New Simulators Provide Greater Realism

ecker, and Mr. Jochen Reimer The greatest achievement of the small computer revolution is the way it has put high technology to the task of solving the ordinary problems of the day. In the armor field, computing power in small, affordable, packages is already working in one allied nation’straining scheme, bringing realism to tank combat training. The device is called an Interactive Combat Simulator and was designed by a Munich-based defense research group, Industrieanlagen-Betriebsges-ellschaft. The German firm produced a tank combat simulator over a decade ago in response to directives from the German Ministry of Defense. This simulator, called the APKA, is a computer-aided device that supports tactical exchanges of combat power. But unlike most other kinds of simulators, the interaction is between two groups of humans who control the forces fighting against each other. The computer is not a protagonist. It does not create situations, nor inject unexpected events, nor limit the flexibility of the opposing forces. Instead, it is an extension of the human participants-moving weapons systems, responding to fire commands-and keeping track in meticulous detail of every event as the battle unfolds. Its original purpose was simple: to use computer technology to create a substitute for the wargames portrayed on scaled terrain boards and ministered by scores of tactical players, umpires, and recorders. The specifications for the simulator envisioned a device which would preserve the best features of the wargame while overcoming some of its most limiting disadvantages. The result was to be a system that would primarily serve the needs of researchers. The scaled-terrain wargames have long been stock-in-trade investigative tools in many countries, including the U. S. They are used to examine tactical concepts and proposed combat organizations. New weapons systems can be placed in a mock battle context. Combat organizations and their potential effectiveness can be measured. Normally, the wargame was one of several approaches to resolving a single problem. What distinguished it from other research media, though, was the possibility for creating realistic tactical exchanges through the control of both Figure 1. Tanker’s eye view of console picture, with tanks in white. Shadings show exposure data. opposing forces. Experienced military specialists command the opposing forces, hopefully making the same kinds of tactical decisions they would in an actual battle. Since the wargame is fought on scaled terrain with miniature tactical vehicles, there are great savings in time, equipment and manpower. Even so, the typical wargame requires extensive preparation of terrain and scenarios. Controllers and recorders must be trained and the actions of umpires must be integrated into the flow of the battle. In full swing, the traditional wargame is a masterpiece of organization. As the battle progresses in, say, five minute intervals, players hurry to displace their units, pass reports or engage in conflict. Umpires hovering about the battle area judge results, sometimes using on-call computer programs to predict relative losses. At the high points of a battle, umpire intervention may cost an hour of actual time for every twenty minutes of battle. After eight years of development through several- prototypes, the APKA simulator offers a substantial improvement over the standard wargame. Digitized terrain replaces wooden mockups, and makes possible a greater variety of militarily-significant terrain. High speed computers keep track of all weapons positions and calculate all possible lines of sight in a fraction of a second. Other computers deal with the movement and shooting commands of all weapons’ commanders simultaneously. Umpires and their interventions are eliminated, as are the personal biases they may add to the outcome. As a result, the battle unfolds as suddenly in the simulation as it would in reality. The computer also makes it possible to limit the information which a tank commander receives about his current situation. In the simulator, the commander sees his tank’s location on a video map. He knows if his tank can still move and if it is able to shoot. If other friendly tanks are in view, they also show on this screen, as do enemy tanks which are acquired by the computer’s imitation of the tank crew. But if the tank is moved to a place from which observation is impossible (in a woods or behind a terrain mask) then the computer prevents the commander from seeing activity that is now masked from view. This is an important difference between the APKA and the scaled-terrain wargame. In the simulator, information used by the weapons commanders is limited to that normally available in combat. Each commander 12 must rely on radio reports or take some positive action to gain more information, like moving to places where he can directly see the battlefield. In so doing, he risks exposure to the enemy who is, at the same time, trying to win an opposing tactical objective. In the normal wargame, participants have the advantage of an overview of the battle area. No action is required to develop detailed battlefield intelligence. "... Tables regulate the shooting probabilities and lethality/vulnera bility properties of the weapon and its ammunition... Y Y Terrain Data The terrain data stored in the computer is a fully digitized representation of a portion of the earth's surface. In principal, any size terrain box can be stored in the computer as long as the computer memory is large enough or one is not too fussy about the level of detail. The current simulator divides a 6.2 x 6.2 kilometer area into one million parts. Each part, about 20 feet square, is described in terms of its elevation (to the nearest 4 inches), kind of vegetation, trafficability, and whether there is apart of a building in that square. A separate line of sight (LOS) computer uses the terrain data and the updated locations of each weapon system to continuously monitor all possible lines of sight between vehicles. Since this particular simulator can handle up to 40 vehicles at once, there are at any moment 780 possible lines of sight between pairs of vehicles to be surveyed, a workload too great for even a dozen umpires to effectively perform. Moreover, since terrain elevation is accurate to the nearest four inches, the computer can also keep track of the degree of vertical exposure each vehicle presents to its opponents, even if both vehicles are moving. Weapons Technical Data Real or imaginary weapons characteristics are stored in the computer memory in great detail. If the weapon commander instructs the computer to move the tank forward, the computer consults data files to see how fast the vehicle can go on this terrain, whether it is going up or down a slope, and whether impassable obstacles will prevent movement. Other tables regulate the shooting probabilities and lethality/ vulnerability properties of the weapon and its ammunition. These data are readily available in research publications or can be estimated, a useful degree of flexibility when examining the potential benefit, for instance, of improved cross-country mobility or greater armor protection. Tactical Operational Data These data include the initial disposition of forces at the start of a battle. This enables the trainer or researcher to describe, in advance, a start condition to be used in a given scenario. The start conditions are saved in a computer file. At any time, one of dozens or hundreds of terrain boxes and tactical start conditions can be unloaded and ready for action in less than five minutes. In practical terms, the machine is always ready for the next training or research problem since setup times within the training or test event are nearly eliminated. Linked Data Processors These are the computers that do the LOS computations. They also take the tactical command data (movement and shooting commands) of each weapon commander, responding without noticeable delay even if all possible vehicles are moving at the same time. Since every battle action is imitated in these computers, it is possible to record all these activities for replay after the battle (diagnosis) or for later evaluation in detail (analysis). Some kinds of diagnosis and analysis can be combined. For example, if suitable peripheral equipment is included, plots of enemy acquisitions or kill rates can provide worthwhile feedback to participants and evaluators moments after the battle ends. The simulator packages all these capabilities in a platoon of wheeled transports and trailers (See figure 2). The linked data processors, containing the terrain, scenario and weapons characteristics are all in the computer truck. A single computer operator handles the tasks of loading the data and calling up the required scenarios. Once the trial starts, the operator is free for other duties since no intervention is required during the trial. The evaluation van contains the computer which provides the analysis and evaluation capabilities. The service trailer provides administrative storage. The visitor wagon, equipped with briefing materials and a video display that provides an overview of the battle in progress, serves an obviously useful purpose. Vans 1, 2, and 3 all look like figure 3 on the inside. Four of the five weapons commander stations are shown. Each station has two chairs, one for the commander and one for an assistant who acts as the vehicle driver. Each person has a black-and-white TV monitor on which they see the local battle area. Each person has a set of controls to give driving and shooting commands to the computer. The overhead map is an extra three-dimensional picture of the 6.2-km square area in the computer memory. Standard intercom connecting boxes link all commanders in a pseudoradio net. Figure 2. The APKA simulator, set up in a typical arrangement of vans and trailers. 13

Figure 1 shows the view on one of usually require some practice until the the consoles. The video background is a top-down view of a portion of the terrain box. Topographic symbols are fairly obvious: a few roads in the southern portion of the display, some buildings, and contour lines running east-west. Three tanks are sitting in three different kinds of shaded areas, which actually symbolize the degree of exposure the tanks present. The tank combat simulator is organized to support 5-tank platoons. Ideally, the TCs of an actual platoon would occupy the weapons commanders’ seats. Other crewmembers would fill in as drivers. The participants in the simulations video symbols and target data are easily recognized and used to greatest advantage. For example, drivers must become accustomed to the special movement controls so that they can readily cause the tank to deploy in response to the commanders’ orders. Movement controls include a forward-reverse lever and a knob for steering the tank. The driver watches the tank move in response to his inputs by observing a video picture similar to figure 1. The commander has a similar video picture except he can select an overall view of the terrain box that shows his tank’s location as if on a military map. Acquired targets show up on either i... What the USAARMS is doing... The Armor Center has recognized the potential training value of interactive simulation systems. An aggressive program is being pursued to develop a family of interactive simulators to provide tactical command and control training at the platoon through battalion levels. USAARMC is monitoring several ongoing developmental efforts in the area of tactical simulations. One of these is an enhanced version of the APKA presented in the preceding article. Another effort is being pursued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This project, called SIMNET, is an effort to net large scale simulators over long distances. In addition, there are several other efforts being pursued by the private sector which look promising. A battalion-level command and control simulator is being evaluated at the Combined Arms Center. This system- Army Training Battle Simulation System (ARTBASS) -is being used by both active and reserve components to improve command and staff actions in a simulated combat environment. Figure 3. Inside view of one of the APKA vans, showing five weapons stations, with seats for tank commanders and drivers. Large overhead maps show entire maneuver area while screen localizes the battle. Tabletop controls allow entry of driving and shooting commands. view as a distinct enemy symbol. The commander can cause an engagement to take place by using a joystick to move a cursor (a movable dot on the screen) to the target and pushing a fire button. The computer takes over, waiting an appropriate time for a simulated final lay (or weapon reload) and selecting the appropriate chance-of-hit parameter before assessing the engagement result. Naturally, some improvements of the unit’s man-machine interface are possible. One only needs to be convinced that the additional interface properties are important to the test or training objective and worthy of the additional expense. For example, the top-down view of the video map could be replaced by a three-dimensional, horizontally oriented perspective. The commanders’ and drivers’ controls could be changed if experience shows that some other design improves soldiers’ interactive skills. Training and Research Potential The German research and development community has already used this 14 interactive combat simulator in some of its programs. The device was used to study the potential benefits of a tactical vehicle armed with an elevated cannon. Other successful applications include selection of optimal locations for transmitter antennas to maximize area coverage in terrain where there are sig-nigicant signal masking problems. The device was also used to find nap-of-theearth approach routes through areas observed by hostile air defense radar. The simulator’s fully digitized terrain and total data capture capabilities make it a useful tool in these applications. In other tests, the tactical interaction between opposing forces may be of primary interest. There, the simulator’s feedback to weapons commanders and rapid line-of-sight processing improves the credibility of the battle outcome: Plots of umpire interpretations are eliminated in favor of exact calculations by the machine. Results can therefore be more closely associated with the leaders’ decisions and the technical characteristics of the weapons. In recent joint tests, U. S. and German researchers have been using the simulator to develop meaningful requirements for artificial intelligence in combat vehicles. These tests looked years into the future, to a time when satellites or sensors could provide battlefield intelligence to ground commanders. These were tests of the human ability to put this kind of technology to use. In other words, the simulator provided a forum for getting a n advance look at the human’s ability to capitalize on a technological advantage-under the assumption that the technology could be developed if justified. Military observers in these trials have suggested that the interactive tank combat simulator may have interesting possibilities as a training device. They note that platoon leaders and tank commanders are confronted in the simulations with the same kind of command and control problems as they face in combat, except that the conditions are obviously less stressful. A platoon leader must assess the mission and its implied tasks. He must conduct reconnaissance, form a plan and issue orders. During the battle he must take overt action to gain information about the enemy’s activities while attempting to preserve the security of his own intention. He must react, reassessing his plan if necessary, as a result of unexpected adversity. While observing the leader’s response during these trials, it was noted that platoons suffered the consequences when they violated established weapons employment principles. For example, selecting firing positions without providing for overlapping fires in the defense proved disastrous when even one tank was lost to enemy fire. The leaders’ improvement in controlling sectors of fire and displacing within their battle positions seemed to reflect a greater appreciation of these principles as the trials wore on. Similarly, during offensive operations, platoons were forced to wrestle with the conceptual problems that confront junior leaders-such as how to focus mass in the attack and how to effectively coordinate across lateral boundaries. Small unit leaders had opportunities to control small organizations of combined arms by mixing TO Wsys-tems with tanks in specially-contrived tactical situations. The methods platoon leaders and tank commanders used to overcome their obvious problems were not explainable as gamesmanship. Solutions were most often in the form of revising internal operating procedures in the platoon or changing the rules of the engagement. Sometimes the solutions were surprisingly innovative, to the point of challenging the trainer’s notions of what was or was not an acceptable tactic. In one case, two platoons attacking a single objective encountered heavy opposition from the defender. The left platoon suffered losses to the point of being combat ineffective while the right platoon met with light opposition. Yet an opportunity appeared on the left, and the two platoon leaders quickly arranged an immediate tactical tailoring: the right platoon leader placed two of his tanks under the control of the left platoon leader and assumed an overwatch position. The left platoon, suitably reinforced, exploited the advantage and secured the objective. It was not a textbook solution, but just the sort of street-sense we claim as an advantage in our soldiers. It remains to be proven whether such learning in the interactive simulator really means an improvement that will be measurable in battle. But considering that other tactical training opportunities like REALTRAIN or MILES are hard to orchestrate and even more difficult to analyze, it seems interactive simulations can fill a very big gap in our training of small unit commanders. Also, considering the research possibilities this simulator method also offers, future armor developments in training, doctrine and new materiel requirements are likely to benefit as well.

D. BROWN, a distinguished military graduate of the University of Santa Clara, California, has served as a platoon leader, executive officer, and commander of TOBE tank companies in CONUS and Europe, as an advisor with I V Corps in Vietnam, and on the staff of the Armor and Engineer Board at Fort Knox. He is c u r r e n t l y the S3, 2-66 Armor, 2d Armored Division, Germany.

ECKER was commissioned as a distinguished military graduate of Gannon University, Erie, Pennsylvania. He has served as a project officer with the Armor and Engineer Board at Fort Knox and is currently assigned to the 21st Support Command in

USAREUR.

MR. JOCHEN REIMER. program manager for interactive simulation at IABG, Li-chtenau, Germany, is a computer engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering from the Scientific University of Hannover, West Germay.