DRDC-Toronto CR-2005-061
EVALUATION OF DIGITIZATION FOR SITING
PLATOON DEFENSIVE POSITIONS AT NIGHT
by:
Edward T. Nakaza, David W. Tack, Harry Angel,
Humansystems® Incorporated
111 Farquhar St., 2nd Floor
Guelph, ON N1H 3N4
Project Manager:
David W. Tack
(519)-836-5911
PWGSC Contract No. W7711-01-7747/001/TOR
Call-Up No. 7747-25
HSI® SIREQ Item No. 148
On behalf of
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
as represented by
Defence Research and Development Canada - Toronto
1133 Sheppard Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3M 3B9
DRDC Toronto Scientific Authority
LCol Linda Bossi
(416) 635-2197
May 2005
This document contains information that may not be passed or shared, even in confidence, with
foreign military, research and development representatives or civilian contractors of any nationality
without the expressed prior permission of the Exploitation Manager of SIREQ TD.
The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the
contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D
Canada
© Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2005
© Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2005
Abstract
This experiment investigated available technologies to address and enhance aspects specific to
planning and siting a Platoon (Pl) defensive position in the woods at night, within the context of a
larger integrated Company defensive plan. This study also assessed the tactical feasibility and
usability of the tools in the digital condition.Results from this experiment demonstrated that the
main benefits that were observed in using the digital condition compared to the non-digital
condition were in the overall planning and siting of the Pl defensive position, as well as in the
consolidation of the range cards at the Section and Pl levels. However there were concerns with
the current configuration in terms of the time, tactical feasibility, and ease of use of the digital
systems, specifically regarding the laser rangefinder and Trench View software.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page i
Résumé
Cette expérience a permis d'examiner les technologies existantes pouvant servir à traiter et à
améliorer les aspects propres à la planification et au choix de l'emplacement de la position
défensive d'un peloton (pon) dans les bois la nuit, dans le contexte d'un plan de défense général
intégré au niveau de la compagnie. La présente étude visait également à évaluer la faisabilité
tactique et la facilité d'utilisation des outils numériques.
Selon les résultats de l'expérience, les principaux avantages observés relativement à l'utilisation
des outils numériques par rapport aux outils non numériques touchaient le processus global de la
planification et du choix de l'emplacement de la position défensive du peloton, ainsi que le
regroupement des croquis de repérage aux niveaux de la section et du peloton. Cependant, il
existait certaines préoccupations liées à la configuration actuelle du point de vue du temps, de la
faisabilité tactique et de la facilité d'utilisation des systèmes numériques, particulièrement en ce
qui a trait au télémètre laser et au logiciel Trench View.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page ii
Executive Summary
It is a challenge to ideally site a Platoon (Pl) defensive position during the day, but this task is
confounded when it is accomplished in the darkness of a moonless night. Therefore this
experimentation investigated available technologies to address and enhance aspects specific to
planning and siting a Pl defensive position in the woods at night, within the context of a larger
integrated Company defensive plan.
A two-night field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia over the period of 15-16 May
2004. Two Platoons, consisting of ten regular force infantry leaders from the 3rd Battalion
Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI), based in CFB Edmonton, participated in
these investigations. Each Pl was required to site two defensive positions each using non-digital
and digital means.
Human factors (HF) tests included performance (i.e. timings) and workload measures as well as
the subjective utility and usability measures of the two defensive siting conditions. Data
collection included performance measures, workload ratings, questionnaires, HF observer
assessments, subject matter expert (SME) evaluations, and a focus group discussion.
Results from this experiment demonstrated that the main benefits in using the digital condition,
compared to the non-digital condition, were in the overall planning and siting of the Pl defensive
position, as well as in the consolidation of the range cards at the Section and Pl levels. The night
vision goggle (NVG) allowed the Pl Commanders, and Section Leaders to clearly visualize the
ground and the digital map allowed for a better situate of the Pl defensive position. Weapon
ranges were better tied to kill zone taskings in one Pl, and overall trenches were better sited
compared to the non-digital condition. Objective data showed that there was a significant
difference in terms of the speed in which range cards were consolidated at the level of the Section
and the Pl. The consolidation phase of the digital range cards was instantaneous with the
completion of the trench range cards; therefore no additional effort or time was required for this
task. During this specific trial, the digital condition was observed to have saved the Pl an
average of 34.9 minutes which conceivably could have been used to further improve the
defensive position or allotted for other important taskings. These findings were also reinforced
through focus group comments. However there were concerns with the current configuration in
terms of the time, tactical feasibility, and ease of use of the digital systems, specifically regarding
the laser rangefinder and Trench View software.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page iii
Sommaire
Il est déjà très difficile de choisir l'emplacement idéal pour la position défensive d'un peloton
(pon) pendant le jour, mais cette tâche devient déconcertante lorsqu'on l'accomplit dans le noir,
par une nuit sans lune. L'expérience a donc permis d'examiner les technologies existantes
pouvant servir à traiter et à améliorer les aspects propres à la planification et au choix de
l'emplacement de la position défensive d'un peloton (pon) dans les bois, la nuit, dans le contexte
d'un plan de défense général intégré au niveau de la compagnie.
Un essai pratique de deux nuits a été effectué à Fort Benning (Georgia) du 15 au 16 mai 2004.
Deux pelotons composés de dix chefs de section d'infanterie de la Force régulière venant du
3e Bataillon, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), basé à la BFC Edmonton,
ont participé à l'essai. Chaque peloton devait choisir l'emplacement de deux positions défensives,
chacun d'eux utilisant des outils numériques et non numériques.
Dans le cadre des essais relatifs aux facteurs humains (FH), on a notamment procédé à la mesure
du rendement (c.-à-d. le minutage) et de la charge de travail ainsi qu'à la mesure subjective de
l'utilité et de la facilité d'utilisation des deux types d'outils servant au choix de l'emplacement
des positions défensives. La collecte des données s'est faite au moyen de mesures du rendement,
de la détermination de cotes de charge de travail, de questionnaires, d'évaluations de la part
d'observateurs des FH, d'évaluations effectuées par des experts en la matière (EM) et de la tenue
d'un groupe de discussion.
Selon les résultats de l'expérience, les principaux avantages observés relativement à l'utilisation
des outils numériques par rapport aux outils non numériques touchaient le processus global de la
planification et du choix de l'emplacement de la position défensive du peloton, ainsi que le
regroupement des croquis de repérage aux niveaux de la section et du peloton. Les lunettes de
vision nocturne (LVN) ont permis aux commandants de peloton et aux chefs de section de voir
clairement le sol, et la carte numérique leur a donné la possibilité de mieux situer la position
défensive du pon. Les portées des armes étaient mieux liées aux tâches dans la zone d'abattage
dans le cas de l'un des pon et, de façon générale, les tranchées étaient mieux situées que lorsque
les outils non numériques ont été utilisés. Des données objectives ont montré qu'il existait une
importante différence du point de vue de la vitesse avec laquelle les croquis de repérage étaient
regroupés aux niveaux de la section et du peloton. Le regroupement des croquis de repérage
numériques se faisait instantanément dès l'achèvement des croquis de repérage relatifs aux
tranchées; ainsi, aucun effort ni temps supplémentaire n'était requis pour l'exécution de cette
tâche. Au cours de cet essai particulier, on a constaté que les outils numériques avaient permis au
pon d'économiser en moyenne 34,9 minutes, lesquelles, en théorie, auraient pu être consacrées à
l'amélioration de la position défensive ou à d'autres tâches importantes. Ces conclusions ont été
renforcées par les commentaires du groupe de discussion. Cependant, il existait certaines
préoccupations liées à la configuration actuelle du point de vue du temps, de la faisabilité tactique
et de la facilité d'utilisation des systèmes numériques, particulièrement en ce qui a trait au
télémètre laser et au logiciel Trench View.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page iv
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................I
RESUME ......................................................................................................................................................... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................III
SOMMAIRE ..................................................................................................................................................IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................VI
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... VII
1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 3
3. AIMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
4. METHOD.................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.
OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.
APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3.
EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1
In-Service Compass ................................................................................................................. 10
4.3.2
NVG System ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.3.3
Laser Rangefinder ................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.4
Trench View Range-fan Software and Laptop ......................................................................... 13
4.4.
PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.5.
QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE ................................................................................................... 15
4.6.
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 16
5. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 18
5.1.
OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ......................................................................................... 18
5.1.1
Defensive Siting and Range Card - Time................................................................................. 18
5.2.
SUBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................................................................ 20
5.2.1
NASA-TLX Workload Measures .............................................................................................. 21
5.2.2
Exit Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 22
5.2.3
Company Commander Defensive Site Evaluation ................................................................... 55
6. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 57
7. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 59
8. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 60
ANNEX A: DEFENSIVE ORDERS (ISSUED BY OC) ........................................................................... A-1
ANNEX B: DEFENSIVE SITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE................................................... B-1
ANNEX C: DEFENSIVE SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................... C-1
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page v
List of Tables
TABLE 1: PRESENTATION OF DEFENSIVE SITING CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 10
TABLE 2: NON-DIGITAL AND DIGITALLY ENHANCED CAPABILITIES FOR DEFENSIVE SITING TASKS ............... 10
TABLE 3: COMPANY COMMANDER DEFENSIVE SITE EVALUATION .................................................................. 55
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page vi
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: RANGE CARD EXAMPLE .................................................................................................................... 1
FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF DEFENSIVE SITES (A & B)........................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3: EXAMPLE OF DIGITAL RANGE CARD ................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 4: SUUNTO MC-2G GLOBAL SIGHTING COMPASS ............................................................................... 11
FIGURE 5: MONOCULAR MONOCHROMATIC AN/PVS-14 NVG ....................................................................... 12
FIGURE 6: LEICA LASER RANGEFINDER BINOCULAR ........................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 7: TRENCH VIEW DIGITAL CONFIGURATION ........................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 8: TRENCH VIEW SOFTWARE ............................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 9: STANDARD RATING SCALE .............................................................................................................. 16
FIGURE 10: TIME TO CONSOLIDATE SECTION RANGE CARD ............................................................................ 19
FIGURE 11: TIME TO CONSOLIDATE PLATOON RANGE CARD .......................................................................... 20
FIGURE 12: INDIVIDUAL NASA-TLX RATINGS – NON-DIGITAL CONDITION................................................... 21
FIGURE 13: INDIVIDUAL NASA-TLX RATINGS – DIGITAL CONDITION ........................................................... 22
FIGURE 14: EFFECTIVENESS FOR VISUALIZING VITAL GROUND ...................................................................... 23
FIGURE 15: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING NATURAL AND CIVILIAN OBSTACLES ..................................... 24
FIGURE 16: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING LIKELY ENEMY APPROACHES ................................................. 25
FIGURE 17: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING LIKELY ENEMY ASSEMBLY AREAS ......................................... 26
FIGURE 18: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE FUTURE TARGETS ................................................... 27
FIGURE 19: EFFECTIVENESS FOR DETERMINING DISTANCES ........................................................................... 28
FIGURE 20: EFFECTIVENESS FOR DETERMINING DEAD GROUND ..................................................................... 29
FIGURE 21: EFFECTIVENESS FOR ESTIMATING EASE OF MOVEMENT ............................................................... 30
FIGURE 22: OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS FOR TERRAIN VISUALIZATION ............................................................. 31
FIGURE 23: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING KEY TERRAIN ......................................................................... 32
FIGURE 24: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING FIELDS OF FIRE, ARCS OF FIRE ................................................ 33
FIGURE 25: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING TRENCH POSITIONS .................................................................. 34
FIGURE 26: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING SECTION POSITIONS ................................................................ 35
FIGURE 27: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL HQ POSITIONS...................................................... 36
FIGURE 28: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING INDIRECT FIRE TARGETS ......................................................... 37
FIGURE 29: EFFECTIVE USE OF TERRAIN FOR IDENTIFYING LIKELY AMBUSH POSITIONS ................................ 38
FIGURE 30: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING COUNTER ATTACK TASKS/ROUTES ........................................ 39
FIGURE 31: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING DEPLOYMENT AND WITHDRAWAL ROUTES ............................ 40
FIGURE 32: EFFECTIVENESS FOR DEDUCING YOUR ANTI-ARMOUR PLAN........................................................ 41
FIGURE 33: EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING EARLY WARNING DEVICE POSITIONS ..................................... 42
FIGURE 34: OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF PLANNING TOOLS........................................................................... 43
FIGURE 35: EASE OF DETERMINING OWN POSITION ........................................................................................ 44
FIGURE 36: ACCURACY OF DETERMINING OWN POSITION .............................................................................. 45
FIGURE 37: ACCURACY OF DETERMINING THE DISTANCE TO REFERENCE POINTS ON RANGE CARD .............. 46
FIGURE 38: ACCURACY OF DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF OP/LP ON RANGE CARD .................................. 47
FIGURE 39: EASE OF DETERMINING LOCATION OF OBSTACLES/BARRIERS ...................................................... 48
FIGURE 40: OVERALL SUITABILITY OF PAPER/DIGITAL RANGE CARD ............................................................ 49
FIGURE 41: EASE OF CONSOLIDATING AT THE LEVEL OF THE SECTION/PLATOON ........................................... 50
FIGURE 42: TIME REQUIRED TO OPERATE VARIOUS TOOLS ............................................................................ 52
FIGURE 43: ACCURACY OF VARIOUS TOOLS.................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 44: TACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF VARIOUS TOOLS ................................................................................. 54
FIGURE 45: EASE OF USE OF VARIOUS TOOLS ................................................................................................. 55
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page vii
1. Background
During tactical field training or actual operations Platoons (Pl) may be required to prepare a
defensive site to protect against an enemy attack. When this task is dictated the Company
Commander (OC) will issue Defensive Warning Orders (Wng O) to the Pl Commander. Upon
receipt of the Wng O, the “Pl Commander should analyse the assigned task…(to) guide him and his
subordinate in their…procedure.” (The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle: Volume 3, item 30,
p. 3-1-10). This will serve as a starting point for further planning. “Once the intent of (the
defensive) task is clearly understood, Pl and Section Commanders have a responsibility to take the
initiative to act in accordance with the demands of the situation without waiting for orders, to
produce the results required.” (The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle: Volume 3, item 33, p. 31-11). A time appreciation and detailed map study will then be conducted and the soldiers will step
off on the ground to site and physically plot their trenches, arcs of fire, etc. in their respective areas
with respect to line of sight, dead ground, obstacles, and kill zones.
“To make the defense more efficient, every fighting trench prepares a range card to register
reference points within its arc of fire, ranges and possible future targets. The range card represents
the target area, drawn as seen from above with annotations indicating distances throughout the target
area. The range card gives the soldier a quick range reference and means to record target locations
since it has pre-printed rings on it. A field expedient range card can be prepared on any paper the
team has available. The soldier position and distances to prominent objects (i.e. easy to identify)
and terrain features will be drawn on the card (as to not cause confusion during the heat of battle).
There is not a set maximum range on either range card because the soldier may also label any
indirect fire targets on his range card.” (Soldiers Day, 1999). Reference Figure 1.
Figure 1: Range Card Example
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 1
The purpose of this range card is to allow easy orientation for any soldier who is new to the trench
during a ‘relief in place’ (a.k.a. battlefield replacement). The card is also used to determine the arcs
of surveillance and fire for each trench, including kill zones and dead ground. Trenches are sited to
achieve a specific tactical aim in the larger Section defense. The range cards for all co-located
Section trenches are consolidated to produce the Section range card. By inspecting the overlaps and
gaps in coverage of all Section trenches in the Section range card, the location and orientation of
defensive positions and assets can be adjusted to best effect. Similarly Section range cards are
consolidated into the Platoon range card and so on up through sub-units and units.
Currently the task of siting Pl defensive positions utilizing in-service means at night is especially
difficult. Terrain visibility is problematic, distance estimation is prone to error, and range card
consolidation is time consuming, leaving higher units to wait on lower units to complete and assess
their defensive plan. This study investigated the utility of employing digital aids and tools to support
the development and consolidation of range cards, as compared to an in-service baseline.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 2
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations
2IC
Second in Command
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
APC
Armoured Personnel Carrier
Coy
Company
DF
Defensive Fire
FBES
Fort Benning Experimentation Series
GPS
Global Positioning System
HF
Human Factors
HQ
Head Quarters
I2
Image Intensifier
IR
Infrared
LMG
Light Machine Gun
LP
Listening Post
NVG
Night Vision Goggle
OC
Officer Commanding
OP
Observation Post
Pl
Platoon
Recce
Reconnaissance
SD
Standard Deviation
SIREQ-TD
Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration
SME
Subject Matter Expert
SRAAW
Short-Range Anti-Armour Weapon
STA
Surveillance, Target Acquisition
Wng O
Warning Order
WO
Warrant Officer
Wpns. Det
Weapons Detachment
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 3
3. Aims
The following aims were investigated.
ƒ
Compare the effectiveness of the non-digital condition to the digital condition for
defensive siting tasks at night.
ƒ
Compare the time required to create range cards (at the level of the trench, Section,
and Platoon) between the non-digital and digital conditions.
ƒ
Evaluate the effectiveness of the defensive site.
ƒ
Identify any usability issues associated with the digital defensive siting software and
equipment.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 4
4. Method
4.1.
Overview
The following description provides a general overview of the trial method. Further details are
provided in subsequent sections.
A two-night field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia over the period of 15-16 May 2004.
Two Platoons, consisting of ten regular force infantry leaders from the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia
Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI), based in CFB Edmonton, participated in these investigations.
Each Pl comprised 5 leaders (Pl Commander, Weapons Detachment (Wpns. Det.) Commander, as
well as 1, 2, and 3 Section Commanders). From two vistas (site A & B) located within a valley to
the north of the McKenna airfield, the two Pl’s were required to site two defensive positions each
using non-digital and digital means.
Two different fixed locations (site A & B) were used to ensure that the learning effects of previous
locations were minimized. Reference Figure 2. As well the presentation of conditions was balanced
across both digital/non-digital conditions and locations to minimize any order effects.
B
A
Figure 2: Location of Defensive Sites (A & B)
Human factors (HF) tests included performance (i.e. timings) and workload measures as well as the
subjective utility and usability measures of the two defensive siting conditions. Data collection
included performance measures, workload ratings, questionnaires, HF observer assessments, SME
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 5
evaluations, and a focus group discussion. All testing protocols and experimental design were
approved by an ethics committee.
4.2.
Approach
All participants were first briefed on the goals, key features, and outline approach to the experiment
and participants were trained on the respective tools for each of the defensive siting conditions.
Prior to the commencement of each mission, the Company Commander (OC) was required to issue
Defensive Warning Orders (Wng O) and Defensive Orders (Reference Appendix A) to the Pl
Commander for the defensive siting task. For this experiment the Defensive Order outlined the
situation, mission, execution, service support, command and signals. Upon receipt of the Defensive
Order, the Pl Commander analyzed the assigned task and conducted a time appreciation and a
detailed map study to determine the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
what ranges he can acquire and engage the enemy;
how far and fast his soldiers and vehicles can move;
how far and fast the enemy can move;
what danger he may have from enemy direct and indirect or air attack;
what terrain features he might use to surprise the enemy;
when weather might effect his performance; and
what limitations might be imposed upon him by civilian and/or media
presence.
(reference: The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle: Volume 3, item 23-24, p. 3-2-15, 3-2-16, 32-17.)
The Pl Commander then filtered this information down to the Wpns. Det. and Section Commanders
and an outline plan was developed for the defensive site using the applicable digital/non-digital
condition.
Non-digital condition:
• Using the paper map provided, the Leaders sat down and roughly planned out
their sight lines, arcs, trenches, etc… in their given ‘goose egg’ or area of
defensive responsibility. As a general guideline, each of the 3 Sections and
Wpns. Det. and Pl HQ were instructed to divide the frontage as follows:
• Each of the 3 Sections will have 3 trenches
• The Wpns. Det. will have 1 trench
• The Pl HQ will have 1 trench (11 total)
Digital condition:
• A similar format to the non-digital condition was used, however in this scenario,
participants had the ability to plan out their ‘goose egg’ using digital map
software provided on a laptop computer.
The Leaders were then required to step-off on the ground where the Pl Commander was required to
carry out a reconnaissance (recce) to obtain information about the enemy and the ground taking the
following into account:
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 6
a.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Attack.
Location, identification, disposition and strength of enemy.
Known or suspected defensive fire (DF) tasks.
Location of obstacles.
Lines of advance and covered approaches to the objective.
Fire positions.
Point, position or approach where enemy is weakest, or the capture of
which could break the enemy’s will to resist.
Defence.
Fields of fire.
Good observation posts.
Concealment.
Concealed routes to other areas.
Locations where enemy may be deceived, forced to expose a flank or
become vulnerable to surprise by ambush or counter attack.
Following the recce, participants were required to site the defensive positions by adhering to the
following protocol:
•
•
•
•
•
Platoon Level. If not assigned by the OC, the Pl Commander sited each Section and
support weapon position, including his armoured personnel carriers (APC’s). If there
was time, he sited each trench and assigned its arcs of fire. The Pl Commander sited
the Pl weapons and verified the siting of the Sections’ weapons so that the arcs of fire
converge on his assigned portion of the killing zone in order to support the Company’s
mission and thereby respecting the Commander’s intent. He sited the trenches by
verifying the arcs of fire from ground level to ensure that the firer could see the target
area.
Section Level. The Section Commander carried out a detailed recce of his assigned
area. With his eye at ground level he too confirmed each weapon line of fire and
determined the exact location and orientation of his fire trenches. He coordinated with
flanking Sections and support weapons to ensure that all enemy approaches were
covered by observation and fire. Finally, he marked out his fire trenches on the ground
by using wooden stakes and mine tape to mark the forward edge of the trench (i.e. “slitlocking”).
Frontage. Frontages were determined by the often conflicting requirements of assigned
tasks, depth, mutual support, control and ground. As a general guideline a Section was
to have three trenches.
Field of Fire. Trenches were to be sited with good fields of fire, normally not less than
100 metres, and ideally a little beyond the maximum effective range of the weapon (300
m for the rifle, 600 m for the LMG). In very close country, 50 m had to suffice.
Control. Pl HQ was required to consist of at least two trenches, one for the Pl
Commander and his signaller, and one for the second in command (2IC) and a member
of the Wpns. Det. The Pl Commander’s position was to be sited so that he could see
and command his Sections effectively in battle. It was desirable that the Pl Commander
be able to see his entire position, the killing zone and the approaches to it. If this was
not possible, an alternate command position was necessary. Pl HQ had to also be
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 7
•
accessible, and had to be positioned to ensure good radio communications to Company
HQ.
Defensive Fire Tasks. The OC also had discretion to choose artillery, mortar and/or
machine gun defensive fire (DF) tasks within Pl areas of responsibility.
Following the siting of the defensive positions, participants were required to prepare individual
expedient range cards for the trenches for both the non-digital and digital conditions. The range
cards included the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Primary and secondary arcs of fire as assigned by the Section Commander;
• Including prominent reference points, a short description and the range to each. The
arcs of fire, range and distances to prominent reference points were established from
directly behind the forward edge of each trench from the centre of the two stakes.
Location of adjoining trenches to prevent positions from accidentally firing on one
another and to ensure all arcs of fire were interlocking;
All likely target locations within designated arcs were to be marked. This was done by:
1.
Estimating the distance to each object;
2.
Drawing a small circle around the target object in the corresponding place
on the range card; and
3.
Drawing a straight line from the object to your position; position from
which card was made. For example, front centre trench, 3 Section, 2
Platoon;
Method of obtaining range. Map, halving, judgement by eye, etc…
By whom the card was made out;
Indicated north. Marked in the grid north to allow Pl level range card orientation; and
Date. The exact date and time the card was prepared.
For the digital conditions the labelling of the range card was achieved by taking a screen capture and
annotating the image post hoc.
Following the completion of the individual range cards, the range cards were consolidated at the
level of the Section, and then consolidated for the Pl defensive range card. Reference Figure 3. For
both the non-digital and digital defensive siting conditions, the HF observer timed the duration to
create each range card at the level of the trench, Section, and Pl using a stopwatch. After each
defensive siting condition was complete, the participants were asked to fill out a NASA-TLX, and
Defensive Siting Task Questionnaire.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 8
Figure 3: Example of Digital Range Card
The following day, the SME (OC) was provided with a standardized evaluation form and required to
evaluate the location and effectiveness of the trenches and the overall Pl defensive site. Reference
Appendix B. At the completion of the experiment, participants were instructed to fill out a
Defensive Site Exit Questionnaire (Reference Appendix C), and a focus group was held to further
discuss various issues that were raised during the trial. Statistical differences were determined using
a balanced, repeated-measures analysis of variance for the performance data as well as the subjective
data. Furthermore, Duncan’s post-hoc analyses were conducted on significant performance and
subjective questionnaire data. Unless noted otherwise, the sample size for this experiment was
n=10 and differences were identified at p ≤ .05.
Due to the limited experimentation period, a time limit was enforced for this defensive sighting task.
Each of the two Pl were required to plan, recce, site, and complete Pl range cards for their
defensive position within a four hour window each night over the course of two nights. Participants
were also given 0.5 hour to fill out the NASA-TLX and Task Questionnaires.
Each Pl completed the defensive siting tasks at different locations for the two different digital/nondigital conditions, to minimize any terrain learning effects between conditions. The presentation of
conditions was also balanced between the two groups and each location was standardized for
difficulty. In addition, the order of the two Pl’s during the course of each night was maintained in
order to control for the ambient light conditions. Reference Table 1.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 9
Table 1: Presentation of Defensive Siting Conditions
Non-Digital Condition
7 Platoon (1st half of night)
8 Platoon (2nd half of night)
Night 1
Night 2
4.3.
Digital Condition
8 Platoon (2nd half of night)
7 Platoon (1st half of night)
Equipment
The following section lists and describes the non-digital and digitally enhanced capabilities for the
defensive siting task (i.e. in-service compass, night vision goggle (NVG), laser rangefinder, and
Trench View Range-fan software). Reference Table 2.
Table 2: Non-digital and Digitally Enhanced Capabilities for Defensive Siting Tasks
Mission Tasks
Non-Digital
Planning Paper map, in-service
compass, pencil
Digitally Enhanced
2D digital map, in-service
compass, Trench View
software displayed on laptop
Recce Paper map, in-service
compass, pencil,
*binocular
NVG, GPS-referenced 2D
digital map displayed on
laptop, laser rangefinder
binocular
Siting Paper map, in-service
compass, pencil,
*binocular, paper
range card
NVG, GPS-referenced 2D
digital map displayed on
laptop interfaced with laser
rangefinder binocular, Trench
View software
Trench Range Card Same as above
Same as above
Consolidation Same as above
Same as above
*nb: participants had the ability to use the in-service binocular for the defensive siting task, however it was not
used by any of the participants.
4.3.1
In-Service Compass
Suunto MC-2G Global Sighting Compass:
The in-service method of compass bearing
estimation was used in the non-digital condition. The MC-2G compass featured a large, accurate
mirror sight with a convenient sighting hole, plus a gimballed global needle, which levelled
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 10
horizontally for correct alignment in any latitude zone on Earth (most compasses are balance only
for a specific latitude zone). Reference Figure 4.
The compass weighed 65 g and had a liquid filled capsule that allowed for steady needle operation
from -40ºC to +60ºC, luminescent bezel for night time use, self-cleaning bezel mechanism enabled
smooth rotation, declination adjustment reduced the likelihood of error in correcting for declination,
and a clinometer that measured slope angles.
Figure 4: Suunto MC-2G Global Sighting Compass
4.3.2
NVG System
For the digital condition participants were provided with a monocular monochromatic AN/PVS-14
NVG. The AN/PVS-14 (Reference Figure 5) was a lightweight, high performance, passive, third
generation monocular image intensifier system. During this experiment, the AN/PVS-14 was used
as a hand held unit. The unit was a self-contained night vision system consisting of an objective lens
assembly, an image intensifier (I2) tube, a housing assembly, and a monocular eyepiece assembly.
Employing I2 tubes, these devices provided light amplification in a monochromatic spectrum. The
assembly also incorporated an infrared (IR) light source, which provided illumination, to permit
close-in viewing. Other features included automatic brightness control, bright source protection,
low battery indicator and high-resolution unity F1.2 lens.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 11
Figure 5: Monocular Monochromatic AN/PVS-14 NVG
The monocular AN/PVS-14 had the following specifications:
4.3.3
Magnification Power
1X
Intensifier Tube
Gen. III
System Gain
3000 fL/fL
Field of View
40 degrees
Depth of field
20 cm to infinity
Interocular Adjustment
-6D to +2D
Power Source
2 AA
Weight
680grams
Laser Rangefinder
The Leica Geosystems AG laser rangefinding binocular was used for the digital siting task during
this experiment. The Leica rangefinder provided a 120 m field of view at 1000 m and had an
effective distance capability up to 2500 m under ideal conditions. Reference Figure 6.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 12
Figure 6: Leica Laser Rangefinder Binocular
The Leica Geosystems laser rangefinder had the following specifications:
4.3.4
Magnification Power
7 X 42 binocular observation
Laser rangefinder
860 nm Class 1, eye safe laser EN
60825 (91) IEC 825 (90) ANSI Z
136.1 (93) FDA 21 CFR
Distance accuracy
±1m
Azimuth accuracy
±10mils (±0.6°)
Data Interface
RS232, uni-directional, ASCII
standard, 1200 baud
Weight
1.7 kg
Other
Waterproof (1m, 10 min)
Trench View Range-fan Software and Laptop
The Trench View Range-fan Software was created by Oerlikon Contraves. A handheld GPS unit
(Garmin eTrex) was used to acquire the soldier’s position in the defensive site which communicated
coordinate information to a 2-dimensional digital map displayed on a laptop (Panasonic Toughbook)
through a serial communication link. In conjunction, the laser rangefinder was used to acquire the
various entities (i.e. arcs of fire, targets, and obstacles in the field of view) in the defensive site to
create a digital range-fan on the laptop screen. Reference Figure 7.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 13
Figure 7: Trench View Digital Configuration
The Trench View software was configured to be used in three modes: a planning mode, a live action
mode, and an analysis mode. Reference Figure 8.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 14
Figure 8: Trench View Software
4.4.
Participants
Ten regular force infantry leaders were recruited from the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia Canadian
Light Infantry (3PPCLI) based in CFB Edmonton, to participate in these investigations. The ten
infantry Leaders were divided into two Platoons of five participants each (i.e. Pl commander, Wpns
Det./WO, & 1, 2, 3, Section Commanders). The mean age of the participants was 31.8 years
(s.d.=±4.5, max=35, min=23). The mean length of service in the regular forces was 11.1 years
(s.d.=±4.3, max=17 years, min=5). The group consisted of one Captain (10%), one Lieutenant
(10%), one Warrant Officer (10%), four Sergeants (40%), two Master Corporals (20%), and one
Corporal (10%). All ten participants had the necessary training and experience to carry out the
various aspects of this defensive siting task.
4.5.
Questionnaire Rating Scale
For the NASA-TLX questionnaire, participants rated overall mental workload using six dimensions
(Mental demands, Physical demands, Temporal demands, Performance, Effort and Frustration).
Each of the six dimensions were independently rated using an interval scale. Participants also rated
their acceptability on the Effectiveness for Visualizing Ground, Effectiveness for Identifying the
Ground that Dominates the Approaches, Effectiveness for Deducing Your Surveillance, Target
Acquisition and Night Observation Plan, Developing Range Card, Consolidating Information,
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 15
Overall Suitability of Systems, as well as the Evaluation of the Various Tools for the defensive siting
task using the following seven-point scale. Reference Figure 9.
Figure 9: Standard Rating Scale
4.6.
Limitations
This study had several limitations.
ƒ
The laser ‘splash’ emitted by the Leica laser rangefinder was only visible to the human eye
through the use of NVG’s. This ‘splash’ was only visible for a fraction of a second.
Therefore participants found it extremely difficult to detect and establish arcs of fire
especially at far distances.
ƒ
Only one Leica laser rangefinder was available to the Pl during the digital defensive siting
task. In conjunction with the limitation listed above, this further caused a bottleneck in
siting all of the trenches during this task.
ƒ
The stated protocol to defensively site trenches was by gauging the vantage from ground
level, however during this night trial the ground cover and the foliage frequently obscured
the laser rangefinder line of sight. Therefore participants were permitted to defensively site
trenches from a kneeling position for both the non-digital and digital conditions.
ƒ
Another limitation with the laser rangefinder was the penetrability of the laser through
foliage. Although participants were able to have a clear line of sight through ‘thin’ foliage,
the laser was not able to penetrate through this at times and a few of the digital range cards
could not be completed.
ƒ
In conjunction with the above limitation, participants were unable to manually input bearings
and distances into the Trench View software when it could not be automatically
accomplished with the digital system. Therefore these factors limited the comparison
between the non-digital and digital conditions.
ƒ
Possible minimum preparation timings as outlined in Infantry, Volume 3: The Infantry
Section and Platoon in Battle, document B-GL-309-003/FT-001, recommend the following:
a. Preparation of main position (to include overhead protection and surface
laying of protective minefields), 24 hours;
b. As above plus two ambush positions per section, 36 hours; and
c. As above plus several ambush positions per section, 48 hours.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 16
However, due to the limited experimentation period during FBES #7, each Pl was only
given a maximum of 4 hours per condition to complete the defensive siting task.
ƒ
Due to the limited time, participants were unable to be fully trained in all aspects of the
Trench View Range-fan software program. Therefore the HF observer updated the software
application and labeled reference points within the registered arcs of fire, and ranges in the
software program. This software was only a prototype version, however future software
should address usability aspects.
ƒ
The sample size of platoons was limited to only two. As such, statistical analysis of the
SME assessments of the defensive positions was not possible.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 17
5. Results
5.1.
Objective Performance Measures
Statistical analyses consisted of repeated measures ANOVA for the defensive siting conditions. The
dependent variable for the defensive siting task was the time to site and complete the range cards at
the level of the trench, as well as the time to consolidate the Section and Platoon range cards.
Duncan’s post-hoc analyses were conducted on significant overall performance measures for further
interrogation. Differences were identified at p ≤ .05 and n=10 for all conditions. As well in the
following graphs, a geometric shape denotes the objective means, the ‘box’ denotes ±1 standard
error, and the error bars denote ±1 standard deviation.
5.1.1
Defensive Siting and Range Card - Time
The time required for the participants to defensively site and complete range cards at the level of the
trench, as well as the consolidation of the Section and Platoon range cards were used as an indicator
of the time efficiency of the two conditions (non-digital and digital condition). For each participant
and each condition, the time was measured with a stopwatch.
5.1.1.1
1,2,3 Section, Wpns. Det., Pl HQ Trench
No significant effect was observed for the time to site 1, 2, 3 Section, Wpns. Det., and Pl HQ
trenches and to prepare range cards at the level of the trench for both non-digital and digital
conditions, F(1, 21)=.30, p=.59. Participants required similar amounts of time to complete this
task, where the mean durations were 475.3 ± 287.4 s and 423.2 ± 311.8 s for the non-digital and
digital conditions respectively.
5.1.1.2
1,2,3 Section Trench
In order to analyse the order effects of defensively siting the trenches at just the Section level, the
Wpns. Det. and Pl HQ trenches were not included for this particular analysis. Similar to the
previous findings no significant effect was observed for the time required to site the trenches and to
prepare range cards at the level of the trench for both conditions, F(1, 5)=.089, p=.78.
Participants required similar amounts of time to complete this task, where the mean durations were
407.5 ± 171.1 s and 444.1 ± 337.8 s for the non-digital and digital conditions respectively.
With respect to order effects, no significant effect was observed for the time it took to site each of
the three trenches. Although not significant in the overall ANOVA, F(2, 10)=3.50, p=.07,
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that a longer time was spent siting the first trench compared to
the third trench for both conditions (p<.04).
5.1.1.3
Range Card Consolidation
It took an average of 506.7 ± 49.3 s for 7Pl Section Leaders to consolidate the trench range cards at
the Section level for the non-digital condition, while it took 986.3 ± 70.2 s for 8Pl Section Leaders
to complete the same task (7Pl, 8Pl average = 746.5 ± 268.27 s). Conversely, since the Trench
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 18
View software automatically consolidated the range cards at the Section and Platoon levels, no
appreciable time was required in the digital condition. Reference Figure 10.
1800
Time to Consolidate Section Range Card (s)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
0
Non-digital
Digital
Figure 10: Time to Consolidate Section Range Card
Similarly 7Pl and 8Pl Leaders required 1082 s and 1617 s respectively (7Pl, 8Pl average= 1349.5
± 378.3 s) to consolidate the Section range cards at the Pl level using the non-digital condition, and
again there was no appreciable time required to consolidate the range card at the Pl level using the
digital condition. Reference Figure 11.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 19
1800
Time to Consolidate Platoon Range Card (s)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 11: Time to Consolidate Platoon Range Card
Therefore the participants required similar amounts of time to defensively site trenches and to create
range cards using the non-digital and digital conditions at the level of the trench, however the digital
condition did not require any effort or time to consolidate the range cards at the level of the Section
or Pl. During this specific trial, the digital condition saved the Pl on average 2096.0 s or 34.9
minutes.
5.2.
Subjective Performance Measures
Subjective performance measures consisted of a NASA-TLX Workload Questionnaire, Task
Questionnaire and Exit Questionnaire. Statistical analyses consisted of repeated measures ANOVA
between workload measures and conditions within the NASA-TLX Questionnaire and between
conditions within the Exit Questionnaire. Planned comparisons were performed investigating the
conditions on specific Exit Questionnaire parameters to determine the interaction effects for the
Planning, Developing Range Card, and Consolidating the range card at the level of the Section and
Platoon. Participants also evaluated the various tools with respect to their acceptability. Duncan’s
post-hoc analyses were conducted on significant overall performance measures for further
interrogation. Differences were identified at p ≤ .05.
Additionally, the Company Commander (OC) subjectively evaluated the four Pl defensive sites from
a tactical standpoint using a standardized rating sheet.
Unless otherwise noted on the following graphs, a geometric shape denotes the subjective means, the
‘box’ denotes ± 1 standard error, and the error bars denote ± 1 standard deviation.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 20
5.2.1
NASA-TLX Workload Measures
Participants rated their perception of workload during the defensive siting tasks using the six
dimensions (Mental Demands, Physical Demands, Temporal Demands, Performance, Effort and
Frustration) in the NASA-TLX Questionnaire. Workload ratings were completed for both the nondigital and digital conditions. Each of the rating scales for the six dimensions included bipolar
descriptors from “Low” on the left to “High” on the right. The combined weighted ratings were
used as the dependent measure of workload.
5.2.1.1
NASA-TLX Workload Rating
5.2.1.1.1
Overall NASA-TLX Workload Rating
No significant effect was observed for the combined weighted workload ratings for the six
dimensions between the two different conditions, F(1, 9)=1.88, p=.20. For both the non-digital
and digital defensive siting conditions the mean workload ratings were reported to be at moderate
levels (non-digital=46.87 ± 14.83%, digital=40.53 ± 14.30%).
5.2.1.1.1.1
NASA-TLX Ratings - Non-digital Condition
No significant effect was observed for the ratings for the six individual dimensions for the nondigital condition. Although not significant in the overall ANOVA, F(5, 45)=2.30, p=.06,
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that participants rated “Frustration” and “Performance” levels to
be significantly higher in magnitude than “Physical Demand” levels for the non-digital condition
(p<.02 for both variables). Reference Figure 12. There were no other significant effects.
Magnitude of Load
High
Moderate
Low
Mental
Temporal
Ef f ort
Phy sical
Perf ormance Frustration
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Dimension
Figure 12: Individual NASA-TLX Ratings – Non-digital Condition
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 21
5.2.1.1.1.2
NASA-TLX Ratings - Digital Condition
A significant effect was observed for the ratings for the six individual dimensions for the digital
condition, F(5, 45)=2.69, p=.03. Reference Figure 13. Similar to the non-digital condition,
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that participants rated “Frustration” and “Performance” levels to
be significantly higher in magnitude than “Physical Demand” levels for the digital condition
(p=.003 and p=.04 for “Frustration” and “Performance” variables respectively). During the
experiment and focus group, all of the participants were in agreement that the digital condition was
very efficient in the consolidation of the range card at the level of the Section and Pl. However
participants found the digital condition to be very frustrating to use at the level of the trench. One
of the main concerns was due to the laser “splash” from the rangefinder which made it difficult to
detect with the PVS-14. There were no other significant effects.
Magnitude of Load
High
Moderate
Low
Mental
Temporal
Ef f ort
Phy sical
Perf ormance Frustration
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Dimension
Figure 13: Individual NASA-TLX Ratings – Digital Condition
5.2.2
Exit Questionnaire
Participants rated the acceptability of the two conditions (non-digital and digital) for planning,
developing the range card, and consolidating the range card at the level of the Section and Pl. The
ratings for each of the specific tasks were evaluated by the ‘Effectiveness for Visualizing Ground
(General),’ ‘Effectiveness for Visualizing the Ground (Left/Centre/Right),’ ‘Effectiveness for
Identifying the Ground that Dominates the Approaches,’ ‘Effectiveness for Deducing Your
Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Night Observation Plan,’ ‘Developing Range Card,’
‘Consolidating Information (Combining more than One Range Card),’ and ‘Overall Suitability of
Systems.’ Additionally, participants rated the ‘Evaluation of Various Tools,’ for the software, GPS
system, compass, PVS-14 NVG, and Leica laser rangefinder. The scaled ratings (1 to 7) were
tabulated, and means computed for the above conditions.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 22
5.2.2.1
Planning: Effectiveness for Visualizing Ground (General)
Participants rated the Effectiveness for Visualizing Ground (General) across both non-digital and
digital conditions with the statements, ‘Effectiveness for visualizing vital ground,’ ‘Effectiveness for
identifying main approaches (dead ground),’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying killing zones,’ and
‘Effectiveness for identifying natural and civilian obstacles to improve defence/kill zones.’
5.2.2.1.1
Effectiveness for Visualizing Vital Ground
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for visualizing vital ground, F(1, 9)=25.14, p<.001. Reference Figure 14.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was greater than “Borderline” but less than “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital
condition was rated less than “Borderline”. These findings were also found from SME evaluations,
and focus group comments.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-Digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 14: Effectiveness for Visualizing Vital Ground
5.2.2.1.2
Effectiveness for Identifying Main Approaches (Dead Ground)
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying main approaches (dead ground), F(1, 9)=3.13, p=.11. The
participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and
“Barely Acceptable”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 23
5.2.2.1.3
Effectiveness for Identifying Killing Zones
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying killing zones, F(1, 9)=1.36, p=.27. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”.
5.2.2.1.4
Effectiveness for Identifying Natural and Civilian Obstacles
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying natural and civilian obstacles to improve defence/kill zones, F(1,
9)=21.00, p=.001. Reference Figure 15. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital
condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. The
participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was greater than “Borderline” but less
than “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 15: Effectiveness for Identifying Natural and Civilian Obstacles
5.2.2.2
Planning: Effectiveness for Visualizing the Ground (Left/Centre/Right)
Participants rated the Effectiveness for Visualizing Ground (Left/Centre/Right) across both nondigital and digital conditions with the statements, ‘Effectiveness for identifying likely enemy
approaches (cover and concealment),’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying likely enemy assembly areas,
attack positions, line of departure, etc.,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying possible future targets,’
‘Effectiveness for determining distances,’ ‘Effectiveness for determining dead ground,’ and
‘Effectiveness for estimating ease of movement (can enemy traverse at speed).’
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 24
As well the participants rated the overall acceptability for the ‘Overall Effectiveness for Terrain
Visualization’ across both conditions.
5.2.2.2.1
Effectiveness for Identifying Likely Enemy Approaches
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying likely enemy approaches (cover and concealment), F(1, 9)=10.29, p=.01.
Reference Figure 16. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated
significantly higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean
acceptability rating of the digital condition was greater than “Borderline” but less than “Barely
Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 16: Effectiveness for Identifying Likely Enemy Approaches
5.2.2.2.2
Effectiveness for Identifying Likely Enemy Assembly Areas
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying likely enemy assembly areas, attack positions, line of departure, etc., F(1, 9)=6.67,
p=.03. Reference Figure 17. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was
rated significantly higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean
acceptability rating of the digital condition was greater than “Borderline” but less than “Barely
Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 25
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 17: Effectiveness for Identifying Likely Enemy Assembly Areas
5.2.2.2.3
Effectiveness for Identifying Possible Future Targets
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying possible future targets, F(1, 9)=5.62, p=.04. Reference Figure 18. Duncan’s posthoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the
non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was greater
than “Borderline” but less than “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 26
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 18: Effectiveness for Identifying Possible Future Targets
5.2.2.2.4
Effectiveness for Determining Distances
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for determining distances, F(1, 9)=14.37, p=.004. Reference Figure 19. Duncan’s post-hoc
analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the nondigital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was between
“Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less
than “Borderline”. Participants commented that although the “splash” from the laser rangefinder
was difficult to detect at night, once the “splash” was seen the determining of distances was very
quick and accurate.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 27
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 19: Effectiveness for Determining Distances
5.2.2.2.5
Effectiveness for Determining Dead Ground
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for determining dead ground, F(1, 9)=25.14, p<.001. Reference Figure 20.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition
was rated less than “Borderline”. Participants commented that the NVG was especially useful in
being able to clearly visualize the dead ground at night.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 28
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 20: Effectiveness for Determining Dead Ground
5.2.2.2.6
Effectiveness for Estimating Ease of Movement
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for estimating ease of movement (can the enemy traverse at speed), F(1, 9)=10.76,
p<.001. Reference Figure 21. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was
rated significantly higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. However, the participants’
mean acceptability rating of both conditions was fairly low where the digital condition was between
“Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than
“Barely Unacceptable”. Participants commented that neither of the conditions allowed for an
effective means to gauge the traversing speed of the enemy.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 29
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 21: Effectiveness for Estimating Ease of Movement
5.2.2.2.7
Overall Effectiveness for Terrain Visualization
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the overall
effectiveness for terrain visualization, F(1, 9)=15.78, p=.003. Reference Figure 22. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 30
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 22: Overall Effectiveness for Terrain Visualization
5.2.2.3
Planning: Effectiveness for Identifying the Ground that Dominates the
Approaches
Participants rated the Effectiveness for Identifying the Ground that Dominates the Approaches across
both non-digital and digital conditions with the statements, ‘Effectiveness for identifying key
terrain,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying fields of fire, arcs of fire,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying
trench positions,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying Section positions,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying
potential HQ positions,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying indirect fire targets,’ ‘Effective use of terrain
for identifying likely ambush positions,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying location of reserve,’
‘Effectiveness for identifying counter attack tasks/routes,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying deployment
and withdrawal routes,’ ‘Effectiveness for deducing your fire plan,’ ‘Effectiveness for deducing
your barrier plan,’ and ‘Effectiveness for deducing your anti-armour plan.’
5.2.2.3.1
Effectiveness for Identifying Key Terrain
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying key terrain, F(1, 9)=6.43, p=.03. Reference Figure 23. Duncan’s post-hoc
analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the nondigital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was between
“Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”. During the focus group participants commented
that the PVS-14 NVG allowed them to effectively see into the night and clearly identify the terrain.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 31
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 23: Effectiveness for Identifying Key Terrain
5.2.2.3.2
Effectiveness for Identifying Fields of Fire, Arcs of Fire
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying fields of fire, arcs of fire, F(1, 9)=9.45, p=.01. Reference Figure 24. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Participants commented that using the NVG and the laser rangefinder allowed them to easily see and
define their fields and arcs of fire.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 32
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 24: Effectiveness for Identifying Fields of Fire, Arcs of Fire
5.2.2.3.3
Effectiveness for Identifying Trench Positions
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying trench positions, F(1, 9)=37.10, p<.001. Reference Figure 25.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition
was rated “Barely Unacceptable”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 33
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 25: Effectiveness for Identifying Trench Positions
5.2.2.3.4
Effectiveness for Identifying Section Positions
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying Section positions, F(1, 9)=15.78, p=.003. Reference Figure 26. Duncan’s posthoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the
non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less
than “Borderline”. Participants commented that Section positions were easier to define and
visualize with the GPS-referenced digital map and Trench View software.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 34
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 26: Effectiveness for Identifying Section Positions
5.2.2.3.5
Effectiveness for Identifying Potential HQ Positions
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying potential HQ positions, F(1, 9)=11.25, p=.008. Reference Figure 27. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
less than “Borderline”. Similar to the Section positions, participants commented that HQ positions
were easier to define and visualize with the GPS-referenced digital map and Trench View software.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 35
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 27: Effectiveness for Identifying Potential HQ Positions
5.2.2.3.6
Effectiveness for Identifying Indirect Fire Targets
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying indirect fire targets, F(1, 9)=11.64, p=.008. Reference Figure 28. Duncan’s posthoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the
non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less
than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 36
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 28: Effectiveness for Identifying Indirect Fire Targets
5.2.2.3.7
Effective use of Terrain for Identifying Likely Ambush Positions
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effective use
of terrain for identifying likely ambush positions, F(1, 9)=5.35, p=.05. Reference Figure 29.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition
was rated less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 37
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 29: Effective use of Terrain for Identifying Likely Ambush Positions
5.2.2.3.8
Effectiveness for Identifying Location of Reserve
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying location of reserve, F(1, 9)=2.86, p=.13. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Barely
Acceptable”.
5.2.2.3.9
Effectiveness for Identifying Counter Attack Tasks/Routes
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying counter attack tasks/routes, F(1, 9)=7.76, p=.02. Reference Figure 30. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 38
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 30: Effectiveness for Identifying Counter Attack Tasks/Routes
5.2.2.3.10
Effectiveness for Identifying Deployment and Withdrawal Routes
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying deployment and withdrawal routes, F(1, 9)=6.53, p=.03. Reference Figure 31.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition
was rated less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 39
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 31: Effectiveness for Identifying Deployment and Withdrawal Routes
5.2.2.3.11
Effectiveness for Deducing Your Fire Plan
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for deducing your fire plan, F(1, 9)=2.27, p=.17. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Barely
Acceptable”.
5.2.2.3.12
Effectiveness for Deducing Your Barrier Plan
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for deducing your barrier plan. The participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both
conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Barely Acceptable”.
5.2.2.3.13
Effectiveness for Deducing Your Anti-armour Plan
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for deducing your anti-armour plan, F(1, 9)=6.53, p=.03. Reference Figure 32. Duncan’s posthoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the
non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less
than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 40
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 32: Effectiveness for Deducing Your Anti-armour Plan
5.2.2.4
Planning: Effectiveness for Deducing Your Surveillance, Target
Acquisition and Night Observation Plan
Participants rated the Effectiveness for Deducing Your Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Night
Observation Plan across both non-digital and digital conditions with the statements, ‘Effectiveness
for identifying patrol routes/track plan,’ ‘Effectiveness for identifying OP/LP positions,’
‘Effectiveness for identifying early warning device positions,’ and the ‘Overall effectiveness of the
STA plan.’
As well the participants rated the overall acceptability for the ‘Overall Effectiveness of Planning
Tools’ across both conditions.
5.2.2.4.1
Effectiveness for Identifying Patrol Routes/Track Plan
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying patrol routes/track plan, F(1, 9)=1.36, p=.27. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were equal to or greater than “Borderline” but less than
“Barely Acceptable”.
5.2.2.4.2
Effectiveness for Identifying OP/LP Positions
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
effectiveness for identifying OP/LP Positions, F(1, 9)=1.22, p=.30. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Barely
Acceptable”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 41
5.2.2.4.3
Effectiveness for Identifying Early Warning Device Positions
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the effectiveness
for identifying early warning device positions, F(1, 9)=8.19, p=.02. Reference Figure 33.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition
was rated less than “Borderline”.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 33: Effectiveness for Identifying Early Warning Device Positions
5.2.2.4.4
Overall Effectiveness of the STA Plan
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the overall
effectiveness of the STA plan, F(1, 9)=4.97, p<.06. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of
the digital condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital
condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
5.2.2.4.5
Overall Effectiveness of Planning Tools
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the overall
effectiveness planning tools, F(1, 9)=6.00, p<.04. Reference Figure 34. Duncan’s post-hoc
analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the nondigital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was between
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated “Borderline”.
During the trial, participants commented that the NVG and the GPS-referenced digital map aided
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 42
them in their planning process and allowed them to have better situational awareness of the
defensive ground.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 34: Overall Effectiveness of Planning Tools
5.2.2.5
Trench: Developing Range Card
Participants rated the task of Developing the Range Card across both non-digital and digital
conditions with the statements, ‘Ease of determining own position,’ ‘Accuracy of determining own
position,’ ‘Ease of determining primary arcs of fire,’ ‘Accuracy of determining primary arcs of fire
on range card (arc bearing),’ ‘Accuracy of determining coverage of arcs (dead zones) on range
card,’ ‘Ease of determining location of prominent features,’ ‘Accuracy of determining the bearing to
reference points on range card,’ ‘Accuracy of determining the distance to reference points on range
card,’ ‘Ease of determining the location of OP/LP,’ ‘Accuracy of determining the location of OP/LP
on range card (bearing/distance),’ ‘Ease of determining location of obstacles/barriers,’ ‘Ease of
determining ‘North’ on range card,’ and ‘Accuracy of determining ‘North’ on range card”.
As well the participants rated the acceptability of the ‘Overall Suitability of Paper/Digital Range
Card’ across both conditions.
5.2.2.5.1
Ease of Determining Own Position
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease
of determining own position, F(1, 9)=39.56, p=.000. Reference Figure 35. Duncan’s post-hoc
analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the nondigital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was between
“Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was
rated less than “Borderline”. Similar to findings from past experiments, participants felt that the use
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 43
of the GPS-referenced digital map required less workload and was easier to determine their position
than compared to the paper map and compass method.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 35: Ease of Determining Own Position
5.2.2.5.2
Accuracy of Determining Own Position
A highly significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
accuracy of determining own position, F(1, 9)=37.81, p<.001. Reference Figure 36. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital
condition was rated less than “Borderline”. Similar to findings from past experiments, participants
felt that the use of the GPS-referenced digital map was more efficient to determine their position
than compared to the paper map and compass method.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 44
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 36: Accuracy of Determining Own Position
5.2.2.5.3
Ease of Determining Primary Arcs of Fire
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
determining primary arcs of fire, F(1, 9)=.76, p=.41. The participants’ mean acceptability ratings
of both conditions were between “Borderline” and “Reasonably Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.4
Accuracy of Determining Primary Arcs of Fire on Range Card
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining primary arcs of fire on range card (arc bearing), F(1, 9)=.55, p=.48. The
participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were equal to and greater than “Barely
Acceptable” but less than “Reasonably Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.5
Accuracy of Determining Coverage of Arcs on Range Card
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining coverage of arcs (dead zones) on range card, F(1, 9)=.38, p=.55. The participants’
mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.6
Ease of Determining Location of Prominent Features
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
determining location of prominent features, F(1, 9)=4.76, p<.06. The participants’ mean
acceptability rating of the digital condition was “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital
condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 45
5.2.2.5.7
Accuracy of Determining the Bearing to Reference Points on Range Card
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining the bearing to reference points on range card, F(1, 9)=1.22, p=.30. The participants’
mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Borderline” and “Reasonably
Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.8
Accuracy of Determining the Distance to Reference Points on Range Card
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining the distance to reference points on range card, F(1, 9)=12.36, p<.01. Reference
Figure 37. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly
higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of
the digital condition was between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas the
non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”. Participants commented that although the
“splash” from the laser rangefinder was difficult to detect at night, once the “splash” was seen the
determining of distances was very quick and accurate.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 37: Accuracy of Determining the Distance to Reference Points on Range Card
5.2.2.5.9
Ease of Determining the Location of OP/LP
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
determining the location of OP/LP, F(1, 9)=2.61, p=.14. The participants’ mean acceptability
ratings of both conditions were between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Barely Acceptable”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 46
5.2.2.5.10
Accuracy of Determining the Location of OP/LP on Range Card
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining the location of OP/LP on range card (bearing/distance), F(1, 9)=7.23, p=.02.
Reference Figure 38. Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated
significantly higher in acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean
acceptability rating of the digital condition was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,”
whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 38: Accuracy of Determining the Location of OP/LP on Range Card
5.2.2.5.11
Ease of Determining Location of Obstacles/Barriers
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
determining location of obstacles/barriers, F(1, 9)=8.19, p=.02. Reference Figure 39. Duncan’s
post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability
than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition
was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated
less than “Borderline”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 47
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 39: Ease of Determining Location of Obstacles/Barriers
5.2.2.5.12
Ease of Determining ‘North’ on Range Card
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
determining ‘north’ on range card, F(1, 9)=.38, p=.55. The participants’ mean acceptability
ratings of both conditions were very high, between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely
Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.13
Accuracy of Determining ‘North’ on Range Card
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the accuracy of
determining ‘north’ on range card, F(1, 9)=.12, p=.73. The participants’ mean acceptability
ratings of both conditions were very high, between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely
Acceptable”.
5.2.2.5.14
Overall Suitability of Paper/Digital Range Card
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the overall
suitability of paper/digital range card, F(1, 9)=8.19, p=.02. Reference Figure 40. Duncan’s posthoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in acceptability than the
non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was
between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was
rated between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 48
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 40: Overall Suitability of Paper/Digital Range Card
At the level of the trench, the subjective data from the Exit Questionnaire showed that participants
generally found the digital condition to be more acceptable for determining their position (i.e. using
GPS-referenced digital map), as well as determining the distance to reference points (i.e. using the
laser rangefinder).
5.2.2.6
Consolidate: Consolidating Information
Participants rated the task of Consolidating Information (Combining more than one range card)
across both non-digital and digital conditions with the statements, ‘Ease of consolidating at the level
of the Section/Platoon,’ ‘Time required to consolidate at the level of the Section/Platoon,’
‘Perceived accuracy at the level of the Section/Platoon,’ ‘Convergence of arcs of fire to maximize
kill zones at the level of the Section/Platoon,’ ‘Consolidated sketch comprehension – ease of use by
others (Section/Platoon),’ and ‘Ease of accomplishing consolidation task.’
As well the participants rated the acceptability of the ‘Overall Suitability of Systems’ between both
conditions.
5.2.2.6.1
Ease of Consolidating at the Level of the Section/Platoon
A significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
consolidating at the level of the Section/Platoon, F(1, 9)=13.50, p=.005. Reference Figure 41.
Duncan’s post-hoc analysis showed that the digital condition was rated significantly higher in
acceptability than the non-digital condition. The participants’ mean acceptability rating of the digital
condition was between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital
condition was rated between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”. Participants felt that the
consolidation of the range card at the level of the Section and Platoon were easier with the Trench
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 49
View software. This finding was further supported by comments made during the focus group
discussion.
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
Non-digital
Digital
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Condition
Figure 41: Ease of Consolidating at the Level of the Section/Platoon
5.2.2.6.2
Time Required to Consolidate at the Level of the Section/Platoon
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the time
required to consolidate at the level of the Section/Platoon, F(1, 9)=3.97, p<.08. The participants’
mean acceptability rating of the digital condition was between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably
Acceptable,” whereas the non-digital condition was rated less than “Borderline”. Although during
focus group discussions, participants tended to find the actual consolidation of the range card with
the digital condition to be quicker and therefore more acceptable than the non-digital condition,
participants felt that the time required to wait for the one Leica laser rangefinder which was
available to the Pl during this digital defensive siting task caused a bottleneck. Participants felt that
this waiting time was a major limitation and therefore it was recommended that future studies
increase the number of digital systems available to the Pl: one per Section, and one for HQ.
5.2.2.6.3
Perceived Accuracy at the Level of the Section/Platoon
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the perceived
accuracy at the level of the Section/Platoon, F(1, 9)=1.95, p=.20. The participants’ mean
acceptability ratings of both conditions were between “Borderline” and “Reasonably Acceptable”.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 50
5.2.2.6.4
Convergence of Arcs of Fire at the Level of the Section/Platoon
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the
convergence of arcs of fire to maximize kill zones at the level of the Section/Platoon, F(1, 9)=1.38,
p=.27. The participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were equal to or greater than
“Barely Acceptable” but less than “Reasonably Acceptable”.
5.2.2.6.5
Consolidated Sketch Comprehension – Ease of Use by Others
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the consolidated
sketch comprehension – ease of use by others (Section/Platoon), F(1, 9)=2.25, p=.17. The
participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both conditions were equal to or greater than “Barely
Acceptable” but less than “Reasonably Acceptable”.
5.2.2.6.6
Ease of Accomplishing Consolidation Task
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the ease of
accomplishing consolidation task, F(1, 9)=3.58, p=.09. The participants’ mean acceptability rating
of the digital condition was between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable,” whereas
the non-digital condition was rated between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable”. Although there
were many limitations with the current digital condition, participants commented that they tended to
find the consolidation of the range card with the digital condition to be slightly easier than with the
non-digital condition.
5.2.2.6.7
Overall Suitability of Systems
No significant effect was observed between the non-digital and digital conditions for the overall
suitability of systems, F(1, 9)=2.93, p=.12. The participants’ mean acceptability ratings of both
conditions were between “Borderline” and “Reasonably Acceptable”.
Although participants felt that the consolidation of the range card was easier and tended to be faster
using the digital condition, overall the suitability of both the non-digital and digital systems were
similar. All participants felt that the increased situational awareness provided by the NVG and GPSreferenced digital map were indispensable, however, participants also felt that improvements could
be made to the laser rangefinder interfaced to the Trench View software. Using the current digital
system configuration, participants questioned the time, tactical feasibility, and ease of use of the
Trench View software. Aside from the moderate computer proficiency required to use this
software, participants experienced difficulty in lasing arcs of fire, obstacles, and targets, etc., with
the current laser rangefinder at night.
5.2.2.7
Evaluation of Various Tools
Participants evaluated the acceptability of the Trench View Software, GPS System, In-service
Compass, PVS-14 NVG, and Leica Laser Rangefinder with the statements, ‘Time required to
operate,’ ‘Accuracy,’ ‘Tactical feasibility,’ and ‘Ease of Use.’
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 51
5.2.2.7.1
Time Required to Operate
When looking at the acceptability ratings for the time required to operate the various tools,
participants rated the GPS, in-service compass, PVS-14 and laser rangefinder to be moderately high
(greater than “Barely Acceptable”), however the Trench View software was rated less than
“Borderline”. Reference Figure 42.
Completely Acceptable
Acceptability
Reasonably Acceptable
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Laser Rangefinder
PVS-14
In Service Compass
GPS
DSite Software
Completely Unacceptable
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Tools
Figure 42: Time Required to Operate Various Tools
5.2.2.7.2
Accuracy
When looking at the acceptability ratings for the accuracy of the various tools, participants rated all
items to be moderately high (greater than “Barely Acceptable”). Reference Figure 43.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 52
Completely Acceptable
Acceptability
Reasonably Acceptable
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Laser Rangefinder
PVS-14
In Service Compass
GPS
DSite Software
Completely Unacceptable
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Tools
Figure 43: Accuracy of Various Tools
5.2.2.7.3
Tactical Feasibility
When looking at the acceptability ratings for the tactical feasibility of the various tools, participants
rated the GPS, in-service compass, PVS-14 and laser rangefinder to be moderately high (greater
than “Barely Acceptable”), however the Trench View software was rated between “Borderline” and
“Barely Acceptable”. Reference Figure 44.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 53
Completely Acceptable
Acceptability
Reasonably Acceptable
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Laser Rangefinder
PVS-14
In Service Compass
GPS
DSite Software
Completely Unacceptable
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Tools
Figure 44: Tactical Feasibility of Various Tools
5.2.2.7.4
Ease of Use
When looking at the acceptability ratings for the ease of use of the various tools, participants rated
the GPS, in-service compass, PVS-14 and laser rangefinder to be very high (equal to or greater than
“Reasonably Acceptable”), however the Trench View software was rated between “Borderline” and
“Barely Acceptable”. Reference Figure 45.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 54
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Laser Rangefinder
PVS-14
In Service Compass
GPS
DSite Software
Completely Unacceptable
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Tools
Figure 45: Ease of Use of Various Tools
5.2.3
Company Commander Defensive Site Evaluation
The Company Commander (OC) subjectively evaluated the acceptability of the four defensive sites
from a tactical standpoint using a standardized rating sheet (Reference Appendix C). The evaluation
for each of the defensive sites was evaluated by dividing the task into two principal components,
‘Fundamentals,’ and ‘Siting Task.’ Each of these components were further rated on eleven items for
the ‘Fundamentals’ component, and eighteen items for the ‘Siting Task’ component. Additionally,
the OC commented on the overall Pl defensive site. The acceptability ratings were tabulated based
on a dichotomous scale of ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘n/a’ if the condition did not apply. Reference Table 3.
Table 3: Company Commander Defensive Site Evaluation
Non Digital
Platoon
Fundamentals
Siting Task
N/A
Acceptable ‘Yes’
Acceptable ‘No’
7 Pl
2
13
1
8 Pl
2
14
0
7 Pl
7
9
8
8 Pl
10
14
1
7 Pl
3
13
0
8 Pl
3
11
2
7 Pl
8
16
1
8 Pl
8
13
4
Digital
Fundamentals
Siting Task
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 55
5.2.3.1
Non-digital Condition
Fundamentals:
For the non-digital condition the OC noted that in both Pl’s the “Leadership (were) restricted in their
task of laying out a defensive position.” The inability to thoroughly walk the ground in the
moonless night prior to siting the position was clearly a disadvantage for one Pl Commander because
he was unable to “gain a feel of the position and visualize the Company position layout and kill
zone. Because of this oversight, (the) layout position took a lot longer (and) he had to re-adjust his
layout several times.”
Siting:
With respect to the siting task both Pl defensive sites were noted to be weak in position, lacked
depth, were located too tightly together, and some trenches were poorly sited. The OC speculated
that this was a function of siting the position in the dark where the Leaders tended not to be bold,
and trenches were located closer to each other for security reasons. Despite several weak areas the
task was achieved with one Pl, but it was noted that the site would have to have significant
adjustments made in order to increase the survivability of his Pl defensive plan. In terms of the
range cards, the OC commented that both Pl cards were very “thin,” as they lacked reference
points, labelling of approaches and dead ground, and had weak machine gun fixed lines and arcs of
fire. One Pl was also lacking LP’s, OP’s, early warning devices in the arc of responsibility, routes
to OP’s, sentry posts, Pl, Coy HQ’s and administration areas due to constraints in time.
5.2.3.2
Digital Condition
Fundamentals:
For the digital condition the OC commented that the NVG was especially useful in being able to
clearly visualize the ground and better situate the Pl position. This enabled especially one Pl to
successfully “tie weapons to the kill zone taskings,” and allowed for trenches to be better sited
(approximately 75% of the trenches were sited well). However, both Pl Commanders still tended to
site their trenches too tightly together and therefore the defensive site was noted as lacking depth.
Siting:
Although some trenches were poorly sited and too closely located (i.e. two trenches had their arcs of
fire overtop of one another), overall the OC commented that the use of the digital conditions (NVG,
GPS-referenced map, laser rangefinder) were an excellent aid in “achieving the best use of ground”
in laying out the Pl defensive positions. One of the main limitations observed with the digital
condition was the lack of detail in the range card. Using the current digital software (Trench View
software), the inability to draw and label reference points, approaches and dead ground, machine
gun arcs of fire and lines, SRAAW arcs of fire, establishing sentries, standing patrols and/or OP’s,
location of OP’s and early warning devices in the arc of responsibility, etc., were a noticeable
disadvantage.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 56
6. Discussion
“An ideally sited position does not fire directly to the front, but engages the enemy in front
of the adjacent Platoon, while at the same time receiving mutual support from a
neighbouring position. Once a position is under direct assault, Commanders must be
prepared to switch to secondary arcs, as required, to engage the enemy in the final
rush…”
The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle: Volume 3, item 8, 7-5-2
It is a challenge to ideally site a Pl defensive position during the day, but this task is confounded
when it is accomplished in the darkness of a moonless night. Therefore this recent trial investigated
available technologies to address and enhance aspects specific to planning and siting a Pl defensive
position in the woods, within the context of a larger integrated Company defensive plan at night.
Findings from this experiment demonstrated that the main benefits to using the digital condition, as
compared to the non-digital condition were in the overall planning and siting of the Pl defensive
position, as well as in the consolidation of the range cards at the Section and Pl levels. The
evaluation of the defensive site conducted by the OC indicated that the use of the PVS-14 NVG and
the GPS-referenced digital map were especially advantageous in establishing the Pl defensive sites.
The OC commented that the NVG allowed the Pl Commanders, and Section Leaders to clearly
visualize the ground and the digital map enabled them to better situate the Pl defensive position.
Weapon ranges were better tied to kill zone taskings, and trenches were generally better sited, as
compared to the non-digital condition. This finding was also reinforced from Exit Questionnaire
results and focus group discussions, where participants reported that the increased situational
awareness provided by the NVG and GPS-referenced digital map were indispensable. Participants
were more accepting of the digital condition in terms of visualizing vital ground and identifying
natural and civilian obstacles, likely enemy approaches, likely enemy assembly areas, and able to
identify the ground that dominated the various approaches. Generally participants also rated the
ability to determine distances with the laser rangefinder to be more acceptable than in the non-digital
condition.
With respect to the range cards, findings from the objective data showed that although there was no
significant difference in time in the creation of the trench range cards, there was a significant
difference in terms of the speed in which range cards were consolidated at the level of the Section
and the Pl. The consolidation phase of the digital range cards was instantaneous with the completion
of the trench range cards; therefore no additional effort or time was required for this task. During
this specific trial, the digital condition was observed to have saved the Pl an average of 34.9 minutes
which conceivably could have been used to further improve the defensive position or allotted for
other important taskings. This finding was also reinforced through focus group comments.
Participants felt that the consolidation of the range cards was easier and tended to be faster using the
digital condition; however the overall suitability of both the non-digital and digital systems were
similar.
Using the current configuration, participants questioned the time, tactical feasibility, and ease of use
of the digital systems, specifically regarding the laser rangefinder and Trench View software. The
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 57
difficulty in seeing the laser ‘splash’ from the laser rangefinder was reported to be frustrating when
lasing arcs of fire, obstacles, and targets, while the required moderate computer proficiency and
challenge in labelling key points in the Trench View software reflected negatively on the defensive
siting task. The difficulty in labelling was also a severe limitation to the digital range cards raised
by the OC. Consequently, several other concerns were raised about the digital condition. Aside
from the time in creating the trench range cards, technological aspects such as power supply and
use, and the possibility in the failure of GPS signals, participants were also concerned with the
detectability by the enemy. While lasing non-vehicle targets with the laser rangefinder is practical,
most vehicles now have laser detection capabilities which would detect the signals emitted by the
laser rangefinder. Participants commented that many of these limitations to the digital condition in
this experiment constrained their ratings of acceptability to only moderate levels.
Although the concept of siting a Pl defensive position at night using digital technology was preferred
over the non-digital condition, participants noted that several improvements could be made to the
laser rangefinder and software configuration to enhance their effectiveness. It was recommended
that future studies utilize a night vision capable laser rangefinder system, and that this system be
distributed one per Section, and one for HQ. Other improvements to the software would be to allow
for various overlays/traces (i.e. for a weapons plan, stay plan), to integrate a panoramic picture and
“fly through” capability from all viewpoints (i.e. from the trench looking out, and also from the
point of the enemy looking in), ability to turn on and off range-fan fills, and the ability to manually
input and measure bearings and distances in the software. This latter feature would address the
penetrability limitations of the laser rangefinder and would allow for participants to manually input
bearings and distances where it could not be automatically accomplished with the system.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 58
7. Conclusion
Results from this experiment showed that siting a Platoon (Pl) defensive position at night using
digital conditions were advantageous in the overall planning and siting of the Pl defensive site, as
well as in the consolidation of the range cards at the Section and Pl levels. Evaluation of the
defensive positions conducted by the OC showed that the digital map allowed for a better situate of
the Pl defensive position and weapon ranges were better tied to kill zone taskings in one Pl, and
overall trenches were better sited compared to the non-digital condition. Additionally, during the
consolidation phase of the range cards, the digital condition was observed to have saved the Pl an
average of 34.9 minutes.
However using the current configuration, participants questioned the time, tactical feasibility, and
ease of use of the digital systems, specifically regarding the laser rangefinder and Trench View
software. The challenge in labelling key points in the Trench View software was also a severe
limitation to the digital range cards. Although the concept of siting a Pl defensive position at night
using digital technology was preferred over the non-digital condition, participants noted that several
improvements and usability changes would be required to the laser rangefinder and software
configuration.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 59
8. References
1.
The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle: Volume 3. National Defence. B-GL-309003/FT-001
2.
Soldiers Day (1999): interactive CD. DRDC-Toronto.
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page 60
ANNEX A:
Defensive Orders (Issued by OC)
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page A-1
DEFENSIVE ORDER
(GPS Coordinates: Gr 0651 8429 (Centre of SOUTH position))
SITUATION
Enemy: En Sect and Pl size elements are expected to move SOUTH and SOUTH-WEST
once they cross the BENNING HILLS. They are expected to conduct the close country
movement primarily dismounted however; they have 1-3 WEASSILES vehicles in
support of each platoon. En has arty/mortar support on call. En can achieve air parity for
short periods of time. En use of NBCW is low.
Friendly:
Bde Comd’s Intent…..(note main effort is not 3 PPCLI)…
The CO intends to attrit the enemy forward in a series of KZs and fall back through
successive BPs attritting the enemy and achieve a 24 hrs delay. As a scheme of
manoeuvre, the 3 PPCLI will delaying forward and is therefore conducting a mobile
defence, three up (A-LF, C-RF, B-DEPTH). The Bn will then conduct a rearward
passage of lines through 1 PPCLI at LAZY MAN. Air parity. Excellent support from 1
RCHA (105 How and 81 mm Mortars throughout)
Attachments: No Change
MISSION
C Coy to destroy enemy Regt Recce and first echelon platoons (x2) from BP 301 in order
to set the conditions for the Bn’s delay battle within sector.
EXECUTION
Gen Outline: (For simplicity within the experiment no phases will be used during this
scenario). Coy will occupy hide at Gr 045 795. Pl Comds will go forward with their
comd element and conduct a detailed siting of the platoon position (i.e. weapons,
trenches, fire plan, control measures routes, RVs, assy pts, OPs/LP as tasked, etc). Pl
Comds will return to Coy Hide and transpose their Pl’s defence planning onto the
proposed Coy defence plan for BP 301 (OPI – Coy 2IC). Detailed siting of BP 302 will
occur on order within the next 24 hrs.
Tasks:
Pl:
•
•
•
•
LEFT Fwd
KZ KIM as pri
Coy LEFT Flk
LP at Gr 063 845
_X_Pl:
• RIGHT Fwd
• KZ DOG as pri
• KZ KIM as sec
• Coy RIGHT Flk
• LP at Gr XXX XXX
9 Pl:
•
•
•
•
DEPTH
Support into KZ KIM as pri
Support into KZ DOG as sec
LP at Gr XXX XXX
Coy HQ:
• Gr 067 842
• Coord the Defence Fire Plan (Direct + Indirect)
Coord Instr:
Timings:
Recce Pty departs Hide (this loc): 2100
Pl Comd’s Recce of Posn: between: 2115-2315
Fire Plan submitted to Coy HQ NLT: “ “
Pl Range Cards submitted to Coy HQ NLT:
Posn Occupied:
Posn Defensible by:
Boundaries: As per trace.
SERVICE SUPPORT
N/C
Defence Stores: (Coy Pallet) at Gr 070 840
COMMAND AND SIGNALS
Locations: 30 at BP 301 Gr 069 845
Chain of Comd: 39, 39S, 31, 32, 33
Orders End / Time Check / Questions
ANNEX B:
Defensive Site Evaluation
Questionnaire
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page B-1
[*D-SITEEVAL*
]
D-SITE EVALUATE QUESTIONNAIRE
PARTICIPANT #: ___________________
EVALUATING PLATOON (#):
SITE:
a
A
a
a
1
Date:
a
2
a
____________
3
B
Please indicate with a check mark the acceptability of the following items for the Platoon siting a
Defensive position.
ACCEPTABILITY
FUNDAMENTALS
1.
The Platoon Commander must give special attention to the
fundamentals of the defence when planning the defence.
It will not always be possible to satisfy all the
fundamentals, and the Platoon Commander will have to
make compromises based on the Company Commander’s
(OC) intent and on his own estimate.
2.
Use of Terrain. Identify the likely enemy approaches and
choose the best terrain from which to block them,
consistent with their assigned tasks. Make judicious use
of terrain to conceal the layout and your activities from the
enemy.
3.
Many tend to favour the occupation of high ground
because it permits longer observation, but one must weigh
the range of weapons against the danger of enemy direct
fire from beyond their range.
4.
Emphasize the control of terrain and not its occupation. At
times it may be more tactically sound to occupy a reverse
slope.
5.
All-Around Defence. Plan to defeat an attack from any
direction. This may involve preparing alternate positions
and assigning secondary arcs of fire to sections and fire
teams to cover the flanks and rear of a platoon position.
6.
Mutual Support. Site MGs, SRAAW and other support
weapons and surveillance equipment to provide mutual
support to each section as well as to flanking Platoons and
friendly troops deployed within the Company’s area of
responsibility.
7.
The layout must be such that if the enemy attacks any one
trench, he comes under direct fire from one or more
positions. Close coordination at all levels is essential, and
to this end, liaison is carried out from:
a. left to right,
b. rear to front,
N/A
Yes No
Comments:
[*D-SITEEVAL*
]
D-SITE EVALUATE QUESTIONNAIRE
ACCEPTABILITY
FUNDAMENTALS
(CONTINUED…)
c. higher to lower level of command,
d. supporting to supported, and
e. moving to static
8.
Depth. Depth is closely related to, but does not take
precedence over, mutual support. Depth is essential to
defeat a sustained attack and to absorb the enemy’s
momentum. Platoon Commanders deploy their Platoon in
depth to ensure that a shallow penetration does not permit
the enemy to overrun the position…
9.
Manoeuvre. At the Platoon and Section level, there will
be little occasion for manoeuvre within the defensive
position. Using AVGP/APCs to move troops to alternate
positions may be an option.
10.
Firepower. The skilful deployment of weapons and good
fire control orders will contribute to an effective defense
(i.e. continuous fire, defensive fire, covering fire).
11.
Weapons are sited to take advantage of their range. The
location of killing zones and the various weapon ranges
decide the best range to open fire…
12.
N/A
Yes No
Comments:
[*D-SITEEVAL*
]
D-SITE EVALUATE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate with a check mark the acceptability of the following items for the Platoon siting a
Defensive position.
ACCEPTABILITY
SITING TASK
1.
Detailed dispositions for the Platoon, including the number
of battle trenches for each Section.
Location of Company and Platoon HQ.
2.
Effective Use of Terrain (i.e. defensive site considers the
following):
a. likely enemy major and minor avenues of approach;
b. best positions from which to dominate these
approaches with observation and fire;
c. covered and concealed withdrawal routes;
d. natural obstacles that may be improved;
e. likely ambush positions;
f. lateral routes which could be used to move a reserve,
and which could also be used by the enemy.
3.
Section and support weapon tasks, positions and arcs of
fire
4.
Reference points
5.
Machine gun fixed lines and arcs of fire.
6.
SRAAW arcs of fire.
7.
Wire, obstacles, and minefields, and gaps and lanes
through them.
8.
Approaches and dead ground.
9.
Establish sentries, standing patrols and/or OPs.
10.
Location of OPs and early warning devices in the arc of
responsibility.
11.
Careful selection of routes to OPs, sentry posts, Platoon
and Company HQs and administrative areas.
12.
Flanking sentry posts.
13.
Track plan.
N/A
Yes No
Comments:
[*D-SITEEVAL*
]
D-SITE EVALUATE QUESTIONNAIRE
ACCEPTABILITY
SITING TASK (CONTINUED…)
14.
Clear fields of fire.
15.
Concealment and camouflage requirements (avoid both
ground and air detection).
16.
Security and protection (achieved by using concealment,
camouflage, deception, communications security,
electronic warfare and counter-intelligence measures: and
also, by the protection of crossing sites, particularly
bridges, and other critical points along routes or axes).
17.
Fire and Movement. “Engaging the enemy at long ranges
surprises and confuses him and makes him pause and
deploy…”
18.
Time and Space. The depth and width of the area affects
the manoeuvre plan. More space should provide more
time for preparation of positions.
19.
20.
Additional Comments
N/A
Yes No
Comments:
ANNEX C:
Defensive Site Exit
Questionnaire
Humansystems ®
FBES#7: Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night
Page C-1
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Consolidate
Please rate the acceptance of the consolidation of
information for the following criteria using the 7-point
scale.
Non-Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CONSOLIDATING INFORMATION (COMBINING MORE
THAN ONE RANGE CARD)
Ease of consolidating at the level of the Section/Platoon
Time required to consolidate at the level of the
Section/Platoon
Perceived accuracy at the level of the Section/Platoon
Convergence of arcs of fire to maximize kill zones at the
level of the Section/Platoon
Consolidated sketch comprehension - ease of use by
others (Section/Platoon)
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
EASE OF ACCOMPLISHING CONSOLIDATION TASK
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
OVERALL SUITABILITY OF SYSTEMS
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
PARTICIPANT NUMBER : ____________
Date:
____________
SECTION NUMBER : ______
SKILLS
Please rate your ability for sighting defensive positions at a Trench/Section level.
Terrible
$
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
$
$
$
$
How would you rate your experience with respect to the Battle Procedure in defensive and offensive
operations.
Terrible
$
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
$
$
$
$
Using the scale provided, indicate the
acceptability of the following features for
the non-digital and digital condition.
Planning
EFFECTIVENESS FOR VISUALIZING GROUND
(GENERAL)
Effectiveness for visualizing vital ground
Effectiveness for identifying main approaches (dead
ground)
Effectiveness for identifying killing zones
Effectiveness for identifying natural and civilian obstacles to
improve defence/kill zones
Non-Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
EFFECTIVENESS FOR VISUALIZING THE GROUND
(LEFT/CENTRE/RIGHT)
Effectiveness for identifying likely enemy approaches
(cover and concealment).
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Effectiveness for identifying likely enemy assembly areas,
attack positions, line of departure, etc.
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Effectiveness for identifying possible future targets
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Effectiveness for determining distances
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Using the scale provided, indicate the acceptability of
the following features for the non-digital and digital
condition.
Effectiveness for determining dead ground
Effectiveness for estimating ease of movement (can the
enemy traverse at speed)
Overall effectiveness for terrain visualization
Non-Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
EFFECTIVENESS FOR IDENTIFYING THE GROUND
THAT DOMINATES THE APPROACHES
Effectiveness for identifying key terrain
Effectiveness for identifying fields of fire, arcs of fire
Effectiveness for identifying trench positions
Effectiveness for identifying Section positions
Effectiveness for identifying potential HQ position
Effectiveness for identifying indirect fire targets
Effective use of terrain for identifying likely ambush
positions
Effectiveness for identifying location of reserve
Effectiveness for identifying counter attack tasks/routes
Effectiveness for identifying deployment and withdrawal
routes
Effectiveness for deducing your fire plan
Effectiveness for deducing your barrier plan
Effectiveness for deducing your anti-armour plan
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
EFFECTIVENESS FOR DEDUCING YOUR
SURVEILLANCE, TARGET ACQUISITION AND NIGHT
OBSERVATION PLAN
Effectiveness for identifying patrol routes/track plan
Effectiveness for identifying OP/LP positions
Effectiveness for identifying early warning device positions
Overall effectiveness of the STA plan
Overall effectiveness of planning tools
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Trench
Please rate the acceptance of developing the range
card for the following criteria using the 7-point scale.
Non-Digital
Digital
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
DEVELOPING RANGE CARD
Ease of determining own position
Accuracy of determining own position
Ease of determining primary arcs of fire
Accuracy of determining primary arcs of fire on range card
(arc bearing)
Accuracy of determining coverage of arcs (dead zones) on
range card
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Ease of determining location of prominent features
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Accuracy of determining the bearing to reference points on
range card
Accuracy of determining the distance to reference points on
range card
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Ease of determining the location of OP/LP
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
Accuracy of determining the location of OP/LP on range
card (bearing/distance)
Ease of determining location of obstacles/barriers
Ease of determining ‘North’ on range card
Accuracy of determining ‘North’ on range card
Overall suitability of paper/digital range card
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Tool evaluation
Using the scale provided, indicate the acceptability of the following features for the listed tools.
Time required to
operate
Accuracy
Tactical
feasibility
Ease of use
EVALUATION OF
VARIOUS TOOLS
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trench View
Software
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
GPS system
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
In-Service Compass
Kite WeaponSight
504 A
PVS-14
Leica Vector Laser
Range finder
M22 Binocular
C79 Optical Sight
___________ (other)
___________ (other)
___________ (other)
___________ (other)
Tool assessment
Indicate the features/information you liked the most.
Indicate the features/information you liked the least.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Benefits to the defensive planning process
Indicate where the digital tools helped the most.
Indicate where the digital tools helped the least.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
Improvements
How would you improve this planning method and/or planning tools?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Additional Comments
[*D-SITEEXIT*
]
D-SITE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document, Organizations
2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's document, or tasking
agency, are entered in section 8.)
(Overall security classification of the document
including special warning terms if applicable.)
Publishing: DRDC
Toronto
UNCLASSIFIED
Performing: Humansystems® Incorporated, 111 Farquhar St., 2nd
floor, Guelph, ON N1H 3N4
Monitoring:
Contracting:
3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification is indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C, R, or U) in parenthesis at
the end of the title)
Evaluation of Digitization for Siting Platoon Defensive Positions at Night (U)
Évaluation de la Numérisation Relativement au Choix de l'emplacement des Positions
Défensives d'un Peloton la Nuit
4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.)
Edward T. Nakaza; David W. Tack; Harry Angel
5. DATE OF PUBLICATION
(Month and year of publication of document.)
May 2005
6a NO. OF PAGES
6b. NO. OF REFS
(Total containing information, including
Annexes, Appendices, etc.)
86
(Total cited in document.)
2
7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of document,
e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Contract Report
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The names of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development − include address.)
Sponsoring: DLR 5, NDHQ OTTAWA,ON K1A 0K2
Tasking:
DRDC
Toronto
9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable
research and development project or grant under which the document was
written. Please specify whether project or grant.)
12QG01
10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which
the document was written.)
W7711−01−7747/001/TOR
10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under which
document number by which the document is identified by the originating
activity. This number must be unique to this document)
may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the
sponsor.)
DRDC Toronto CR 2005−061
SIREQ #148
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILIY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Defence departments in approved countries − Document has initial limited distribution
through Exploitation Manager − TTCP and NATO countries and agencies − Unlimited
after initial limited distribution
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document
Availability (11), However, when further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))
Other − Document to have initial Limited announcement
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract
of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph
(unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is
bilingual.)
(U) This experiment investigated available technologies to address and enhance aspects
specific to planning and siting a Platoon (Pl) defensive position in the woods at night,
within the context of a larger integrated Company defensive plan. This study also
assessed the tactical feasibility and usability of the tools in the digital condition.
Results from this experiment demonstrated that the main benefits that were observed in
using the digital condition compared to the non−digital condition were in the overall
planning and siting of the Pl defensive position, as well as in the consolidation of the range
cards at the Section and Pl levels. However there were concerns with the current
configuration in terms of the time, tactical feasibility, and ease of use of the digital
systems, specifically regarding the laser rangefinder and Trench View software.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in
cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name,
military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of
Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each
should be indicated as with the title.)
(U) Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration Project; SIREQ TD;
defensive plan; defensive position; mission planning; digital tools; night vision goggles;
nvg; digital map
UNCLASSIFIED