This study analyzes existing methods of implementing the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) for a Tank/Mechanized Infantry Task Force. Principles of the ARTEP system need to be more fully developed before field units can use them to develop training and evaluation programs that effectively meet the goals of the ARTEP concept. Battalion field evaluation exercises should be planned with the ultimate goals of training diagnosis in mind. Therefore, significant emphasis must be placed on adequate training for evaluator/controllers. A three-volume report provides guidelines for meeting these requirements. Volume I is of general interest to ARTEP developers, training managers, policy makers, and users. Volume II provides data analysis and recommendations for refining current ARTEP implementation; it will interest developers, training managers, and policy makers. Volume III is a prototype guide for battalion-level use of the ARTEP.

This study analyzes existing methods of implementing the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) for a Tank/Mechanized Infantry Task Force. Principles of the ARTEP system need to be more fully developed before field units can use them to develop training and evaluation programs that effectively meet the goals of the ARTEP concept. Battalion field evaluation exercises should be planned with the ultimate goals of training diagnosis in mind. This means that significant emphasis must be placed on adequate training for evaluator/controllers. A three-volume report provides guidelines for meeting these requirements. The report is intended primarily for readers interested in collective training, particularly those working with development of ARTEPs. Volume I is of general interest to ARTEP developers, training managers, policy makers, and users. Volume II provides data analysis and recommendations for refining current ARTEP implementation; it will interest developers, training managers, and policy makers. Volume III is a prototype guide for battalion-level use of the ARTEP. It is based on the recommendations from Volume II and is of interest to senior commanders, their staff, and officers who train others to perform evaluations and exercise control functions in the field. (Author).

This study analyzes existing methods of implementing the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) for a Tank/Mechanized Infantry Task Force. Principles of the ARTEP system need to be more fully developed before field units can use them to develop training and evaluation programs that effectively meet the goals of the ARTEP concept. Battalion field evaluation exercises should be planned with the ultimate goals of training diagnosis in mind. This means that significant emphasis must be placed on adequate training for evaluator/controllers. A three-part report provides guidelines for meeting these requirements. The volumes are intended primarily for readers interested in collective training, particularly those working with the development of ARTEPs. Volume I is of general interest to ARTEP developers, training managers, policy makers, and users. Volume II provides data analysis and recommendations for refining current ARTEP implementation; it will interest developers, training managers, and policy makers. Volume III is a prototype guide for battalion-level use of the ARTEP. It is based on the recommendations from Volume II and is of interest to senior commanders, their staff, and those officers who must train personnel to perform evaluation and exercise control functions in the field.

This report summarizes a two phase, 28-month contract research effort concerning the ARTEP for tank/mechanized infantry units. Products and processes of the research are described. Products are represented by seven report documents, including: ARTEP implementation problem diagnosis and issue identification, analysis of issues and concepts for solution, exercise planning guidance, evaluator/controller training, analysis of alternative training settings in the tank/mechanized infantry battalion training environment, and integration of engagement simulation training methods into unit evaluation focused field exercises. (Author).

This study analyzed alternative training settings available to battalion training managers for the conduct of training battalions and their elements within ARTEP. Nine settings were selected for study: conventional field exercises, engagement simulation field exercises (REALTRAIN and MILES), battalion command/staff battle simulations, CATTS, CAMMS, Pegasus, company/platoon battle simulations, Dunn-Kempf and SCUE, tactical exercises without troops (TEWT) and Command Post Exercises (CPX). Each setting was narratively described on 35 dimensions, including scenarios, presentation of tasks to participants, ARTEP 71-2 missions/tasks exercised by each setting, adminstrative personnel and resource requirements, and capability for performance measurement/diagnosis. Settings were organized into two groups: field exercises and battle simulations. Comparisons were made between and within clusters to determine advantages and limitations of settings in the battalion training environment. Factors affecting the training value of all settings are discussed. Example sequences and combinations of settings are presented for different battalion elements. Primary audiences are researchers, TRADOC/FORSCOM personnel responsible for collective training policy, and battalion training managers. (Author).

This document provides guidance for exercise planners and evaluator/controller teams responsible for planning and conducting platoon and company tank/mechanized infantry field exercises. It contains a command planning guide that addressses basic ARTEP training/evaluation principles, choice of missions, scenario development, evaluator/controller selection and training, sequences of exercise events and monitoring of the evaluator/controller team. Also included is a Program of Instruction for evaluator/controller training. Fifteen separate lesson plans cover evaluator/controller duties, exercise planning, exercise control and communication, simulation, performance observation and evaluation, exercise rehearsal, terrain reconnaissance, conduct of critiques, and data analysis/report preparation. Each lesson includes example lesson narratives, graphics and trainee handouts. Another section of the document presents the rationale for the content of the command planning guidance and program of instruction. A final section describes the field testing and revision of earlier guidance that led to the guidance in the present document. Primary audiences for this document are researchers, TRADOC personnel responsible for tank/mechanized infantry collective training/evaluation and tank/mechanized infantry unit training managers seeking additional guidance in exercise planning and evaluator/controller training. (Author).