comb veh gnry trg

8/8/2019 Comb Veh Gnry Trg

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comb-veh-gnry-trg 1/4

“Gunner! Sabot! Tank!”

“Identified!” I responded, somewhatrustily, to the tank commander’s firecommand.

“Up!” shouted the loader.

“Fire,” from the TC.

I had indexed the ammunition, lasedto the target, and laid the crosshairs, al-most like old times.

“On the way!” I announced as I fired.There was a blast and my sight was ob-scured. The obscuration caused me tomiss the tracer, but I saw the impact of the long rod penetrator on the targettank.

It all seemed real, but in fact I was ina maneuver area at Fort Hood, attend-

ing a demonstration of the TWGSS/ PGS, acronyms for the Tank WeaponGunnery Simulation System and Preci-sion Gunnery System, designed for theAbrams tank and Bradley Fighting Ve-hicle, respectively.

Watching the demonstration, my mindwent back over the years I had beenassociated with tanks and gunnerytraining. To “date stamp” me, I remem-bered the Cedar Run Range combatcourse at Fort Knox, where we studentofficer tank commanders had to re-spond to a balloon simulating an air at-tack by climbing out of the M4A3E8

Sherman turret and standing on theback deck to fire the .50 caliber ma-chine gun. I remembered commandinga tank training company at Fort Knoxlater, when M48 tank crew traineesfired subcaliber rounds at small targetsa few yards away to get the feel of lay-ing the tank gun, making sure the finallay was always in the same direction toeliminate the effects of backlash. I re-membered that a smart M60 gunnerknew he could increase his chances of a hit with an inert HEP practice round

by using the telescope, which allowedfor projectile drift, rather than using thecomputer, which did not. I rememberedthe laser gunnery range used in the 1stArmor Training Brigade that allowedgunners to track moving targets andfire, but not much else. And I thoughtof the M1 tank Conduct of Fire Trainerthat places great stress on the tank commander and gunner as they engagecomputer-generated targets in rapidsuccession.

Each generation of training deviceswas a step in the right direction, andeach capitalized on new technologies,but none by itself met the standards of realism that the armor communitywanted. Institutional trainers usingcomputer-generated displays are effec-tive, but the environment is an artificial

one. Gunnery devices attached to atank have been useful and provide adegree of realism to a crew in that sol-diers use their own tank, but firing pro-cedures are not complete.

Subcaliber devices have benefits, butthey require at least small firing rangesand leave out many of the requiredcrew duties. Also, each system thatprovides a partial replication of tank gunnery procedures has always in-cluded drawbacks that result in somedegree of negative training.

At last, it seemed as if all the crewduties were accommodated, with theexception of the loader actually loadinga round of ammunition. Dummyrounds can be loaded for additionalloader training. The simulator cable, infact, was routed outside the barrel tokeep the breech free of obstructions.

The realism of the TWGSS was awe-some. Here was a crew, using its owntank under field conditions, and any er-ror in executing firing duties was re-flected in a miss. Targets were at realranges. There was blast and obscura-

tion. Not only was I impressed, but,more importantly, the young tank crew-men, brought up on video games andcomputer technology, were enthusiasticabout what they were experiencing.

My experience with the Bradley andthe PGS was similar. Here I fired boththe 25mm automatic cannon and theTOW missile. Again, the realism wasalmost unbelievable. I saw the TOWmissile heading for the target and saw

the hit.

The Requirement

Technology has opened new possibili-ties in the past two decades to greatlyimproved training devices for tank crews. Laser substitutes for actualrounds, video disk training devices, andcomputers have all been incorporated

in devices to train tank gunnery. Atfirst, each device filled a particularvoid, but as technology broadened thehorizons of those responsible for devel-oping requirements for gunnery train-ers, and tank crew training systemsthemselves, the potential to duplicatereality began to be realized. Generally,in tank crew training, two paths werefollowed, dictated by the limits of tech-nology, cost, and imagination. Separatedevices were developed to train gun-nery and to conduct tactical training.

MILES was developed and fielded tobring greater realism to tactical train-ing. Using laser projectors and detec-tors, MILES provides a means of in-flicting real-time casualties on oppos-ing forces. The result has been a majorstep in providing realism in tacticaltraining.

Various gunnery training deviceswere developed for both the Abramstank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle, cul-minating in the 1980s with a Conductof Fire Trainer (COFT) for eachweapon system. The COFTs provide

44 ARMOR — November-December 1996

TWGSS/PGS:

Combat Vehicle Gunnery TrainingTakes a Great Leap Forwardby Brigadier General Philip L. Bolté, U.S. Army, Retired



Abrams and Bradley crews with highlyeffective training. Through the use of computers and instructor monitoring,crews can be faced with a wide varietyof scenarios and challenges. Targetscan be stationary or moving over vary-

ing terrain, the firing tank can be mov-ing or stationary, weather conditionscan be changed, fire control systemscan be degraded, and the pace of en-gagements can be changed. The sys-tems offer a true final exam before acrew proceeds to live firing. But theenvironment, although realistic in manyways, is artificial. The crew is in asimulator with computer-generated im-ages. The crewmen are not in theirtank, and they know it.

As early as the 1970s, while theAbrams tank was under development,the U.S. Army armor community was

seeking a gunnery training device thatcould be applied to the tank itself.What the Army wanted was an eye-safe laser simulator, a strap-on device,that could be used for precision and de-graded mode gunnery training on unitvehicles in all terrain and weather con-ditions.

In a search of industry ideas, theArmy program manager for trainingdevices (PM TRADE) contacted theSwedish company Saab for a report of its newly developed laser simulatorBT41. The resulting “Hit/Kill Study”compared various methods for provid-

ing precision gunnery training to crewsto sustain their skill levels between livefire opportunities.

In 1982, two Saab simulators wereacquired by the Army for engineeringtests at Fort Knox. These were laterused in an Armor Center ConceptEvaluation Program (CEP) in conjunc-tion with the newly developed TWGSSconcept. In 1984, the Infantry Center atFort Benning acquired additional BT41systems for a CEP associated with the

PGS requirement for the Bradley Fight-ing Vehicle. Here the requirement wasto simulate both gun and missile sys-tems in training crews. With system re-quirements further defined, in 1986 anadditional CEP was conducted at Fort

Hood using these systems, as well asother simulators, including MILES.The main purpose was to evaluate thetransference of gunnery skills fromsimulation to live fire. As the U.S.Army continued its progress toward theeventual acquisition of a solution to theTWGSS/PGS challenge, Saab wasmeeting with success with foreign ar-mies. In 1988, the German Army se-lected Saab systems to meet its similarrequirement. In September 1992, theU.S. Army selected the new generationSaab simulator, BT46, to meet itsTWGSS/PGS requirement. British se-

lection of the same system followedtwo months later. Thus, the majorNATO armies were following a similarpath for combat vehicle gunnery train-ing.

A procurement contract was sub-sequently awarded to Saab. The Armyapproved an acquisition plan to procure2,000 systems for the Abrams andBradley by the year 2001, with the firstunit equipped in 1995. The systems areeventually to be fielded at 25 locations.In addition, procurement and fielding isnow planned for Marine Corps Abramstanks. To date, the program is on

schedule and within programmed cost,and the equipment exceeds requiredperformance standards.

When the U.S. Army’s 1st ArmoredDivision deployed to Bosnia, it quicklybecame apparent that Abrams andBradley crews would be unable tomaintain weapon system proficiency inthe environment there. The Army di-verted delivery of more than 60TWGSS/PGS systems to the deployedforce, which should solve the problem.

It is significant to note that TWGSS/ PGS also meets the U.S. Army’s Tacti-cal Engagement Simulator (TES) re-quirement by combining a precisiongunnery and maneuver capability withprovisions for extensive after-action re-

view.

System Description

TWGSS/PGS is an eye-safe lasersimulator strap-on device that providesprecision and degraded mode gunnerytraining, using unit vehicles, in all ter-rain and under all weather conditions.The system requires the vehicle crew toperform all gunnery tasks under fieldconditions, except actual ammunitionloading, and provides accurate firingresults. These are available immedi-ately and for after-action review(AAR). Similar in concept, the

TWGSS and PGS have common orgenerally similar components. In thefollowing paragraphs, the TWGSS isdiscussed in detail, with major differ-ences of the PGS discussed later.

TWGSS consists of three subsystems:the firing system, the target system, andthe training data retrieval system.

The firing system, mounted on thetank, includes four main elements: thetransceiver unit; the tracer, burst, ob-scuration simulator; the vehicle inter-face assembly; and the remote systeminterface. Other components include

the control panel, loader’s panel, andturret position sensor. The included tar-get system, comprised of target proces-sor, four retro reflectors, and four hulldeflectors, allows the tank to partici-pate in two-sided engagements, as wellas independently assessing engagementresults.

The transceiver unit, mounted in themain gun muzzle, uses conditionallyeye-safe laser transmitters. A transmit-ter simulates projectiles in real time

ARMOR — November-December 1996 45

At left, a crew installs the TWGSS system to anM1A2 at Fort Hood. It takes 20 minutes. Above, a

crew reviews the after-action record that is stored

on a laptop computer.



with the correct ballistics and dynamicsof real ammunition, based on actual fir-ing tables, thereby allowing precisiongunnery training. The tracer, burst, andobscuration system simulates in boththe gunner’s primary sight and auxil-

iary sight the effects of rounds firedwith the main gun or coaxial machinegun. Tracers are simulated with realis-tic burn times and zooming effects.Bursts on the target or on the groundare simulated, with the size determinedby the type of ammunition and range.Obscuration is shown for main gunammunition and can be programmedby the instructor from 0 to 5 seconds.

The vehicle interface assembly is thelink between TWGSS and the tank. Itreceives and distributes power, moni-tors and injects signals to and from thefire control system, monitors weapon

status for use in the after-action review,registers the turret/hull relationship, andinjects sound into the intercommunica-tion system.

The remote system interface uses sat-ellite data to determine the position of the tank, updating the position every 50meters. The information is stored onthe memory card for use in the after-action review. The unit is made up of two components, the antenna that re-ceives satellite signals and the assem-bly that determines vehicle position.

The entire TWGSS assembly can be

mounted on a tank in 20 minutes. Thetarget system, which can be mountedindependently on targets, includes fourretro detector units, four hull defiladedetector units, and the target computerunit. It determines whether a projectilehits or misses the target. If the target ishit, the system simulates the effect theprojectile would have on the vehicle.The effect is indicated with strobelights and sound cues in the intercom-munication system. Each round is indi-vidually evaluated, with no considera-tion of cumulative effects. If there is ahit, based on the received coordinatesand a random generator incorporatingactual vulnerability to the round fired,the unit determines whether it is a no-kill hit or a weapon, mobility, or cata-strophic kill. It then triggers the appro-priate visible and sound signals.

The training data retrieval system in-cludes equipment necessary to performthe after-action review of TWGSStraining. It is used to evaluate the effec-tiveness of tank weapon firing engage-ments, whether in a tank weapon gun-nery exercise or in a tactical training

environment. The system consists of alaptop computer unit and memorycards.

Each TWGSS tank has a memorycard installed at the beginning of anexercise. Using the TWGSS controlpanel, the crew or instructor downloadsinformation such as ballistics and targettemplates, as well as ammunition al-lowances, obscuration times, etc. Thememory card then stores the data ontraining events for use in the after-ac-tion review. Three days of data can berecorded on one card.

The laptop computer unit provides thecenterpiece of the after-action review.Each memory card is loaded into thecomputer, and graphics for gunnery ormap views can be displayed. Gunneryresults are also available in the mapview so that gunnery and maneuvertraining results can be integrated. Forfiring engagements, crew membernames and vehicle type are displayed,along with detailed data on time, mo-tion, engagement ranges, hit points, anddamage assessment.

PGS is essentially the same system asTWGSS. It is designed for compatibil-ity with both the 25mm chain gun andthe TOW missile system. For the25mm gun, wide misses can be meas-ured for area fire evaluations. TOWmissile engagements can be simulatedout to the 3,750 meter maximum rangeof the missile system.

As noted earlier, a number of gunnerytraining devices have been introducedin the last two decades, each offeringadvantages, generally related to real-ism, over other devices. Continued pro-

liferation of such devices, however, isnot an acceptable solution to the train-ing challenge. Thus, it is important toexamine how TWGSS/PGS fits intothe overall training environment.

Most important are the relationshipsof the Abrams and Bradley conduct of fire trainers (COFT) and MILES withTWGSS/PGS. COFT and MILES areboth widely fielded and have proven tobe effective training systems.

The Abrams and Bradley COFTs, likeTWGSS and PGS, are similar in natureand provide excellent gunnery training.

Crews can be faced with a wide varietyof scenarios and firing engagementchallenges over a short period of time,making the use of COFTs efficient.They have been used since introductionto prepare crews for live fire from theirvehicles. Nevertheless, training expertshave recognized the missing bridge be-tween the COFT full simulation andlive fire with full-caliber ammunition.Fielded subcaliber devices, while con-tributing to training, lack realism andinclude at least a degree of negativetraining.

While live firing of full-caliber am-munition is critical to full-up training,the cost of ammunition, the availabilityof ranges, and safety restrictions are,among other factors as well, severelimitations. TWGSS/PGS can be espe-cially useful for night firing trainingwhere live fire at night may be re-stricted because of the proximity of ci-vilian communities. At Grafenwöhr, theU.S. Army’s major training area inGermany, night firing has been cur-tailed, but TWGSS/PGS can provide

46 ARMOR — November-December 1996

Here, the TWGSS system is mounted on a Marine M1A1 at Camp Lejeune, N.C. The Ma-

rines use the system for both tactical and gunnery training.



the means to conduct night training, in-cluding gunnery, without disturbing thelocal population.

TWGSS/PGS provides the missingbridge between COFT training and live

fire. The system is flexible enough tooffer a range of simulated gunnerytraining that provides a smooth transi-tion to live firing. Realism can beachieved, with the operational tempo of live fire, without the need to travel todistant ranges and fire service ammuni-tion.

TWGSS/PGS can perform gunnery infour progressive modes: tracking train-ing, scaled gunnery, panel gunnery, andcombat gunnery.

Tracking training teaches crews to layon targets and track moving targets us-

ing the actual vehicle fire control sys-tem.

In the scaled gunnery mode, targetscan be placed at close-in ranges, butthe system can be set so that longerranges are simulated. Thus, using one-half scale, a target placed at 500 meterswill appear to the crew and the firecontrol system to be at 1,000 meters.This mode allows the use of areas re-stricted in size, such as many localtraining areas.

The panel gunnery mode allowscrews to prepare realistically for situ-

ations similar to those faced on typicallive fire ranges. TWGSS/PGS providesan accurate assessment of the quality of performance of the crew.

Because of safety restrictions associ-ated with live fire, in the combat modethe crew is faced with situations morereal than those faced on live fireranges. Gunnery tasks must be accom-plished, with the exception of actualammunition loading, just as they mustbe in combat. Targets react as they doin combat. It is this mode, of course,that can be used in two-sided exercises,with the firing vehicle vulnerable to

fire from opposing target vehicles.MILES has provided the Army with

the ability to train realistically in two-sided maneuvers. How does theTWGSS/PGS fit with MILES? This isan important question, for much of thecost of TWGSS/PGS is associated withqualities that are similar to MILES.

Fortunately, the answer to the ques-tion is that TWGSS/PGS is compatiblewith MILES. Thus Abrams tanksequipped with TWGSS and Bradley

Fighting Vehicles equipped with PGSare able to participate in maneuverswith, for example, dismounted troopsor HMMWVs using MILES compo-nents. The TWGSS/PGS transceiver

transmits MILES firing information af-ter a completed TWGSS/PGS simula-tion in order for the laser target inter-face device (LTID) and MILES targetsystems to function. MILES informa-tion is transmitted at the impact pointof the simulated round. TWGSS/PGSequipped vehicles use the retro reflec-tor mounted strobe lights to simulatehits instead of the yellow lights of MILES.

What this all means is that Abramsand Bradley crews can participate inMILES-based exercises using TWGSS/ PGS instead of add-on MILES compo-

nents. It means that Abrams andBradley crews, in addition to gainingthe tactical training of a MILES-basedexercise, can practice their gunneryskills at the same time. Thus, there ismuch less difference between trainingand the reality of combat.

TWGSS/PGS has been adopted forthe Abrams and Bradley, but it isequally applicable to other combat ve-hicles, such as the Marine Corps lightarmored vehicle (LAV).

On the subject of compatibility, notonly is TWGSS/PGS compatible with

MILES, but there is international com-patibility. As mentioned earlier, theBritish Army and the German Armyhave both adopted Saab systems, as hasthe Swedish Army, and Saudi Arabia isprocuring TWGSS/PGS through theU.S. FMS program. Other countriescan be expected to follow. These sys-tems, modified to meet certain nationalrequirements, are all similar in opera-tion and are compatible. Internationalexercises will be greatly enhanced bythis situation.

The potential for growth of any com-plex training system is important. The

U.S. Army cannot afford to field a sys-tem that may become outdated in sev-eral years. At the aforementioned dem-onstration at Fort Hood, Saab includedthe application of its Gunnery and Ma-neuver Exercise (GAMER) system.GAMER is an add-on system that inte-grates the capabilities of existing sys-tems such as TWGSS/PGS and MILESto provide realistic two-sided combattraining at the small unit level in localtraining areas. A portable system thatcan be carried in a HMMWV and set

up in an hour, GAMER’s add-on com-ponents to existing systems use com-mercial components, including a laptopcomputer and mobile data cellularhardware. GAMER allows the integra-

tion of simulated artillery, mine fields,and obstacles into the play. It maxi-mizes the capability of the small unitleader to plan, conduct, and review thetraining exercise. In effect, in about anhour, a local training area can be con-verted into a miniature National Train-ing Center.

Summary

TWGSS/PGS is bringing to the U.S.Army a major improvement in its abil-ity to effectively train combat vehiclecrews in gunnery. Moreover, it pro-vides training establishments and com-bat units the ability to integrate gun-nery and maneuver training. The bene-fits include training time and cost sav-ings, as well as greater realism in train-ing. TWGSS/PGS is as close to livefire training as possible, without incur-ring the disadvantages and costs associ-ated with such training.

Compatibility with the existingMILES equipment and interoperabilitywith other nations’ systems are benefitsthat enhance the attractiveness of TWGSS/PGS. It is a modern trainingsystem that offers current capability

and growth potential for the U.S. Armyof the twenty-first century.

ARMOR — November-December 1996 47

Brigadier General Philip L.Bolté was commissioned inCavalry from the U.S. MilitaryAcademy in 1950. He servedin a number of cavalry units,including 3rd and 14th Ar-mored Cavalry Regiments

and the 11th Airborne Re-connaissance Co., and com-manded the 1st Squadron,1st Cav in Vietnam. He is agraduate of the ArmorSchool, Canadian Army StaffCollege, and the Army WarCollege. He retired in 1980from his final assignment asprogram manager, FightingVehicle Systems.

“The benefits include training time and cost savings, as well as greater realism in training.”

comb veh gnry trg

Documents