A field experiment was carried out to determine the relative effectiveness of REALTRAIN, an engagement simulation training system, and conventional training. Rifle squads were given a tactical pre-training test, three days of training using either REALTRAIN or conventional methods, a post- training test and, finally a series of tactical exercises in which REALTRAIN and conventional squads opposed one another. Mission accomplishment data show that REALTRAIN training resulted in a higher percentage of mission accomplishment with fewer casualties sustained and more casualties inflicted in both attack and defense, than was the case for conventionally trained squads. In exercises in which training groups opposed one another, REALTRAIN squads again accomplished more missions, sustained fewer casualties and inflicted more casualties in both attack and defense than did conventionally trained squads.

A field experiment was carried out to determine the relative effectiveness of REALTRAIN (which is an engagement simulation training system) and conventional training. Rifle squads were given a tactical pretraining test, 3 days of training using either REALTRAIN or conventional methods, a post-training test, and finally a series of tactical exercises in which REALTRAIN and conventional squads opposed one another. Data collected on the behavior of squads during engagements were shown to be related to end-product measures of tactical performance. Resulting tactical performance data, as well as mission accomplishment and casualty exchange data, indicate REALTRAIN is more effective than conventional field training in the training of rifle squads.

"To improve both the combat readiness of Army units and the psychological rewards derived from training, the Army Research Institute has developed a group of techniques for simulating battlefield conditions. These techniques are known collectively as Engagement Simulation (ES). The squad and platoon level application of ES is referred to a REALTRAIN. REALTRAIN can be distinguished from more conventional training along a number of dimensions, including the degree of operating constraints in the exercises, type of casualty assessment, nature of evaluative feedback, and sequence of training procedures. A paper-and-pencil instrument was constructed that measured six different dimensions of job-related motivation and satisfaction. Results indicated that along four of the motivation/satisfaction dimensions (Attitude Toward the Exercises, Military Work Role, Unit Cohesiveness, and Leader Improvement), responses were more positive following participation in REALTRAIN than before participation. In the remaining two dimensions, there was no change in the "before" and "after" measures of motivation/satisfaction. However, for the conventional exercises, there was no change in the before and after responses of participants along five of the dimensions. Along the remaining one, there was a decline in the satisfaction level in the conventional training."--Abstract.