Changing the Army's Weapon Training Strategies to Meet Operational Requirements More Efficiently and Effectively
Abstract
The ability of soldiers and crews to engage the enemy successfully has been fundamental to the operational success of the U.S. Army since its founding and remains so today. As a result, the Army devotes considerable resources and effort to developing and maintaining weapon-system proficiency. In 2010, over a billion dollars were spent to buy training ammunition, and many dollars were spent maintaining and providing the training aids, devices, simulators, simulations, ranges, and targetry (TADSS-RT) that support weapon-system training.1 Additionally, units have traditionally devoted considerable time to weapon-system proficiency. In 2001 and 2002, combat brigades devoted about 45 days half of their annual field training days to live- and dry-fire exercises, and they spent additional time on preliminary weapon-system training in garrison.2 Since 2002, the Army has broadened its operational focus and has implemented a new Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) approach to unit readiness. These shifts have caused the Army to consider options for achieving better alignment among the weapon training strategies outlined in DA Pamphlet 350-38, Standards in Training Commission (STRAC); broadened operational requirements; and ARFORGEN readiness strategies. It is also examining options for more effectively using weapon-system simulators both to enhance training and use scarce training resources more efficiently.3
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jan 01, 2014
- Accession Number
- ADA604300
Entities
People
- Bryan W. Hallmark
- James C. Crowley
- Jerry M. Sollinger
- Michael G. Shanley
Organizations
- RAND Corporation