Marksmanship performance has traditionally been used in the military to assess individual and unit operational readiness. In more recent years, marksmanship simulator trainers have been utilized to reduce cost and time for weapons handling training and skills retention. However, they have not been readily utilized for product and equipment evaluation purposes. This study assesses the sensitivity of the marksmanship simulator for use during clothing and individual equipment (CIE) product evaluation and systems integration. Marksmanship performance of eleven participants was assessed during live fire and simulator shooting scenarios while in firing positions and protective equipment that are known to have effects on performance. The consistency of the performance and performance differences observed across firing configurations and firing positions in this within-subjects study suggests that marksmanship simulator trainers are sensitive enough to provide valuable insights on performance interferences during CIE test and evaluation, while saving time and resources.
References
1.
AdamsA.A. (2010). Effects of extremity armor on metabolic cost and gait biomechanics. (Master’s thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute).
2.
BatesK.A. (2011). Cost analysis and effectiveness of using the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer (ISMT) for United States Marine Corps (USMC) marksmanship training. (Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School).
3.
BenselC.K. (1997). Soldier performance and functionality: impact of chemical protective clothing. Military Psychology, 9(4), 287-300.
4.
BewleyW.L.ChungG.K.GirlieC. D. (2003). Research on USMC Marksmanship Training Assessment Tools, Instructional Simulations, and Qualitative Field-Based Research. (UCLA CSE/CRESST N00014-02-1-0179). Los Angeles, CA.
5.
CarboneP. D.CarltonS. D.StierliM.OrrR. M. (2014). The impact of load carriage on the marksmanship of the tactical police officer: a pilot study. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning. 22(2), 50-57.
6.
EvansK.L. (1989). Effects of recoil on rifle marksmanship simulator performance. (No. ARI-TR-828). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
7.
GarrettL.JarboeN.PattonD.J.MullinsL.L. (2006). The effects of encapsulation on dismounted warrior performance. (No. ARL-TR-3789). Aberdeen Proving Ground, M.D: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
8.
HagmanJ.D. (2000). Basic rifle marksmanship training with the laser marksmanship training system. (No. ARI-RR-1761). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
9.
HawleyJ.K.DawdyE.D. (1981a). Cost and information effectiveness analysis (CIEA): A methodology for evaluating a training device operational readiness assessment capability (DORAC). (No. ARI-TR-528). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
10.
HawleyJ.K.DawdyE.D. (1981b). Training device operational readiness assessment capability(DORAC): Feasibility and utility.. (No. ARI-TR-529). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
11.
Headquarters DOA. (2014). Army training and leadership development. (Army Regulation 350-1). Washington, DC.
HeinulaJ. (1996). Technical analysis of shooting performance using the Noptel ST-1000 PC and ST-2000 equipment NOStat. Available from NOPTEL OY, Teknologiantie, 2.
14.
HopkinsC.O. (1975). How much should you pay for that box?Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 19th Annual Meeting, 1529-1532.
15.
JensenT.WoodsonJ. (2012). A Naval marksmanship training transfer study: the use of indoor simulated marksmanship trainers to train for live fire. (Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School).
16.
JohnsonR.F.KobrickJ.L. (1997). Effects of wearing chemical protective clothing on rifle marksmanship and on sensory and psychomotor tasks. Military Psychology, 9(4), 301-314.
17.
JohnsonR.F.McMenemyD.J.DauphineeD.T. (1990). Rifle marksmanship with three types of combat clothing. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, 1529-1532.
18.
KramlichG.R. (2005). The effects of posture, body armor, and other equipment on rifleman lethality. (Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School).
19.
KruegerG.P.BanderetL.E. (1997). Effects of chemical protective clothing on military performance: a review of the issues. Military Psychology, 9(4), 255-286.
20.
McNamaraJ.BurchamP.OrtegaS.HennesseyE. (2015). Weapon simulator test methodology investigation: Comparison of live-fire and weapon simulator test methodologies and the effects of clothing and individual equipment on marksmanship. (NATICK/TR-TBD). Natick, MA: U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center. In press.
21.
SchendelJ.D.HellerF.H.FinleyD.L.HawleyJ.K. (1985). Use of weaponeer marksmanship trainer in predicting M16A1 rifle qualification performance. Human Factors, 27(3), 313-325.
22.
SchmidtR.A.LeeT.D. (1999). Motor control and learning: a behavior approach. Human Kinetics, Champaign.
23.
ScribnerD.R.WileyP.H.HarperW.H. (2007). A Comparison of Live and Simulated Fire Soldier Shooting Performance (No. ARL-TR-4234). Aberdeen Proving Ground, M.D: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
24.
SmithM.D.HagmanJ.D. (2000). Predicting rifle and pistol marksmanship performance with the laser marksmanship training system. (No. ARI-TR-1106). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
25.
SonS.XiaY.TochiharaY. (2010). Evaluation of the effects of various clothing conditions on firefighter mobility and the validity of those measurements made. Journal of the Human-Environment System, 13(1), 15-24.
26.
TaylorH.L.OrlanskyJ. (1991). The effects of wearing protective chemical warfare combat clothing on human performance. (No. IDA Paper P-2433). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.
27.
TorreJ.P.MaxeyJ.L.PiperA.S. (1987). Live fire and simulator marksmanship performance with the M16A1 rifle study 1: a validation of the artificial intelligence direct fire weapons research test bed. (No. TM 7-87). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory.
