Fort Carson’s COE Gunnery Validation

In their article, “The Future of Tank Gunnery,” in the September-October 2004 issue of ARMOR, Major Herb Skinner and Sergeant First Class Michael Dunfee introduce the armor and cavalry communities to the latest developments in tank gunnery.1 As readers of that article considered the merits of the described changes, tank crews at Fort Carson, Colorado, were putting these new concepts to the test. From September to early November 2004, crews from 1st Battalion, 68th (1-

68) Armor and 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) conducted validation gunnery, observed by members of Fort Knox’s Crew Gunnery Branch. A total of 108 crews fired the revised tables, providing subjective feedback in the form of crew survey results, as well as engagement times and scores. Sixty-nine crews from 3d ACR fired the M1A2, and 39 crews from 1-68 Armor fired the M1A1 heavy. Although final approval of the contemporary operational environment (COE)- compliant strategy is still pending, this article provides both resource and training lessons learned to help prepare trainers for soon-to-be published changes. Range Improvements As described in “The Future of Tank Gunnery,” the COE-compliant gunnery incorporates urban engagements that require the addition of urban facades on existing tank ranges. Skilled members of Fort Carson’s range control staff, working closely with the division master gunners, designed, built, and installed facades to support the new tables. The facades were constructed using plywood that was supported by a galvanized metal outer frame and a wooden inner frame composed of 4x4 diameter beams. Approximately 16-feet tall, each facade represents a two-story structure with four opened windows. Single troop target lifters can be installed in any of the four windows (see Figure 1). The facades are not permanently set into one position, which provides flexibility when developing engagement scenarios. Instead they are held in place by artillery powder canisters, which are dug into the ground, that serve as boots or receptacles for the frame (see Figure 2). Wire cables to the front and rear help secure the facade. Moving a facade from one set of pre-dug boots to another takes approximately 30 minutes using an M88 recovery vehicle. The cost of materials for each facade is approximately $1,700, and takes a crew of workers approximately eight hours to build. Urban facade materials include:

• Fourteen 4"x 4" x 10' wood beams.

• Seventy-five feet of 4"x 4" diameter galvanized beams.

• Ten sheets of 4' x 8' plywood (3/8").

• Twenty saddle bolts.

• Two 16' sections of PSP metal beams.

• AR500-grade steel plates (protection for target lifters). Although the facades described above proved both effective and challenging during the course of the validation gunnery, it became apparent that both construction and placement could be improved. For instance, multisided facades provide a better, more realistic three-dimensional battlefield than single-sided structures when the turret-to-target angle becomes increasingly oblique. As tanks progressed down the course roads toward the facades, the turret-to-target angle become too flat to maintain realistic presentation. More importantly, this reduced angle also created the need to position the front or engagement side of the facade slightly toward the course road. A single troop target in a window opening offers much less of a target cross section than a full set of exposed troops, and becomes much harder to acquire and engage when closing the distance on an offensive engagement. This lesson did not become fully apparent until several crews had tested our urban target array. The COE gunnery also presents crews with nonstandard or “technical” truck-type targets. Our technical trucks are con- “Our lead units found that the common practice of combining Tank Tables V and VI into one modified table hindered their ability to train key skill sets later tested on Table VIII.”

structed like any other moving vehicle target, using plywood cut to the dimensions of a Toyota pick-up truck with a silhouette of a machine gun mount in the rear. Painted white, these targets have thermal pads placed to represent the heat signature of the wheels and the engine block. These targets worked well and looked exactly like a small pick-up truck scooting across the range. Although our urban facades and technical trucks performed well and set the required training conditions, we quickly identified the need to improve our friendly target presentations. COE gunnery requires presentation of friendly and civilian vehicles, as well as friendly and civilian personnel during both day and night conditions. We did not develop a sufficiently realistic means of marking these tar gets prior to gunnery execution, using only VS-17 panels to distinguish friendly from threat. However, a number of suggestions emerged, such as affixing civilian clothes to standard troop targets, painting friendly troop targets tan or sand colored, installing blinking infrared “bud lights,” used by our troops in theater, and placing combat identification panels (CIP) on friendly vehicle targets. Having only one tower-operated daylight/thermal sight connected to a video recording system stands out as perhaps the most significant range capability shortfall we identified during COE validation gunnery. The new gunnery tables include simultaneous presentations for the tank commander and gunner, as well as the loader in both Tables VII and VIII. While tank crew evaluators (TCEs) succeeded in scoring these engagements, aided by observers using binoculars and computer sensing relayed by the target operator, they were unable to capture the events on video for after-action review (AAR) purposes and potential alibi adjudication. As a minimum, a second, independently-controlled, long-range sight with thermal and video recording capability should be installed on every range used to support COE gunnery. Training Aids and Simulations According to the crew gunnery doctrine team, upgrades to unit conduct of fire trainer (UCOFT) and advanced gunnery training systems (AGTS) that support the COE strategy will commence following formal approval. However, there exists a need to develop or modify training aids or simulations to support the addition of the loader’s M240 targets during the lower tables and Table VIII A1 and A4 engagements. Without sufficient training aids, loaders have no means of developing or sustaining their skills prior to live fire. Our units at Fort Carson compensated for this by using our convoy skills trainer, which includes four M1025/26 high-mobility, mul tipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) mockups with turret weapons linked to two engagement skills trainer (EST) 2000 simulators. While a HMMWV-mounted M240B does not provide a perfect match to the loaders M240C, it did give loaders a chance to become familiar with their weapons at a “crawl” pace before firing live rounds. To better train our loaders, we are exploring options such as a loader station mockup linked to the EST 2000. Unit Training Strategies The added machine gun engagements also required changes to gunnery training plans and fostered some equipment modification. Our units placed greater emphasis on machine gun skills, as well as machine gun maintenance because the loader’s M240 can no longer be considered a spare. Also, as our units executed the lower tables, they soon found that the current loader’s machine gun mount and “butterfly” trigger adapter did not foster quick, accurate target acquisition and engagement. Some companies and troops modified the loader’s M240 by adding a butt stock, pistol grip, and barrel with sights, essentially transforming it into an M240B. This modification significantly improved loader ability to engage and destroy troop targets. However, the brass catcher of the current loader’s M240 mount does not accommodate the addition of the pistol grip. Units choosing to add the pistol grip found two quick fix solutions: some cut a U-shaped groove into the back of the brass catcher, which allowed the weapon to be properly seated into the mount; and others raised the mount and connected the loader’s M240 using the front pin only, but at the expense of flying spent cartridges that did not fall into the brass catcher. Regardless of the method used, crews reported better control and quicker engagement times using these modifications. Due in part to the recognized need for additional machine-gun training, units learned they must maximize use of the lower training tables to properly train Figure 1. Front and side views of urban facade with single troop target Figure 2. Green bag artillery powder canister dug into ground to serve as target base — 43 crews for success on Tables VII and VIII. Our lead units found that the common practice of combining Tank Tables V and VI into one modified table hindered their ability to train key skill sets later tested on Table VIII. Subsequently, follow-on squad rons lengthened their respective gunnery calendar to allow for the separate firing of Tables V and VI. The new versions of Tables V and VI represent a significant departure from previous versions, and if executed as designed, will foster success during Table VIII qualification. The ability of tank drivers to conduct quick, stable short halts while on the offense stands out as another important skill now required but not trained during previous versions of M1 gunnery. During Tank Table VIII, crews must perform short halts while executing the A1, A3, and B5 engagements. Veterans of the M60 series tanks will certainly recall the need to conduct short halts, but the M1 has long been touted for its ability to “shoot on the move.” This capability does not exist, however, when required to fire the top-mounted machine guns or when using the gunner’s auxiliary site (GAS). Use of the turret machine guns and the GAS while on the offense are both tested during COE gunnery. While most drivers quickly develop the “soft touch” necessary to quickly bring the tank to a stop without a rocking motion that delays target engagement, this ability does not just happen without training. Our units recognized this as the gunnery progressed, and plan to include more short-halt exercises in both their driver and gunnery training programs. Tank Table VIII The task of validating COE gunnery Table VIII engagements rests with the crew gunnery branch team, and the results of Fort Carson’s tank crews should not be considered an authoritative source when developing unit training strategies. However, the following paragraphs describe the trends that emerged during our conduct of COE Tank Table VIII. Five engagements, three day and two night, proved particularly challenging to our crews. The A3 engagement presented a moving armored personnel carrier (APC) (900 to1100m) and a stationary rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) team (200 to 400m) during the offense, and the gunner was required to use the GAS, due to primary sight failures. Crews had difficulty performing a rapid short halt and subsequently engaging the RPG with the gunner’s M240 using the GAS. One of the A4 simultaneous engagements presented a defilade tank (700 to 900m), an RPG team (100 to 300m), and a stationary truck (600 to 800m) that the gunner, loader, and tank commander had to respectively destroy while the coax and gun turret drive (GTD) were both inoperable. The requirement to acquire and engage multiple targets, using multiple weapons with manual controls, proved difficult. The remaining problematic day engagement, A5A(S), presented a stationary BMP (900 to 1100m), a moving “evasive” tank (1500 to 1700m), and a set of troops (300 to 500m). The gunner was required to engage and destroy multiple targets while on the offense and the crew would switch from using high-explosive antitank (HEAT) rounds to Sabot during the engagement, because the stationary PC is classified as more dangerous than the moving tank. Meeting the required engagement time proved the greatest challenge associated with this engagement. Two night engagements, B2 and B4, created a greater challenge for crews than the other night engagements; largely because they required the gunner to acquire and engage three targets in rapid succession. As expected, night conditions caused the loader and driver to offer less target acquisition assistance, and crews firing from the M1A1 lacked the target acquisition capability afforded by the commander’s independent thermal viewer (CITV) on the M1A2. The B2 engagement presented a moving APC (600 to 800m), a stationary BMP (1200 to 1400m), and an RPG team (100 to 300m) while on the offense. The B4 engagement presented three stationary, frontal-view tanks (700 to 900m, 1200 to 1400m, and 1600 to 1800m) while the crew occupied a defensive position and reacted to nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) conditions. In both cases, slow times from poor target acquisition proved the greater challenge as opposed to the ability to achieve target hits. None of these five engagements should be considered “too difficult” or beyond the capabilities of most crews in terms of engagement times or target difficulty. However, they stand out as the most challenging engagements during the conduct of Tank Table VIII. While our lead units could not have predicted that these tasks required additional training focus, our follow-on units ensured that the skills tested by these engagements were given proper focus during the lower tables. Units that consider our experience with these engagements, and subsequently address the required training during preliminary gunnery training and execution of the lower tables, will likely meet with success. The information in this article represents the collective resources and training lessons learned from the crews, units, and agencies at Fort Carson that supported the Army’s COE-compliant gunnery validation from September to November

2004. Working in close coordination with the Fort Knox Crew Gunnery Branch, the “Mountain Post” team trained 108 tank crews to meet some of the new challenges faced on the modern battlefield. This new strategy provided relevant, useful training for dealing with both close- and long-range threats, and prepared crews for the full spectrum of mounted combat. Many of the crews that participated in this validation support the new strategy, and enjoyed the challenge of being among the first to fire these tables. Whatever the final outcome of the validation process, rest assured that the Fort Knox team that supported our gunnery remained receptive to comments and feedback, observed first-hand the conduct of the ranges, and were determined to make whatever changes might be necessary to provide tank and cavalry M1 crews the best possible gunnery training strategy. Notes 1Major Herb Skinner and Sergeant First Class Michael Dunfee, “The Future of Tank Gunnery,” ARMOR, September-October 2004, pp. 20-25. Major Christopher Engen is currently the S3, 2d Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized). He received a B. S. from the United States Military Academy, and a M. S. from Long Island University, NY. His military education includes Airborne School, Air Assault School, Scout Commander Certification Course, Armor Officer Basic Course, Armor Officer Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the Command and General Staff Officers Course. He has served in various command and staff positions, including tank platoon leader and adjutant, 2d Battalion, 37th Armor, Vilseck, Germany; brigade A/S4, 3d Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Fort Riley, KS; commander, C Company and Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 70th Armor, Fort Riley, KS; tactical officer and chief of plans, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY; and chief of training (AC), ACofS, G3, 7th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Carson, CO. Sergeant First Class William C. O’Connor is the division master gunner, ACofS G3, 7th Infantry Division (L), Fort Carson, CO. His military education includes the Primary Leadership Development Course, Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course, M1A1 Master Gunner Course, and the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course. He has served in various troop and staff positions including tank gunner, 2d Battalion, 68th (2-68) Armor, 1st Armor Division, Baum holder, Germany; tank commander, B Company, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor, 4th Infantry Division (4ID), Fort Carson, CO; tank commander and task force master gunner, A Company, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry, 4ID, Kuwait; and tank master gunner/platoon sergeant, C Company, 2-68 Armor, 4ID, Fort Carson, CO. 44 —