Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:50:08.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The 20th-Century Revolution in Military Training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

K. Anders Ericsson
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter is about training as practiced by the United States military. In order to exercise some of the little we really know about learning, and in the spirit of the overworked phrase found at the start of almost every military course taught over the last four decades, I will begin this chapter by telling you what I intend to tell you, and then will proceed to tell it to you all over again in detail.

In the late 1970s the United States Army fostered a revolution in warfare training by institutionalizing group experiential learning with feedback. In doing so they changed the Army's culture such that even everyday actions are now routinely assessed and analyzed at all echelons up, as well as down the chain of command. The largest-scale use of these techniques trains brigade-sized units (3,500 soldiers) on huge training battlefields. The process is superbly effective, delivering in just weeks a measured order-of-magnitude increase in warfare proficiency in warfare areas as diverse as large-scale dismounted infantry operations and air-to-air combat. The revolution continues; it was recently adapted to train nonkinetic operations (everything that soldiers did not sign up to do) in large-scale events. This engagement simulation process is equally effective in non-military contexts, but its large-scale military applications are often expensive and episodic. Thus, it comes with a downside; it does not reach all our forces nor can it train those it does reach often enough to prevent skill decay.

Type
Chapter
Information
Development of Professional Expertise
Toward Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environments
, pp. 27 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,Army TrainingCircular (1993, 20 September) TC 25–20. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.
Braddock, J. & Chatham, R. (2001). Training superiority and training surprise 2001, Report of the Defense Science Board, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports.htm.
Brown, A. (1996). Interview on June 11, 1996, at Center for Naval Analysis' Operational Training Group.
Brown, A.Brobst, W. & Fox, C. (1996, 11 June). Meeting at Center for Naval Analyses with DTIs R. Chatham and S. Borchardt.
Chatham, R. E. (1990, September). Confuse the bastard. Naval Institute Proceedings, 116, 54–59.
Chatham, R. (1996). Training assessment: A critical intelligence deficiency. A report on the intelligence implications of relationships among training, exercises & military proficiency. Dynamics Technology, Inc. Technical report DTW-9509.02-96001.
Chatham, R. & Braddock, J. (2003) Training for future conflicts, Report of the Defense Science Board, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports.htm.
Cohen, E. A. & Gooch, J. (1990). Military misfortunes, the anatomy of failure in war. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Fitts, R. E. (1980). The strategy of electromagnetic conflict. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing.Google Scholar
Fox, C. H. (1990). Battlegroup training and readiness as seen in fleet exercises. Center for Naval Research Publication CNR 186. Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Research.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M.Grossman, J. & Sollinger, J. (1993). Quantifying the battlefield. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Arroyo Center.Google Scholar
Gorman, P. F. (1990). The military value of training. Institute for Defense Analysis Paper P-2515.CrossRef
Gorman, P. F. (1995). Briefing to ARPA panel on small unit operations. Private communication.
Hastings, M. & Jenkins, S. (1983). The battle for the Falklands. London: Michael Joseph, Ltd.Google Scholar
Hammon, C. P. (1990). Flying hours and aircrew performance. Institute for Defense Analyses Reports Paper P-2379. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammon, C. P. & Horowitz, S. A. (1996). The relationship between training and unit performance for naval patrol aircraft. Briefing at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
Konoske, P. J.Wetzel, S. K. & Montague, W. E. (1983). Estimating skill degradation for aviation antisubmarine warfare operators: Assessment of job training variables. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center SR 83–28. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Lanchester, F. W. (1914). Aircraft in warfare: The dawn of the fourth arm – No.V, The principle of concentration. Engineering, 98, 422–423. [Reprinted in Newman, J., (Ed). (1956). The World of Mathematics, Vol. IV (pp. 2138–2141). New York: Simon and Schuster.]Google Scholar
March, J. G.Sproull, L. S. & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2(1), 1–13.CrossRef
Moore, S. C.Hanser, L. M.Rostker, B.Holroyd, S. M.& Fernandez, J. C. (1995). A framework for characterization of military unit training status. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, MR-261-OSD.Google Scholar
Newett, S. W.F/A-18 pilot proficiency vs. training resources: Fallon HARM analysis (U). Center for Naval Research Memorandum 90–1994 (Secret). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Research Publications.
Orlansky, J. (1989). The military value and cost-effectiveness of training. NATO Defense Research Group Panel 7 on the Defense Applications of Operational Research: Research Study Group 15 on the Military Value and Cost-Effectiveness of Training, Final Report. Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA, DIA Number AC/234 (Panel 7/RSG.15) D/4.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sagan, S. D. (1993). The limits of safety. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Starey, D. (1983). General, U.S. Army statement made during deliberations of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Technology for the Rapid Deployment Forces.
Suess, G. N. (1994). A look at navy flying hour requirements. Center for Naval Research Memorandum CRM 94–77. Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Research.Google Scholar
Sullivan, L. Jr. (1981). Q3: The quality/quantity quandary. Briefing for an OSD panel on Quality vs. Quantity, Arlington, Virginia.
Sullivan, L. (1984). Comments made by former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analyses and Estimating to an OSD Quantity vs. Quality Workshop in the summer of 1984. [Notes taken by R. Chatham]
Taylor, J. G. (1983). Lanchester models of warfare. Arlington, VA: Operations Research Society of America.Google Scholar
Weis, T. D. (1994). A review of the literature relating flying hours to readiness. Center for Naval Analysis publication CIM 355, Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analysis.
Weiss, H. K. (1966). Achieving system effectiveness. New York: AIAA.Google Scholar
Wetzel, S. K.Konoske, P. J. & Montague, W. E. (1983a). Estimating skill loss throughout a navy technical training pipeline. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center TR 84–7. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
Wetzel, S. K.Konoske, P. J. (1983b). Estimating skill degradation for aviation antisubmarine warfare operators: Loss of skill and knowledge following training. Navy Personnel Research and Development CenterSR 83–31. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
Wright, R. H. (1973). Retention of flying skills and refresher training requirements: Effects of non-flying and proficiency flying. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, HumRRO Technical Report 73–32. Fort Rucker, AL: Human Resources Research Organization.
,You Fight Like You Train. (May, 1974). Armed Forces Journal International, 25–27.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×