S), to insure: you have written your platoon and classnumber at the top; you used subtitles and questionnumbers related to each comment.

A-4

SUMMARIES OF TABLES

TABLE I

Summary Statistics on Committee Taught Blocks by Source of Commission for the Statement,"Training occurred in this block that was unnecessaril_.repetitious (redundant) with re(pt.'to each block of instruction within IOBC. The response scale was Mostly Agree 1, Slih.Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross All Blocks Range Deviation

ROTC 3.611 2.903 - 4.726 .407USMA 3.637 2.333 - 4.759 .627OC/OC-RC 3.290 2.250 - 4.000 .355NGOCS 3.927 2.875 - 5.000 .642

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses iT,Each Block by Source of Commission.

ROTC USMA OC/OC-RC NGOCSROTC 1.000USMA .744* 1.000OC/OC-RC .377* .456* 1.000NGOCS .485* .265 .019 1.000*P-.05 (n=31)

TABLE II

Summary Statistics on Committee Taught Blocks by Source of Commission for the Statement,"Training occurred in this block that was unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) when (ommport iwith my recommissioninag training (ROTC, OCS, USMA)." The response scale was MostlyAgree = 1, Slightly Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross all Blocks Range Deviation

ROTC 3.510 2.774 - 4.452 .401USMA 3.063 1.300 - 4.931 .886,OC/OC-RC 2.931 2.000 - 3.750 .414NGOCS 3.601 2.571 - 4.571 .528

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses for

Each Block by Source of Commission.

ROTC USMA OC/OC-RC NGOCS

ROTC 1.000USMA .765* 1.000OC/OC-RC .438* .363 1.000NGOCS .627* .510* .304 1.000

*P.05 (n=31)

ANNEX B B-1

TABLE jjj

Summary Statistics on Committee Taught Blocks by Source of Commission for the Stdtement,"Any repetitious training that occured in this block was valuable for reinforcemenetJrefresher purposes." The response scale was Mostly Agree = 1, Slightly Agree = 2,Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross all Blocks Range Deviation


Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses forEach Block by Source of Commission.

ROTC USMA OCLOC-RC NGOCS

ROTC 1.000USMA .723* 1.000OC/OC-RC .223 -.402* 1.000NGOCS .005 -.005 .236 1.000

*p. .05 (n=31)

TABLE IV

Summary Statistics on peer/trainer taught subjects by Source of Commission for the Statement,"Training occurred in this block that was unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) with respectto each block of instruction within IOBC. The response scale was Mostly Agree = 1, SlightlyAgree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross All Subjects Range Deviation


Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses

for Each Subject by Source of Commission.


ROTC 1.000USMA -.125 1.000OC/OC-RC -.049 -.260 1.000NGOCS .195 -.120 .268 1.000

B-2

TABLE V

Summary Statistics on Peer/Trainer Taught Subjects by Source of Commission for theStatement, "Training occurred in this block that was unnecessaril repetitious (redundint)when compared with my precomnissioning traini' (ROTC, -CS- USMA The response scale

was Mostly Agree - 1, Slightly Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and MostlyDisagree = 5.



Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses

for Each Subject by Source of Commission.


ROTC 1.000USMA .296 1.000OC/OC-RC .285 -.474 1.000NGOCS -.048 .097 .061 1.000

TABLE VI

Summary Statistics on Peer/Trainer Taught SubjeLt: by Source of Ccrp,:sion . theStatement, "Any repetitious training that occurred in this block W,-s valuable forreinforcement/refresher purposes." The response scale was Mostly Agree = I, SlightlyAgree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Cisagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.



Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients on Rankings of the Average Responses forEach Subject by Source of Commission.


ROTC 1.000[ISMA .629* 1.000OC/OC-RC -.227 -.291 1.000NGOCS .251 .242 .001 1.000

.05 (n=17)

B-3

" A . .. . . . ' ' *"-, " "

TABLE VII

Suarary Statistics on FTX's by Source of Commission for the Statement, "Training occurredin this block that was unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) with respect to each blockof instruction within IOBC." The response scale was Mostly Agree = 1, Slightly Agree = 2,Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross All FTX's Ranqe Deviation


' ,e,''idlr Rdnk Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responses* r Each FTX by Source of Commission.


4TC 1.000JSMA .509* 1.000Ii/C-RC -.087 -.379 1.000

C, !S .361 -. 032 .592* 1.000

.05 (n=ll)

TABLE VIII

Summary Statistics on FTX's by Source of Commission for the Statement, "Training occurredin this block that was unnecessarily repetitious (redundant) when compared with myprecommissioning training (ROTC, OCS, USMA)." The response scale was Mostly Agree = 1,Slightly Agree = 2, Neutral = 3, Slightly Disagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross All FTX's Range Deviation


Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Based on Rankings of the Average Responsesfor Each FTX by Source of Commission.


ROTC 1.000USMA .673* 1.000OC/OC-RC -.009 -.379 1.000NGOCS .389 -.249 -.218 1.000

*P,.05 (n=ll)

B-4

TABLE IX

Summary Statistics on FTX's by Source of Commission for the Statement. "Any repetitioustraining that occurred in this block was valuable for reinforcement/refresher purposes."The response scale was Mostly Agree = 1, Slightly Agree = 2, Neutral = 3. SlightlyDisagree = 4, and Mostly Disagree = 5.

Average Response StandardAcross All FTX's Range Deviation


Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients on Rankings of the Average Responses forEach Subject by Source of Commission.


ROTC 1.000USMA .500 1.000OC/OC-RC .580 .498 1.000NGOCS -.642* -.211 -.235 1.000

*p, .05 (n = 11)

B-5

,. .. .L .. ... .. .,,,r, '. , .... .. .""i 'l l [ .... .. .~ll .... .. I

LM LA r, 00 mA mA to r, LA Dr -r-c DC n MCC7 .l ( I l .~ .Q .l .N .I ' ) c i

C.-D

r-) CD])C)L)C)C)u o z )L)C :)c T c n - z . , Ic -k

4) -<

4' I' rL LA LAC LA)

- -C.j ~ C') '-CJ - ~ C\j C\J C'J-CX.-C'JCJ-

a) 0 0' )~~' DO ~ '

CC

S.- 0- Ln LA Ln LA

C4' ~ ~ C\ -CI (NJ m m J C' CJ Nj (Nj--------------

a )

4'-~

S- ON. L)I CilzGJ Lr . . .- " M .L r Ll C - 0 -

u cjj- -C : r-rMc i ~ \ n Mc* C~ , \ - ,J ~ nMC1c ~4-JLO ~ I

-j L -

a) ) S- C

0 0.0 L

I4.C) S- 0'U OI

U)- S-- S- rU '0A

4CI I- A C)4 0' 0 F-

4-A 0) a~C0 4) U- CIAUI N cm 0' ' U U . 5QU U C--

E, CS- m L- Q 0.- C0W 4 F- Co) IC 0) S 4 0 - )- ca

S.-:30 I)5 S-r 0 '(L)e O a) r-CC )0CV

(A-~I Cu 0.- 0) -0) IAAA-o .0 -U 0 'i L

0 4A 0 V) ~ (a) (a CCC C. OC04' a)-r OcC: InS. C) a)-.0U C= 414- L .9-- m

M .. .000- 41 11' C S- a r aII' C I4 ~5 01 L) .~j_- S-O 4)C * ..4 S-JI

140) ) S 0- m. M -)._C.a 0

r_ A .41 M)'U .- L4LS A 04-4-r M-- w 4J -

_ CL 0) S. a) 0)(A4 00 4 - VSC . U .0' -)(. oA (U-O u aU~ ) aU IA IAc 0_ IA 0I IA -A M

0A C U Aj) 0 .> E.. 0U a)()' 4)~ c 0.. E..- Cs-C c 4 E *C

IC 5- o~ a, c i 0 .c A 0 U a- (U 0 1 U.L4- (L)4 U 4-C.-' C L0 0 MX m E& IAI. 0tz)C J , 3 CCC MCU M)4 4-a XwCL)C

(I ( CL U)L 'j) S - 4-) >1 Gi 0 4 -' W0>,.he U)04-4M <-)a) S-~ u. ,-* to0.'U m0)4) M'4). 0Um

1.- (A ea ' 0 EE0 CCE ; 0 0''

C) - 0 ;I' >0 *4'** :--,) - -0 0=- CO' C:-- 'a . E- 2 - :27; E -it:r- 4-3I C'E ) ;U>4-i0E .- c . c m M mEm c ECm m m w o U D0 v LI S AM 4)M 0W U4 4 OM4 -4 : L- M

- j Uilt) L (C) Lf) -C LA LlA LAC lA

C- Co qjj 0 L O

C C-

a) C LAC L In LA LA r- C) LALLAL r-I LAo"C l ciI oq :

(3)) CD - k ., C\J., - D O0 A.) (' - M C\J Cli 0 k I -C \ V Cse.jC\ C \JA)LI. .

C>) 0i0. al kDC-)C.)C')C)C.) C) . :J-) C". zr.. ', ' n kz C') C'~j o .r- .Z ko - ' c'O %D~ 00 .":T0-- % 0 ~ ' Cj o ~

L) C Dr DC DwmC c o% -C -CumC - mC D0 nCit

+5, -l C u L.11 Q)U.) ~ jc ~ ~ c l ~ C'J--.~J \ C j m ,---c CJ C -'C 'Jci \ .-- C11 AjmciCjA

.- 0. i A

U W 10 O m O O O 'S -ULA

Li c (M (U mm;CC EuC'J4 mmmc'J-'.C'C',J mM r- CjM - J e 14mC\; C\;~E-m '.A

.0 cu-z- - ':

0Eu': CD

cu Q)W CDIt cn C\--'' C r- M --V c toa o r- M M " C I -Ch 4. -.- C )O C .. %D W .. ON o W~L

ou >

S- 0U, WW m ~ m m m j m mm m m ~ .m m ~ ~ m e

CA ' = E

CoS

S/, eL

M (U . 0

oS- *.- z .c u,(U~ 4ki L.C 0u to 0 I-r

a)l mu C- fau .- r .w-J~ d) 2m WIn S 6 0+- S uS-C

:3 ) o. a) Cc-' zn 4ja I )Vc) $ u5..- C-- S- m Lto -

~~I C 4) to V ) S'D-4-O ' otLA 10 CL N , Lm m toCO ru.- C) Vlt 3

3 LnO N (A III Eu -I CD 41. LO xr 4-iC= -a) ai C n .- -..- J &-'. -- M o - c m 5.-

O4d-L to c 0 V)£f:C m0)DV4J LM C --.- -Mu .0 *-4-' 4)* C L cCrC_ :C E0U tv 4 .V

0)CC S.- S--. m..u(a 0 uu C -c c X IIoWaC-.C * -02 V4 4- .- - .- UEu I-f .- Eatou 1 W C 4 .- a, c C4 0 0

c CL d 0) 0) In 4A 0 U .0 -- - )0 4' S-u 11 CAC W=u L C c~ c0 o C 004 - uo .

co :3 &n IS- s. C L *0..a 0.) .- 4- 4- uOLL- I-E4Jr - M

0 .0. (0. = ' C MC Q.-'DEu. M- =:14 0 4- X C :(UC -CU 00.0 - M - 41 C'uA -0)4 Eu, -W L- 4- -x 0EG0.)CIA)eEM ro mc 4-)'1+2r ra;ir - 4- LU-) V)QW 4- 4-4-E ,4-~-4-- 4)CD l.A-

:1 wd, S WCLC 0. 10.V .- > CI ~ (C U 0 0 M CiC). F)0.- o -. 4) =Lr In CPO / 110 In0n 'S 0 In-- 0l.-- 4-'LI) C *C *- ,-E >,In -.. CL ~ 0.- C - -- V - - C u E *c

r_.L/ 41, CDi > LJ E' .1 to c C c u 0a -- ru 1-3 c.- o a) 0-0 Li '0 fa LL S. CAfa 4-'rO OW C). 4 4'4-MEf"a4J = 4 SL-.

'a C) .,-L.>,- ID-xu z>1 r_ -. 1 > CCC c UVC Uc 0) 4- >cW ) U, + 4W S- S- a *-VloL. Lou S- aWWWV)"0.-Wa) WV) -4C' o -- 0. M Q 4 4-4'.- 41 M 4 (0 4) C0o E E E C C E E 40) )u

) '-04)- LA 4J (V 0n 4J :X 0- 04JU LeuM Mu eO Za f0 M '-. C-L.) S-0 ;- *.- 0D - cm .- "0 VVVE E 0 V0WOu-- :

w u 0 - 4) EL) -U 4- >0) C 3 -:9a3 t3 C -EErC CILoS- o u

0 CS- c> M C LnLL L

MAAL L %DL ON r C LO C) Z

W: (A Ml cnWL : ~ 7L)r n

(1) L A

0L I

S- ) LA k L LO '00 M A %. 0 LA LA mA LA 0 - M 0k 0 LA) (A .0 -0" CD M) M) LA )

3CC ~ " c n"e ' a)i ~C x\j -jCJ. . ~'m\. (J~\j

s- a)a) IC O f

a. (0 adAL LA. LA LAJ LALA LA, LA \ --- M

4-) CICM

a) 0

4--

4sa)

J a) ) .e AL

4.) S- CU C

cu V)- E cl C'C\JA .- c C cl f l C C\J \JC'.i-('j C'J CJ. . . ~C\ '4

4-Oa a

LA 4 :)4 S- 0

> 0~

o LA

4-3 0 w - 0 LA0 1.5- S-a m cI -S- (A n ~

-.4i C0 4-) 0n ci I

o 0 u S. S-*C 0~)1. m-) inoz l I<UO- I- aj) in 0 a) 0.-4-)L W a )

o 0-a 4-) n :O)m J) C a oN ina) t L S- CL 0.5-Q 4-)O ' a t-r_ a) fa Cx a) C- ) (U.-cx C m 0

C_ cm .- -- 0) S- ", 0 -% aO m S

41~. *.+- ea- C CAC 'n mEi'D4n.(-CV

.- a (U s-0 ms- -0 0 '4- .- - CM .- iU--4-J Uea S- 00.L 10 - EU 4-Q) 0) r-' 4-) .-- aa4-) LnOS-OO C 0.0) r_ 0) (D ( (D0 "U . - - )O0+-)'- S-

in 0A 0JD O= >E0a) (v CC C = C04-"CE4.)O.c s->, c : iS- C S..- M CL ) a) *-- 4-OLU- *; L( 4-3 '-

ea 3 E QO r .COL 04J M - 4-' 4- 4-0) w S-mtu L ufaMo00 0- u M: to E in in m CDCa X4-- 9 M1--M Q) e. U C

0nO o mevU=Z.C to'E -- L 4-4-U 44Ln C W4- 4- 4-U4( 4--'4- Q)OC LACZ *- LuinUA~ 0 MM a ) 0EU - (A M E0O0 0 4Ji0 0 M 0 Cu-.

0 ~ ~ )d 1 41 (1 WcLO' 60 M 94- >,C t---- Lna U U)EUo .0)0.'La 0.-O0 w S- -E0 nL)E fa (nA O ininiVnAiA 0i*-'n*.--- - ..(A. 0r C* - 0- M > > CM- ) 0 :3 M.-C~'- C-C E rCCU ). C 4-JOC) >LJ E .- J EU C 73 C M 0m M M C -4-J Mmf ( ma)- 0 41- M ~ E LU S- 0 fa 4J fO 0 W U 4J 4J 4J EM 4 M4J>..C.S---

.- Z!~- 'D CCC U C- ICcI -c u c uC 0) 4-(U 4ii 0 4J) m S-w .,aS.) S- t .- (v )-D,- *.-) W ) V >. 4-)

06 M -0.U W 4 4-' 4(MUE 4-mC M m-0 oE EEC c E2:E w c~m5--. -- 0J) -0J M* *4*1" 4 UM M~ m'0 Z m'E' (a - Ca0 (a - 4- E L) u 4- > M"D--3c n to3VC 'D c ECEc a ) mLu>1. (5) 1. 0)*. CO f ' r-COO C = fa EU - 100 :3 = =0 2- Z=%.- LA 0)

41 C ; XI--C) w n - - . z- - LA A=L .LA . 0 A- I-- A. Le)

A.

(D Lo LO C)Ln Ln LO 000)C L-) Ln LAOC LO LA LO

cl c-l N.(' A N. C"J 0 0 0 (\J N. r. cLA N. C. (NJ 0

-'

CD M C Lo LA C LA LA oqrCc (- Cl Lr ' \ \1k 110,IIr-r 'Un :: . C'N.LC C \J( ::> r,-0(

4-u

C) 0- L

t: :7'() Cl c nC - M oCj C -- 00-) 7 ,t -% .Q P l C DV

.0. v, %D e 0 r

m- --~ ffI C~ "e V

3w aC0:-.

LO ML 01 cr - 0t

CC3

CCol N t hq: I %jV NmQrCjC )mL

Co D k Orw : - -1% lA ~m

CU

0

, S- C

:3.0 CA'

CA 10 t/

C4-''U CA1

C 0 0

0 .CLn0 O t A 4.1C

CA-C) C cCA 4JU 4 c 0

(W~U~ 4-0') m441 S - ..- '*W CA m ~ ~ W 0)D

CL. fu L~ 0 c .4A .0EUC)~

= u~ UL) 2-C c I _t~ a,0 S.- . .C. . .cc

(1) ( a, ~ '4j 'ev ( m4

- CA44 1.-..J I U

;l "0rz - w aC0 4-' c 'a :3U- t S- 0- 0 '0 W-0 0 EC ~ - 0

U :3 -* rE'.3 -0 0 w m C\j 0 EU 0N..0LnC o LO L)- c ; - ' 3L

Lfl LCI 0L JfLOf ILLrl L ) L~n

L Co ONL)L 44 c r r L;cicc;C r,1

CLo Cfl LID Lrm IJ)Lr L).))C fJ.).lACf

10 r - L2 rL- I - 1-n~ L"" (NJ (N J, LnJ L(I(J l r"--- r- C (Nj kD

4-; C. 4 .

c~ ~ ~ 4J m m C . mm c m m- m m m

* n Lc l l lCU Cs- c \ M0 0 . rCjL m0 0 or

4,~ m , nC, % L A) Lo lC

M C\7

In 0. V)I-zEII (nI f~-0C w D'- M C UC)o C w C DC) 0u 0 0, kok >: DM -C D ~ DCiC- WC.C

0) >-

Mn 4-' 4-c.C -

L.A 17 ( 0) Cm&-J 'C -- eo %.-o -j -- C\ -CJr ML )W

j a)t/)

I-(' M-.. W mLo to CD o M - M C)Mr-zW .CD0) rnj "1 . l )c Q nC oCjm

04-~ )

c o 0C -

o0'n

- 3 0 (1

'- 0-

0: CQ(a0C

_> _ V)C )0~ 4- a) C. c = a)D

C+-L.'G L = 0 CL n . m c

CD 00

C z 0 (1 X .. DcS.. - 0 s - 0 ) 0 0<*

4) 0 0 e >1c >, f -U- m %% C C) 0~ L

>. to to. 0 U -0 0)e l 0 m.- COr .Vc 4- 0 co 2: -

0M C-

CD IQ) R C2)L LA------- -------------------------------- LOUl L) L)C ~ -L C OC l Or C OL I -

C: eaO OOlALAO OOLA LAOOlAU' 1 -

c CL 4) c ~ ~ ~ ljC)MCJ M r l

0 S" 00c oL om c 0U) MCC tn() Cl A'U D r O LA' C:, (D 'n C'

>1

V) V) 41CO( - LO LO

.-L'4- E o 'U ) m Lo r C'M LALAU-) - r--.

4 -~

0U c

0 1

4- (U

S_ C) *. 0 C j mI DML D - z -C l n-*

-:Lc MU CU 4 CS.-(.)UJ )40 M - M .~ M- -:* t -C )

(-. L 3: Ll rol LAO r, r , 0

>1

C-

(A0 4-'

(A C

W0 0)

4 -

M 110

to ; +LS.- .-0

CIL 4- j(A' MC 3

a)U - - a0f.,u4-)_c 0 , c M c a

0 S_ C 4, z E w-

0C L0.;- )1 ' C .a)-L L 0> ,r a 100oC = CDC _S.>

>Cje =00WM CJ0M%

0L >a-L-a

C

-o CD (L l) LO NLf) CDC C00 0Lr C0) C00.= O r-, I'- C\J r-. Lo 0D 0) r. 0 C'j U)

11 ao C O ' r-L- oC o C! :

cn..M -l n I o oL r

T1. I L- n -

*-+-'c L- U Iflf CLf " CLfl

_ S- 0_ C ( - C r(1) 4-l (c ) e 0r C). mo m

0 -C m

41

-~U 0

&- .4.

IMl CLnI C- (D t C)j 0 -:3' M .( N.Nko - jUi co

r-Lj

F- C -i" i l .m m -C -m

ci- C'C17 ~t >~-,cn-~~~ ~~~ r 0LA C 'J C )

>1>Li- L r

-~ I-

4 0) V) 4-

a) *- .0L-0- 0)c

0 7)'n4)% U- SLi- CAo 4 L 0 V

0) :3LAJx I 4 0 4j cc-le ucr uju 4- 4- a

M40 C 14. C to

--*- > 0- S.04-) U 0 4- Li- Q

M3 LiL-)r 4) a) e 0 A 4

oo J 4- C4- 0E. M G.- 4- (V 0 S-C0i' ) 03 C -O

SU L. - Li M (

0 4i~J ) c IAc 4) 1

L-0f 4)2C-LUV,4)0)L)

> - wO M +4J- Mi-M.WLWL. . 0 J..4 C'- -- 00'a CAC

W L00 E-o 100 0 ) 00 0>- EO- - 3 :

#1 U0 L.. U) 0 -1 1

0)./tn - 10~V U V 10).CA

II-5

0I 0

5

1 >1

*: Th- un r-r C ~ ) ~Ci

c,

a m 0~0 ) ~ 00 r) 0. C) M

IAE 0 ) 1 ~r-C" cn m (1) C\ir-CSm l

a) >

U o CDZrCCMjoC nr

UU -PL 0) c:I -- i c' zl nm ))m02 S-CS-

S.--

cl-.. Ci i cue ~m .

o C I

10 C)

O:r - en r- >i C ( ~> L .0C l l f l-J-

Iv C\, 4-' m ) C' )

I- 0c

::n 0 - a(L- o4- L 0 a

S- 0 0..-L

4J0 .C .LULU0 . 7;AG Li3 W-i eo 4) '

M0 IA IGiLL~ .0 = LL..-0 =i c(G 4) Ca)u LD(

C rio 0) - U. M 0- = C<

Co3 .-- s- Li -i -

c L) M a'LLI 04 04- a0"a

10 4) .i-V 0 4.S- 0..

IA C 0S Zj 0) -S 5

S-L CA4- ai WC 4J 4- 0 4t)0 wL a d) N') CC(a(A0O

01.0EL U.L4A C M COLX ~ ~ 0 5 0)5 (Uw EL L - -4A C - S-)~

4) ccM fo.0 -

V)I+jS c )C>L n o L C$0~~ C0) Q ~-ZN.o

ko C) In 0 co c 00N - )U).-Oi:3 ~ 5- .... C-1 .\ C ci

(1)In in n C)l I-n .C'CJ\N

ajf C:)AL Uic C l C L L

IL3A4 ~ cIciCI clllN N-iC\J - CIJ C')

CJ

In S

() CU; Nr n0 0 - Nr -0r

Lo O l) rNj C'j .0 :r ko (\

0 U

W 0) ' 0C nr-.- 0C\.It Oc 'JrmnC0OW 0 m; C ' . l C'.1 C'JC' C\~\ c i

L. >5.01

x 'a-

O In I

'A m- Lli Q-jW ON C) 0 n In n C) in inin.

0LoO 4-' 00-

a1a a; m C) LO e..jc 00 Clje.J CJ3 00\C\

C 1 C- (a C l C l4-Qi ) C)cl ~i Cjcl ~ C j

o 04- a)

LI, U -u CEO o) 0 C

P 4- CA 4-j :ra, to Z< 0

4- J 0 0. L-4-u L&- 4J

o'ao 'a to '. a a,..- 1i

m) V. *. C2--S.-~L > a ) S-LQ A

311 -. U '3-<-X .J : =

4 x 0) a) Ca (U'a ~ LAJX 0 * 04- mI

. S.. L.1U 04- C

fuCo: aaa) 41 'a

vL*-a r_ C 00-

a))O aC 4) -a) m m 0 In4-'0> S- +j s- Q. a .- S-

4) CI 'a1-.m -0 CO0:3:.0 -.. 4- 4- ea 4- 4- 4-0 0

0 a, E*- V7 a 4-a CO cc5-) 0 E . -L 0 9A +J4-)

5-5S. . a; a ;- -- ea (cW) 5- .- t ' D~ U 'D U S-. 'a toaflfl

7:5 M 04-' o)c, C jC-4- 4- E E0 >1 :3 N ea Nato c c0 0

0 C > *-1ae- > a' a ,

> _r a- 0 V :3:

KEY:

*1. Unnecessarily repetitious with respect to other blocks in IOBC.*2. Unnecessarily repetitious compared to precommissioning training.*3. Training repetitious but valuable reinforcement/refresher.

Mostly Slightly Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

I CLASS NO. 6 1 7 8-9 6 7 8- 6 67 8 9 617"18 9 6" 738T9

* 1 ..... ..ARTILLERY / 7 7 I, W J, 7 .

OPERATIONS 2 1 7 7 Ll 1/ 0 it

13 qr, S , .21 2/ , 231 ,17 Is 1/6 0 4" .31q H!,

D[MOLITION I /e, '7 .1 q 7 21 'y / 7A 6 J 'ATFCHNIQUS 2 i l ' l 7 / /0/c .3 .:

3 , 32/I''* 7 _ jj

NBC OPERATIONS 1 /0/ 7 / I I J3

2 _L ,2 _

3,/ /y 3 211

:1ULITARY OPS IN 1 313 q1 /O'Pu 0 u 1I 01'l1 l ,14- 7 1Y AURBANIZEDTERRAIN (MOUT) 2 1

'AC~iCAL AIR1 0k ~ 1 '. j4 .. ziJ4 j,It'[OfT 2 o0q/M.9-21

3 35 _/ 3 A

ANNEX D

KEY:

*. 'nnecessarily repetitious with respect to other blocks in IOBC.

2. Unnecessarily repetitious compared to precommissioning trdining.*3. Training repetitious but valuable reinforcement/refresher.


CLASS 7o 6 7 -8 _ 67789 6 7 1 3 99 6 7 s; E

''ALIJATION "a ----- r--- ' -

:p Tr),C *2 4 4

VALISAT I O'T E PO RT S 2 j_/ 7 < ~ l :,1 [ / 4 i V -2 ' ! f i '" f; ' .: < . , jj

V A ! .Il . I 1

SOVIET ARMY '1 q 3 4 IL; ZJ14i~ ___

31.f;~ SO / ( V 7J~ ~

LOGISTICS/ / <. ._ t' . i , '

SUPPLY /3

PROCEDURES 2-- / , ' , "" ' / ____

__ •. .. :.! o ..... . .

INDIVIDUAL/ 1 / /"COLLECTIVE 2 / c j' 'i

i D-2

TRAI N I NG I_________ x "k~-

3 .7 ,, 1, 47 t7)V I 7i:iii

KEY:


Mostly - Slightly Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

LCLASS NO. 6 7 1 8 9 6 7 _81 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 -6 "MIILITARY *l 43 ---k 1 ; 2* Z -- Id1.

LFADERSIMIP [0 R./ 3 /0 /,

3 'I', '1 J - 9 10 7 L4 . f(- 2C.' S' 1 _, - _

F U ID A M E N T A L S O F 1 l _ / .'/ , 1 7.MAP READING/LAND ' - ' iq

NAVIGATION 2 23 J1 2 . ' '7 , /-

LAW or LAND 1 / <1j 'q I / "-7 /j I / , 3 ./!.1AR F A R E '

tIlITARY JUSTICE 3 ),4 1 / ,v 7 4 1 22-. 12. ' -21I1VA 21 I3 JI / 1,.C , K

' , 'W A P O N 1 3 , 12 , I 4 1 d 7 j 3 1 1. 21 1 . .:,' ,,2 _ _ j 2 - 7 it ;/

/ d-Z . LI

D3-3

KEY:


j Mostly Slightly Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

ICLASS NO. 6 7.-8-9"67 -8 9 6 7 18 9 6 7 8 9 -6-1T-9

DRAGON WEAPON l _ "i3 I -z i ii-"Jz L 4 / 4F *EDR2 /'7 .

*3 v I/ :2 , II "< _2 I9i 7S/ d, ! I'i

A .3.0 / / -' I i /c) 1 1'iOW 1TO KILL TANKS I I

2 k!% j I I j I A . i 2 , 'V T6.? ' 1,

3g4 /2 b*j I .2/- /IT 1 __ P__71

"EDICAL CONSIDERATIONS 1 V'1 4 f) 2.31 Lj I.J~ jFOR LEADERS2

2 y/

3

EFENSE AND.

D-4

W I N ... .. . .. r.. .. ... . .. .. ..... " ..

KEY:


[ Mostly Slightly Slightly MostlyjAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

!CLASS NO. 1-6. 1 7T-1. _ 6 - 7 8_ 6 1 7 8 9 617 8_ 9 6 7 8F 91

FUNDAMENTALS OF *14 7 /Li / i 3/i / Iq I ;MECH INFANTRY . - - -- ,-.OPERATIONS *2 i 3 3 p 'iG . ' ' ? t'. ,

COMMAND AND STAFF I ;: 3// / ? ', 'i 'FUNCTIONS/ 1,11 . .7 . -Z9 1 1 1 /OPERATIONS ORDER 2 /1 -

COMMUI CATIONS I IQ~ 14 ffl 7 ±! !2. jq /1 j,1q1 j1

21 3~j .b /. /1.2 1 / ~ -/

FUNDAMENTALS OF 1 . 1 .. 2. / /0 LI '1, / I 1 .L1 Y. . 1'

OPERATIONS /6/ .7 U__1 1 q3 3 ~ 4q !±U 1.7 i 1/0 0 3 }

81MM MECHANICAL 1 ~ ~ ~ / '_7b! f(RAINING/r16PLOTTING BOARD 2 II Of.2 q k 1 /'7I L. ' _'

3~~ ~ ~ ')/3y .26 2 , V,7 1 1. 7

D-5

I --.------ . - . - -

KEY:


Mostly Slightly 1 Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

CLASS NO. 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7'1 8 9§- -69-T -

FUNDAMENTALS OF 1 ./ / ', t

PATROLLING (RGR)L iCLRM *2 17j

*3 Q~ &L14z qJ7

W H E E L E D V E H I C L E 1 / % " / , .A I h . / ' J / / 2 . ! '7 'lAINTE IANCE 17 -3 "

2 pk u Z14 27

t7IL? 4 q

TRACK VEHICLE 1 I ' 1 K , iOPERATION/ AI 10 3

FIRING FROM AN APC 1 '7111 _ /TK jGATTLESIGT ZERO _ 13 3 / VP 17j jjA '2N / T VS -5 2- (,7 2 I

.50 CAL MG, .45 CAL 1 n, 6jiLzZ /5 /.2' _ _ 3ykfP I S T O L , A N D S A F A D- ' ' '_-

3

23

D- 6

KEY:


" Mostly Slightly Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral I Disagree Disagree

[CLASS NO. 6 7 j 8 9 6 J 7967 8 9 6 7 8 9. - 2T-9-BIVOUAC1

*2 3 3 d6 /7 1_/ __ q;- )C , U ,

SECURITY/INTELL/PW 1 ___(PROCEDURE) - b 71 6 311 -- 1I 12 1-:-2 //) i '

GUARD MOUNT l 1 , Vl d i 5 C :-7 _; ,_51 I./V2 1':,lJ'. ..3 /4 ?0" CI [qL~q/,olo"I (l.gi~ u

Iic Vag /dl (c, Lv/Z/L

2 ;( q.__ 'V o. s- tl) 4/ "/,, . '.jj'd l)-''BAYONET TRAINING 1 / z Jr-'

2 ~i~ 17 1o 7 .l~~3 fil 1-2 9j// 9 . ~ . t i

(AND NAVIGATION . 7 ,/ 0J#7 V'. LI II k

30 921le 70 1 7 -31-

D-7

KEY:


Mostly Slightly r Slightly MostlyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

ICLASS NO. 6 7 89 6 7 81-9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8-9 6 7 8-§PHYSICAL FITNESS *l .5 ,I 3 7 /L ,qIl / 4? L.'3V.TRAINING '"

* 3 L - 5 - e

ROAD MARCHES I 1r / 21 /01 1 A N II I'7 /; .9I 1467- IZ (/ i

'r0111 01 CONJDUCT I u, /01 7 ' I2 lZ _ .. z # ?, / / i R/q /Y7/ '- !,-, .- .

3 j,/'.I, 3. )q C 1k3 1

UIAVERSHIP REACTION I2OURS 2 1 4 ' 40 7. / / I f - 2 7 II ,2# 71I332 q _ ,.1. 5 .f )q q / 5- ' 37 0 0 1I _6 I

BAYONET ASSAULIT ..2 q 7,L1 /q1

2 j 51'71, 1t

D-8

KEY:


Mos tly _ Slightly iSghtly I Mostly i

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

CLASS N.6 7 8 9 6 7 8_ 1 9 678967 8 9 67 F-9

M16 RIFLE [ N / _ , 7

2L . 1 L.2 , 4 9I

2 AJ jq~'7~//~ /7~ ; 7 31,) __I i

COII;lTERPOBILITY 1 T Y/ /4 L / ./q 11 1_ ,

Z.Li.. /o 35 3.~~'~

/AN ,.' .RNADFS 1I 7 2! ' / ,,1

2 __;0~__ '1_

3 _ 1A_ 7 .3 ~[/ y

D-9W- V------- G

41U / ,,2'71'17H0 11,Y-- -.- . .. . . .. . , - . ... . . .. .. . . .. ' '' '' ....... r~' ... ' ' ' ... ..... 2. .

KEY:

*1. Unnecessarily repetitious with respect to other blocks in JOBC.*2. Unnecessarily repetitious compared to precommissioning training.*3. Training repetitious but valuable reinforcement/refresher.

Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly-Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

CLASSNO. 6 71 8 9 6 7 89 678 9 6 7 8 9 -678 9

7?A? LAI! * 1 'I ... i. 1 1 1

2 , .i 17 .JI IA , 6 A/_ _ ' _ __

"INIG I d 2 1 1V& nJ 1-1 142 1%41 1 2 7 71 ii ~ qj~3 I/

IDIVIDUAL COSBAT 1 2 3 /2 I 7

3 .2 ,& b-i 1.)

IECHNIQUES/SQUAD ITACTICS FTX 2 (j'13L/ 1/5 ,./ 7ljI L/.II .O 4"3/

3 . ,7 124 .9 i .. l7 , L Y ' 1 :

!11 kM MORTAR FIELD 1 //I~ k3_. ~~1rIRING EXERCISE .2b /

2 ,, 2 7 7 7 - 1 J/

1) a "I / E! 91 1.:r ~ ~ zD-10

k..'-

KEY:

*1. Unnecessarily repetitious with respect to other blocks in IOEC.*2. Unnecessarily repetitious compared to precommissioning training.*3. Training repetitious but valuable reinforcement/refresher.

Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly_ Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

-CZNO. 67 18 _ 6 671 8 9 6 67896788(97_ TT11

COMBINED ARMS LIVE 61 LI Y i) / ' /7 1 89 K11FIRE EXERCtSE I I

(CALFEX) *2 4*3 31LL , ",L I I L I b __

MECHANIZED PLATOON I .- _T A C T I C S F T X .. t ' 7

2 21 7 /1

MAINTENANCE BEFORE 1 3 ~, ~AND AFTER MECH . . . .. 'PLATOON TACTICS FTX 2 . :' Q .1, /,

rIECHiANIZ{-l INFANTRY 1 " , _ . ' I 1 ., t1 ) /. #3 , // q? . . -PLATOOU LIVE FIRE 2 . L -

MAINTFNANCE ,E FORE 1 v , 321 ,j __ ___ , ______

N I) A F T E R M E C H I N . • . ... .PLATOON LIVE FIRE 2

D-11

t~* Ali___

KEY:



CLASS NO. 6 7 1 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7Disa 96-7r9

F'!NPAf E:TALS nF *, 1 / ! , ; . I s3 1 \ '- ,JrCQL[-INC ( -R).- -

*- f / 7I / L ~ - / > VPAT; flLLI< G it, j , , 4 7 "' I ' N -/.,' I -I'/! .'. L 0 5 ',

F1,UNI)AMEN FALS OF 1rPAT0 1-L.I,1G (RGR) -/ i ! I 7 , c, I ," /" i / 5 , ? 5 ;.2;

ITO!'NP ROBIN 2 2 /. I 7 91 , .. ) 2 '1 , 90 ", ', ,I

3 -)o~(L

CLOS[ COMBAT COURSE I 1 14 11_, , 131/1d 71/ /0 7 ? ' 1

CLOSE COMBAT COURSE I114 22 Z0L l7 311 ;11 / i41- l ,,1 P

3 ;. 4,.1-;, ' ' I <21 z is , g J

1 II1{

2

D-12

SELECTED SUBJECT AREA COMPARISON

The comparison listed below was furnished by DTD, ITD Course Monitors, from

information extracted from the following references:

a. Course Summary, IOBC, USAIS, March 1983.

b. Course Summary, OCS, USAIS, March 1983.

c. ROTC Advanced Camp, TRADOC, November 1982.

d. USCC Circular 350-12, Professional Development Program, Vol 1, ISMA,

May 1982.

e. USCC Circular 350-12, Professional Development Program, Vol 2, August1982.

(HOURS)SUBJECT OCS ROTC IUSMA IOBCOffense, Defense and Retrograde (Tactical Theory) 5 44.5 67 8Intro to Fire Support l 8 3Call for Fire 4 3 4Air Defense Artillery 1 8 1Engineer Demolitions 3 4 6Nuclear Defense 2 6 lDecon Operations 2 4

Tactical Air Support 2 1

Patrolling Fundamentals 9 8 15 17Patrolling FTX 28 52Personnel Evaluation 4 4Intelligence (Soviet Army) 3 1 3Operations Orders 3 3Staff Procedures 2 2

Supply Procedures 5 4Intro to Army Training Management 2 4Individual Training 3 4"Collective Training 4 4Intro to Leadership 3 3Motivation 4 3Counseling 4 4Terrain Association 6 17 46 4Applied Map Reading 4 8Day/Night Land Navigation 19 8 8Legal .5 5Law of Land Warfare 2 2

Personal Affairs 2 2Emergency Medical Procedures 2 3Prevent ive Medicine 4 1 1Medical Support 2 2Radio/Telephone Procedures 3 5 12 3Communications Security 2 3 2Communications Equipment 4 7 2Electronic Warfare 1 ITAMMS 1 4 2Maintenance Records 2 4Repair Parts Supply 1 3PMCS, Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles 6 16Wcapons Training 28 46.5 64 8!

ANNEX K

-. ,L

DISTRI BOITION

Commander CommandantUS Army Training and Doctrine Command UIS Army Institute of Administr;it ionATTN: ATTG-E ATTN: Director of Evaltint ionFort Monroe, VA 23651 and Standardization

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216Commander[IS Army Training and Doctrine Command CommandantATTN: ATRO-P US Army Military Police SchoolFort Monroe, VA 23651 ATTN: D)irector of Evaluati n

and StandardizationCommandant Fort McClellan, AL 36201US Army Air Defense SchoolATTN: Director of Evaluation Commandant

and Standardization US Army Chaplain Center & SchoolFort Bliss, TX 79916 ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and StandardizationCommandant Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703(IS Army Armor SchoolATTN: Director of Evaluat ion Commandant

and Standardization US Army Institute for MilitaryFort Knox, KY 40121 Assistance

ATTN: Director of EvaluationCommandant and StandardizationUS Army Transportation School Fort Bragg, NC 28307ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization CommandantFort Eustis, VA 23604 IJS Army Missile & Munit ions School

ATTN: Director of Evaltiat ionCommandant and Standardizat ionUS Army Engineer School Redstone Arsenal, AL 35809ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization CommandantFort Belvoir, VA 22060 US Army Ordnance School

ATTN: Director of EvaluationCommandant and Standardizat ionUS Army Intelligence School Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization CommandantFort Huachuca, AZ 85613 US Army Quartermaster School

ATTN: Director of Evaluat ionCommandant and Standardizat ionUS Army Signal School Fort Leo, VA 23801ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization CommandantFort Cordon, GA 30905 US Army Command and General Staff

CollegeCommander ATTN: Director of EvaluationU US Army Reserve Component Personnel and Standardization

& Administration Center Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027ATTN: AGUZ-PAR9700 Page Blvd. CommandantSt Louis, MO 63132 United States Military Academy

ATTN: Director of Evaluationand Standardizat ion

West Point, NY 10996

ANNEX F F-I

.. .. ... i". . . . .. ..... . . J

Commandant US Army Research InstituteUS Army Sergeants Major Academy Fort Silt Field UnitATTN: Director of Evaluation Fort Sill, OK 73503

and StandardizationFort Bliss, TX 79118 US Army Nat'l Guard Activity Ctr

Military Education BranchCommaddant Edgewocd Area, Bldg E-6814IS Army Element, School of Music Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization Defense Technical Information CtrNorfolk, VA 23521 Defense Logistics Agency

ATTN: DTIC-DDA-lCommandant Cameron StationDefense Information School Alexandria, VA 22314

ATTN: Director of Evaluation

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216 Commander

US Army Training & Doctrine CommandComma nd ant ATTN: ATRO-PDefense Language Institute Fort Monroe, VA 23651ATTN: Director of Evaluation

Presidio of Monterey, CA 93940 Commander, US Army

First ROTC RegionCommandant ATTN: ATOA-SRAcademy of Health Sciences Fort Bragg, NC 28307ATTN: Director of Evaluation

and Standardization Commander, US Army

Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 Second ROTC Region

ATTN: ATOB-SRCommandant Fort Knox, KY 40121Intelligence School, Fort Devens

ATTN: Director of Evaluation Commander, US Armyand Standardization Third ROTC Region

Fort Devens, MA 01433 ATTN: ATOC-SR

Fort Riley, KS 66442CommandantOrganizational Effectiveness Training Ctr Commander, US ArmyATTN: Director of Evaluation Fourth ROTC Region

and Standardization ATTN: ATOD-SRFort Ord, CA 93941 Fort Lewis, WA 98433

Commander CommandantUSA Field Artillery Center US Army Communications-ElectronicsFort Sill, OK 73503 School

ATTN: Director of EvaluationPresident and StandardizationUS Army Field Artillery Board Fort Gordon, GA 30905Fort Sill, OK 73503

CommandantCommander US Army Aviation School and FortLIS Army Research Institute RuckerATTN: PER[-Rference Library ATTN: Director of Evaluat ion5001 Eisenhower Avenue and Standardization

Alexandria, VA 22333 Fort Rucker, AL 36362

United States Army Infantry School

Each Department (0 copy)

Each Directorate (3 copies)TSB (3 copies)

DOES (30 copies)

F-2

S..

DAT 6

FILM

DTI

i lflflfflfllfl. - defense technical information centersoldier dtic sys-ffo sep 2 8 1983'...

Documents