Mixed Reality Training for Tank Platoon Leader Communication SkillsPeter Khooshabeh∗

US Army Research LabIgor Choromanski∗ Catherine Neubauer∗ David M. Krum∗ Ryan Spicer∗ Julia Campbell∗

USC Institute for Creative Technologies

ABSTRACT

Here we describe the design and usability evaluation of a mixed re-ality prototype to simulate the role of a tank platoon leader, whois an individual who not only is a tank commander, but also di-rects a platoon of three other tanks with their own respective tankcommanders. The domain of tank commander training has reliedon physical simulators of the actual Abrams tank and encapsulatesthe whole crew. The TALK-ON system we describe here focuseson training communication skills of the leader in a simulated tankcrew. We report results from a usability evaluation and discuss howthey will inform our future work for collective tank training.

Index Terms: H.5.1 [Information Interfaces and Presentation(I.7)]: Multimedia Information Systems—Artificial, augmented,and virtual realities; J.7 [Computer Applications]: Computers inOther Systems—Military

1 INTRODUCTION

Since the 1990s, the Army has developed high-fidelity tank simu-lators that closely mirror the actual combat vehicles, including theinterior physical spaces and controls. The question remains whetherthese simulators are best to train novice users on foundational tasks.Novices may be overwhelmed by the complexity, and, arguably,would achieve expertise more efficiently from a step-by-step walk-through of tasks in a simplified simulation.

To set the stage for why we designed a simplified augmentedvirtuality, a type of mixed reality [3], prototype tank simulator, wefirst describe the extant tank simulator. The Close Combat Tacti-cal Trainer (CCTT) focuses on collective training and uses a vir-tual environment to imitate battlefield situations not just in terms ofweapon fire and maneuver, but of communication as well. CCTTemphasizes training collective maneuvers for the entire platoon,company, or battalion. Specifically training communication andcritical thinking of novice tank commanders (TCs) is an often over-looked aspect of the CCTT training regimen. Nonetheless, CCTThas been validated to cover important training requirements for en-tire collective units.

In a report on the cost and effectiveness of the CCTT, Nobleand Johnson [4] asserted that the CCTT had the ability to traintasks related to “(1) command, control, and communication, (2) ma-neuver and navigation, and (3) teamwork and leadership” (p. 24).Other studies suggest that CCTT accounted for complete commu-nication realism for electronic interference and partial realism dueto distance and terrain obstructions, but no realistic noise due tojamming or aspect interference. Overall, the communication real-ism of the CCTT was found to be adequate for training platoons,but researchers note there was room for improvement to supportnovices [1].

Although previous work has found the CCTT simulator to besufficient for training collective tasks, there is still a significant gapin terms of individual leader development. Based on results from

∗e-mail:{khooshabeh, choromanski, neubauer, krum, spicer, camp-bell}@ict.usc.edu

Figure 1: (Top) A Subject Matter Expert (SME) experiencing theTALK-ON simulator of the Tank Commander (TC) role. (Bottom) Anexpert civilian is the controller and executes the commands of theTC.

our field studies and front end analysis, the high physical fidelityof the CCTT might be superfluous for novice tank commanders,e.g., precise replication of the seating and many of the buttons andswitches. For that reason, we developed a simulator that combinesvirtual reality (VR) and a head-mounted display (Oculus Rift DK2HMD) for the visual and auditory aspects of a tank commander sim-ulation. Mixed reality assets are in the form of the commander’shandle (simulated by a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick), whichcontrols the turret, gun position, and independent target scanningcamera; and a radio switch to simulate the necessary physical func-tionality for critical communication tasks.

2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Our prototype, TALK-ON (Team Assessment and Learner Knowl-edge Observational Network), consists of a VR simulation of anAbrams M1A2 built in the Unity engine for the purpose of assess-ing the cognitive and communication skills of a tank platoon leaderin training (see Figure 1). In the course of a simulated exercise, thetrainee, playing the role of the TC, receives a series of communi-

cation inputs from higher headquarters (HQ), other platoon leaders,and members of his own tank crew and platoon. The inputs areselected and delivered by another simulation participant: the Con-troller. The Controller takes on the roles of both the assessor andthe agent determining the scenario elements in the exercise.

2.1 TALK-ON Training Experience

The VR simulation, as experienced by the trainee via an HMD in-terface, positions the trainee in the seat of a TC, directly in frontof the Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) controls(see Figure 1 top) as well as a topographic tactical map below theCITV. The trainee’s point of view is a close approximation of whata TC would see in an actual tank and the CCTT, including virtual,animated crewmembers (e.g., the loader to the left of the TC). TheTC can issue and receive voice commands via three separate radiochannels (Crew, Platoon, and Company), and the communicationcan be implemented either via a combination of joystick buttonsand a USB microphone or a purpose-built helmet switch and con-trol junction box (JBOX) designed and 3D printed to replicate ac-tual equipment. The trainee can also control the thermal and tacticalviews in the CITV panels in front of him via a joystick. Lastly, theTC trainee has the ability to survey the terrain around his tank bystanding up and looking out of the turret.

2.2 TALK-ON Controller

The Controller manages the exercise simulation (see Figure 1 bot-tom). As such, he has the ability to position and determine themotion of both friendly and enemy units. The Controller also takeson the role of the executor of all of the trainee’s commands, includ-ing all actions of the crew and tank controls, with the exceptionof those directly operated by the TC trainee. The Controller cantake on the roles of other parties in the simulation, such as the crewand HQ. The tasks of controlling the simulation and assessing thetrainee’s performance are accomplished through a combination of:voice communication, visual interface, mouse, keyboard, and joy-stick.

3 USABILITY EVALUATION

We conducted a qualitative usability evaluation with some of theSubject Matter Experts (SME) and other users at the Armor BasicOfficer Leadership Course (ABOLC) with whom we initially con-ducted field studies and front end analysis to inform the TALK-ONsystem design. In total, the user population of the usability studyconsisted of several Second Lieutenant trainees, ABOLC instructorcadre (senior non-commissioned officers, NCOs), military contrac-tors, and Captains commanding the ABOLC phases (approximately15 users).

The method for the evaluation involved the users having to ac-complish a mission of progressively maneuvering their tank platoonthrough several checkpoints as they advanced closer to battle posi-tion. Users interacted with TALK-ON by communicating directionsto their tank crew and platoon. Here we report the top three mostprominent and frequent user experience issues that were analyzedfrom debriefing after the scenario: (1) commanders handle had in-consistent mappings and the tactical map should be controlled bythe 8-way hat switch at the top of the joystick, (2) turret shouldhave mechanical noise as auditory feedback during when it moves(3) loader arm should be present and clank loudly when a round isloaded; then virtual human loader should yell “up” after putting theround in the chamber.

In addition to the user experience issues, the qualitative portionof the evaluation gave users an opportunity to express feature re-quests. A consistent request had to do with the level of resolutionin the HMD. According to the SMEs, tank commanders are usedto zooming at multiple scale factors in the CITV (e.g., 3, 6, 13, 25,

50X). To simulate this type of visualization capability, the TALK-ON system would need to both model the key terrain being zoomedon in higher resolution (more polygons) and also use an HMD withgreater pixel resolution. We will address the latter by using theOculus CV1 for future studies.

4 DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE WORK

Aside from the constructive usability evaluation results, theABOLC users indicated that the TALK-ON system supports thefundamental tasks that a novice tank commander should practicein a simulation. Most of the instructors commented on the valueof being able to see the terrain by popping out of the tank turret,something that the CCTT does not support.

A limitation of this study is that it is an evaluation of just theTALK-ON simulator, and we could strengthen the research contri-bution of this work by comparing it to the physical CCTT simulatorwith TALK-ON in the future. This comparison will inform us aboutVR usability in this particular domain and possibly provide a deeperunderstanding to the VR community about the merits or drawbacksof physical fidelity.

The next iteration of the system should add functional fidelitythat simulates key tasks that novice Second Lieutenants will prac-tice in ABOLC, such as control of the tank turret and overriding thegunner’s line of sight. Our next development cycle will also supportmultiple users so that we can simulate training three different tankplatoon leaders for the company echelon.

Our work provides initial evidence that a relatively lower fidelityVR training simulator such as TALK-ON can be both cost effec-tive and also provide appropriate and necessary cues for specifictraining tasks and for specific users. In the case of TALK-ON, thespecific training task was essentially communication oriented so itwas not necessary to model many of the tank’s physical controls.Similarly, given that the intended trainee is a novice Second Lieu-tenant, the lower fidelity is warranted because these individuals donot have complete mastery of the tank’s many functions. As such,TALK-ON models those displays and controls that SMEs told uswere important for communication and decision making.

Recent reports have estimated that just the 2015 sustainmentcosts for the Army’s virtual training devices were $29.6 million [2].Given this exorbitant price, it is necessary to consider lower cost-ing virtual reality alternatives that could provide sufficient trainingeffectiveness for a subset of tasks and users.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. Jay Brimstin, Mr. George De Sario, Dr. Linda Elliott,and ABOLC Leadership for supporting our visit at MCoE. Thiswork was conducted as part of the US Army Training EffectivenessScience and Technology Objective (TE STO). This work was spon-sored, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory(ARL) under contract number W911F-14-D-0005. Statements, ex-pressed opinions, and content included do not necessarily reflectthe position or the policy of the United States Government, and noofficial endorsement should be inferred.

REFERENCES

[1] D. L. Finley. Simulation-Based Communications Realism and PlatoonTraining in the Close Combat Tactical Trainer. Technical report, DTICDocument, 1997.

[2] GAO. ARMY TRAINING: Efforts to Adjust Training RequirementsShould Consider the Use of Virtual Training Devices. Technical ReportGAO-16-636, GAO, Washington, D.C., August 2016.

[3] P. Milgram and F. Kishino. A taxonomy of mixed reality vi-sual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems,77(12):1321–1329, 1994.

[4] J. L. Noble and D. R. Johnson. Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT).Cost and Training Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA). Volume 2. Main Re-port. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1991.