Soldier Performance on a New Marksmanship Course of Fire

Abstract

The research investigated a new course of fire, called combat field fire (CFF), to determine CFF marksmanship standards, and where CFF should occur in marksmanship training. CFF is a complex scenario requiring changing magazines, reacting to a simulated malfunction and engaging targets within arrays that require multiple hits. Ten training companies (1976 Soldiers) from the Infantry OSUT and Basic Combat Training Brigades at Ft. Benning, GA participated. Six companies executed Army qualification at the end of basic rifle marksmanship (BRM) and CFF at the end of advanced rifle marksmanship (ARM). Four executed CFF in BRM and executed Army qualification in ARM. Performance data and Soldier interviews revealed the unique dynamics of CFF, differentiating it from Army qualification. Results showed that CFF should be in ARM, as Soldiers were not prepared in BRM for the additional skills and demands required by CFF. Recommended standards were developed for the Expert, Sharpshooter, Marksman, and Unqualified marksmanship categories, TPU (trained, needs practice, and not trained) categories., and Go/NoGo categories. 15. SUBJECT TERMS basic rifle marksmanship, advanced rifle marksmanship, combat field fire, measuring Soldier performance, marksmanship training, marksmanship qualification, combat fire, marksmanship standards SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19.

Tests of a Prior Marksmanship Knowledge Predictor Test

“…Nearly 90% (89.1%) of the Soldiers met the qualifying standard of 23 hits. This performance is generally in line with that recently reported for record fire qualification (see F-2 and F-3 in Dyer et al, 2010), although the differences between BRM 9 and true record fire in addition to any possible training differences preclude a direct comparison.…”

Assessment of New Marksmanship Strategies in 2010

“…Such changes can involve courses of fire, targetry systems, and training devices. For example, the report by Dyer, Schaefer, Bink, James, Wampler and Dlubac (2010) described the changes over a period of 70 years, from 1940 through 2008, in the course-of-fire used for marksmanship qualification. Other examples of changes to marksmanship training over time include the incorporation of the Engagement Skills Trainer 2000 (EST 2000, a marksmanship simulator) for portions of marksmanship training, moving target exercises for Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT), transition to use of night vision goggles and aiming lights for night firing, use of the location of miss and hit (LOMAH) technology on live-fire ranges, and introduction of advanced rifle marksmanship (ARM) in Basic Combat Training (BCT).…”

Training Aids for Basic Combat Skills: A Procedure for Training-Aid Development

“…In addition to soliciting input from trainers, results were examined from recent ARI projects to identify difficult training tasks (Cobb et al, 2009;Dyer, Tucker, Wampler & Blankenbeckler, 2009;Dyer, et al, 2010;Wampler, James, Leibrecht, & Beal, 2007). The intent was to determine training subjects that might benefit from the use of a training aid.…”

“…Some training organizations are moving toward adopting the 200 m zero as a standard. Although various techniques are being used by trainers to assist in obtaining a 200 m zero (Dyer, et al, 2010), the Army has not yet developed standardized targets for obtaining a 200 m zero.…”

“…Soldiers with an improperly zeroed rifle will not be able to hit the intended point even if all firing fundamentals are correctly performed. While Soldiers receive instruction on how to zero the rifle, it was noted that the quality and level of instruction varied significantly among training units (Cobb, Graves, James, Dlubac & Wampler, 2010;Dyer et al, 2010;Cobb et al, 2009). The result is that Soldiers have difficulty learning and retaining the ability to properly zero their rifle, which impedes their ability to qualify with their rifle.…”