A Comparison of Live and Simulated Fire Soldier Shooting Performance

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, ARL-TR-4234 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThe use of simulation is increasing as our capabilities of producing high-fidelity virtual environments expand. This is true for marksmanship and engagement shooting trainers as well. Many marksmanship studies have used simulated fire, but not many of these simulators have been validated with a live fire comparison. The U.S. Army Research Laboratory's dismounted infantry survivability and lethality test bed (DISALT) is highly effective as a research tool because of its high-fidelity data capture and flexibility for shooting scenarios. However, no live fire validation data have been published for it. A simulated version of the outdoor small-arms experimental range at Aberdeen Proving Ground (known as M-Range) was built by the authors. A study was designed in which live fire would be compared to the simulated fire during controlled laboratory conditions with the use of DISALT. Participants were 12 U.S. Army Soldiers, military occupational specialty 11C (indirect fire dismounted infantryman). The shooting task consisted of an 18-target pop-up scenario that used olive drab green E-type silhouettes. Ranges consisted of 75-, 100-, 150-, 200-, 250-, and 300-meter targets from a kneeling foxhole-supported position. Each participant was exposed to 10 trials each of simulation and live fire, half performing simulated fire first and vice versa. Target exposure time was 3 seconds with a 3-second inter-target interval. De-militarized M16A2 rifles with iron sights outfitted with electronics were used for the simulated fire, while operational M16A2 rifles with iron sights were used with M855 ball ammunition for the live fire portion. Data collected included hit percentage, time to first shot, radial aiming error, subjective workload and stress data. All data were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistical differences and non-differences in the performance and subjective data are discussed.

Assessment of a Marksmanship Simulator as a Tool for Clothing and Individual Equipment Evaluation

“…lower forces of recoil, limited noise/flash, etc. ), they are good enough to allow for both novice and expert marksman to achieve repetitive practice time in a controlled environment and improve their skill level when performing in a live fire scenario (Evans, 1989;Hawley & Dawdy, 1981a & b;Headquarters DOA, 2014;Headquarters DOA, 2008;Jensen & Woodson, 2012;Scribner, Wiley & Harper, 2007;Schendel et al, 1985;Smith & Hagman, 2000;Torre, Maxey & Piper, 1987).…”

Marksmanship as a critical military occupational task

“…Marksmanship simulators and simulated marksmanship in laboratory settings have been found to be predictive of live fire marksmanship performance (Crowley, Hallmark Shanley & Sollinger, 2014;Hagman, 1998;Hagman, 2000;Schendel & Heller, 1985;Torre, Maxey & Piper, 1987). However, Scribner, Wiley and Harper (2007) found that users were more accurate with the simulator (Dismounted Infantry Survivability and Lethality Test) than with live fire. Furthermore, research efforts studying the marksmanship effect of postural stability have been successful using simulator systems (Baca & Kornfeind, 2012;Hawkins & Sefton, 2011).…”

Evaluating the Effects of Clothing and Individual Equipment on Marksmanship Performance Using a Novel Five Target Methodology

“…Several studies have shown performance using a weapon simulator system is predictive of live-fire qualification scores using M4/M16 series weapon systems (Crowley, Hallmark, Shanley & Sollinger, 2014;Hagman, 2000;Schendel & Heller, 1985;Torre, Maxey & Piper, 1987). Additionally Scribner, Wiley & Harper (2007) found a strong relationship between live fire performance and performance using a weapon simulator system. Weapon simulator systems have also been successfully used in a number of research efforts to measure the effect of postural stability on marksmanship performance (Baca & Kornfeind, 2012;Hawkins & Sefton, 2011), as well as the effects of creatine and caffeine supplementation on marksmanship during stress induced training research (Tharion, Shukitt-Hale & Lieberman, 2003;Warber, Tharion & Patton, 2002).…”