identification of command post c*1 exercises (ftx) messagestechnical report 875 identification of...

Technical Report 875

Identification of Command PostLf Exercises (CPX) and Field Trainingc*1 Exercises (FTX) Messages

CJ S. Delane Keene, Robert E. Solick,and James W. Lussier DTICI U.S. Army Research Institute 0 EL E CTEf

APRO0 41990February 1990 D -

United States Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

()o

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdictionof the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON JON W. BLADESTechnical Director COL, IN

Commanding

Technical review by

Douglas K. Spiegel c o --Robert H. Sulzen , NTIS CRA&

DTIC TABUniannouinced "Justification

By

Distribution I

Availability. Codes

Avtil and/orDist Special

NOTICES

D TRIBUTION: Primary distribution o s report has been m I. Please addresscorre ndence concerning distributio f reports to: U.S. Army Research te for theBehavio ocial Sciences PERI-POX, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alex nia22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do notreturn it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Armyposition, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. O704-188

la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release;2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution is unlimited.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

ARI Technical Report 875 --

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONU.S. Army Research Institute (if applicable)

Field Unit at Fort Leavenworth PERI-SL

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

P.O. Box 3407

Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-0347

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/ PONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATIQN U.S. Army Researc (If applicable)

Institute tor the Behavioraland Social Sciences PERI-S --rc. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT5001 Eisenhower Avenue ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 62785A 791 1301 H2

11. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Identification of Command Post Exercises (CPX) and Field Training Exercises (FTX) Messages

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Keene, S. Delane; Solick, Robert E.; and Lussier, James W. (ARI)

13a. TYPE OF REPORT F73b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (YearMonth, Day) 15. PAGE COUNTFinal FROM 88/05 TO 89/05 1990, February I

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATIONAlso see companion report: Construction of Realistic Messages from Computer-Generated Alert

Messages by James W. Lussier, Robert E. Solick, S. Delane Keene, and J. M. Linville.

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Alert messages CPX training Battle simulation

Command group FTX training Controller,

training-, Computer simulation workload,

19.'ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)Command groups are increasingly turning to computer-driven command post exercises

(CPX) as an economical and convenient means of training. The overall realism of this method

of training relies heavily on the capabilities of the control staff, who must act as keypersonnel in the units at echelons above, below, and adjacent to the training audience.

The controllers must generate a stream of realistic tactical messages, while attending to

a myriad of other duties that place demands on their time. Further, this task is not wellsupported by the current generation of battle simulations. Automating the production of

realistic messages is one solution to the problem. This report examines whether experi-

enced Army officers can distinguish between messages produced in a CPX and FIX environment

and investigates the characteristics of the messages that contribute to successful identi-

fication. The research will identify requirements for a system to automate the translation

of simulation output into realistic messages.

20. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONM UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED [] SAME AS RPT. 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 221- TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

S. Delane Keenp (913) 684-4933 PERI-SL

DD Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIEDi

Technical Report 875

Identification of Command Post Exercises (CPX) andField Training Exercises (FTX) Messages

S. Delane Keene, Robert E. Solick,and James W. Lussier

U.S. Army Research Institute

Field Unit at Fort Leavenworth, KansasStanley M. Halpin, Chief

Systems Research LaboratoryRobin L. Keesee, Di r*,3r

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral dnd Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

February 1990

Army Project Number Manpower, Personnel, and Training2Q162785A791

Approved lor public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii

FOREWORD

The U.S. Army Research Institute, Fort Leavenworth Field Unit, conducts asystems and training research program that supports the Combined Arms Center(CAC).

For several years the Fort Leavenworth Field Unit has been involved inresearch to support the development and use of computer-driven battle simula-tions for training battalion through division command groups. A pressingproblem with the current generation of battle simulations is the burden placedon controllers, who must, in addition to many other duties, generate a streamof realistic tactical messages. This research will contribute to identifica-tion of requirements for an automated system to translate simulation outputinto more realistic messages, thereby improving training realism and reducingcontroller overload.

This research was an exploratory effort funded under Research Task 1301.It compares the ability of experienced officers to identify messages tran-scribed from command post exercises with their ability to identify similarmessages transcribed from field exercises. It also investigates which char-acteristics of messages are most salient in identification.

EDGAR M. JOHNSONTechnical Director

v

IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAINING EXERCISES

(FTX) MESSAGES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

Command groups are increasingly turning to computer-driven command postexercises (CPX) as an economical and convenient training mode. The overallrealism of this method of training relies heavily on the capabilities of thecontrol staff, who must play the roles of key personnel in the units at eche-lons above, below, and adjacent to the training audience. The controllersmust generate an information stream of realistic tactical messages whileattending to a myriad of other duties that place demands on their time. Fur-thermore, this task is not well supported by the current generation of battlesimulations. Automating the production of realistic messages is one solutionto this problem. This study was designed to provide information that wouldcontribute to identification of the requirements for a system to automate thetranslation of simulation output into realistic messages.

Procedure:

Thirty-one company grade combat arms officers participated in this study.Participants were presented with 48 stimulus messages in written text (24 CPXand 24 FTX) and asked to identify the training environment in which theyoriginated. Each message was further evaluated on four semantic differentialscales: vordy-succinct, vague-precise, vorthless-valuable, and excited-calm.The participants were also asked to respond to a questionnaire that assessedtheir beliefs concerning characteristics of CPX and FTX messages and thatobtained participant demographic information.

Findings:

The majority of the officers who participated in this study expressed thebelief that CPX and FTX messages could be distinguished based upon certaincharacteristics. However, their actual performance in classifying messageswas better than chance but less accurate than anticipated.

The participants were also questioned concerning FTX and CPX messagecharacteristics. The message characteristics believed to be most salient wereas follows: CPX messages are longer than FTX; also CPX messages are less emo-tional and contain more accurate information than FTX messages. On the seman-tic differential scales, participants rated CPX messages as more succinct,precise, and valuable than FTX messages. The major difference between the twodata sources was in message length. Participants expressed the belief thatCPX messages are longer than FTX messages but rated CPX messages as more suc-cinct on the semantic differential scale.

vii

Utilization of Findings:

The information obtained in this study vill contribute to identificationof requirements for an automated system to translate simulation output intomore realistic messages.

The characteristics that appear to be salient in message identificationshould be used to translate CPX into FTX-like messages. These translatedmessages should then be tested to determine if experienced officers perceivethem as realistic FTX messages.

viii

IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAINING EXERCISES(FTX) MESSAGES

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. .............. .................. 1

METHOD .. ............................. .... 2

Participants .. ............... .............. 2Data Collection Softvare and Procedures ... .............. 2

RESULTS. .. ............................ .... 3

Message Identification .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 3Semantic Differential Ratings. ................ ..... 3Demographic and Attitude Questions .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. ............... ......... 7

REFERENCES .. ................................ 9

APPNIX A .. ................................ 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Message identification--number correct ... ........... 3

2. Semantic differential scales--mean ratings ... ......... 4

ix

IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAININGEXERCISES (FTX) MESSAGES

Introduction

AirLand Battle doctrine relies heavily on command and control (C2) Io ensurebattlefield success. Commanders and their staffs must perform their C func-tions in a synchronized, coordinated manner in a highly dynamic environment.Their successful battlefield performance depends upon how well they have beentrained; however, the opportunity for training is relatively infrequent.

Field exercises (FTXs) provide good "hands-on" training opportunities forcommand teams. However, training in this mode is very expensive. Furthermore,FTX training is extremely complicated to organize and execute, which furtherrestricts the frequency with which FTX training is conducted.

Command groups are increasingly turning to computer-driven command postexercises (CPXs) as an eIonomical and convenient training mode. These trainingsystems, such as ARTBASS , enable commanders and their staffs to practice theircommand and control functions under simulated battle conditions. However, theoverall effectiveness and realism of this method of training relies heavilyupon the capabilities of the control staff.

Controllers must play the roles of key personnel in the units at echelonsabove, below, and adjacent to the training audience. This role playing func-tion provides the training audience with insulation from the computer and alsoprovides them with communication training (Solick and Lussier, 1988).

Controllers must also, among other duties, generate an information stream ofrealistic tactical messages based on the simulation output. This task is notwell supported by the current generation of battle simulations. For instance,simulation output compromises message traffic realism by providing too much in-telligence information and too little detail. An illustrative example of thisis provided by Solick, et al (1988):

"For example, a sensor report might include a completeopposing force unit designation or an exact center-of-masslocation, whereas a realistic report might provide an estimateof the number of vehicles sighted, type of vehicles, approximatelocation and direction." (p. 24)

The translation of the computer output to tactical messages is performed bycontrollers in addition to the other numerous tasks which place demands upontheir time, such as directing simulated subordinates, keeping themselves ap-prised of the tactical situation, and coordinating with other control elements.Automating the production of realistic message traffic is one solution to thisproblem.

This report examines whether Army officers who have experienced both FTX andCPX training at the battalion level can distinguish which training environmentproduced a set of stimulus messages and investigates the characteristics of themessages that contribute to successful identification. This information willcontribute to the identification of requirements for an automated system totranslate computer output into realistic messages.

1ARTBASS - Army Training Battle Simulation System

m! ! !1

Method

Participants: The participants in this study were 31 company grade combat armsofficers (6 2Lt.; 16 ILt.; 9 Cpt.) who volunteered their time during May, 1988.

Data Collection Software and Procedures: Data for this study were obtainedthrough the use of MSGJUDGE software developed by Vruels Research Corporationunder contract to the Army Research Institute (see Solick, Libehaber, Ober-mayer, Linville, and Obermayer, 1989). MSGJUDGE is a measurement instrumentfor the computer administration of a set of written messages from two or moredifferent environments to a panel of expert judges. Written messages were usedin this study rather than actual taped oral messages because of the difficultyin obtaining taped messages which were uniform in quality from both trainingenvironments. MSGJUDGE collects data in the form of responses to semanticscales, forced-choice questions, and a summary questionnaire. The software waspilot tested prior to use in this study. Information concerning the pilot datacollection is contained in Solick, et al, (1989).

In the present study, 48 messages were presented to each participant. Theoriginal pool of 292 messages was composed of 73 messages in each of the fourcategories (CPX enemy operations, CPX friendly operations, FTX enemy opera-tions, and FTX friendly operations). Twelve messages were randomly selectedfrom the 73 in each of these groups for presentation to subjects. A list ofthe 48 items which were administered, and the classification of each item, isattached as Appendix A.

For administration, a participant was presented with a stimulus messagewhich was displayed across the top of his computer screen; each of four bi-polar scales successively occupied the screen below. The four semantic scalesused for this study were: wordy-succinct, vague-precise, worthless-valuable,and excited-calm. Rating was on a 7 point scale ranging from -3 to +3. Forany given message, all of the semantic scales were administered one at a timeuntil all measurement was complete for that message. The following exampleshows the configuration of the screen for the semantic measurement.

Message: We have detected 2 BMP at 256 947.

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3Wordy : : : : : Succinct

Pointer

The next screen showed the same message with another semantic scale, andthis was repeated until all four scales were administered. At that time, a newmessage was presented and the scales were repeated.

When all messages had been presented for semantic measurement, the samemessages were again presented in a forced-choice format (CPX or FTX). Thescreen configuration for this segment of the measurement is shown in the fol-lowing example:

2

Message: We have detected 2 BMP at 256 947.

In this message from a CPX or FTX?Enter first letter from choice:

Finally, the participants were presented with questions which obtained demo-graphic information and assessed beliefs concerning various characteristics ofFTX and CPX messages.

Results

Message Identification:

Participants were asked to identify whether each of 48 messages originatedin an FTX or a CPX environment. The number of the messages identified cor-rectly (out of a total of 1488) for both categories and subcategories is pre-sented in Table 1.

Table 1

Message Identification - Number Correct

Enemy Friendly Total

FTX 235 254 489

CPX 165 210 375

Total 400 464 864

A two-way analysis of variance of the number of correct identifications

indicated that FTX messages were correctly identified significantly (p.

These ratings were obtained in order to ascertain if these semantic character-istics were useful in identifying their FTX or CPX origin and could be used todevelop rules for making CPX messages more like FTX messages. The participantsclassified CPX messages as more succinct, precise, valuable and excited thanFTX messages. The mean rating for each scale is presented in Table 2. The 48messages with their mean rating on each semantic differential scale are pre-sented in Appendix A.

A discriminant analysis of the semantic differential ratings indicated thalthree of the scales were useful in predicting classificaticn. These scales, inorder of importance of their contribution, are: vague-precise, wordy-succinct,and worthless-valuable. The excited-calm scale addei no independently usefulinformation to the equation.

Table 2

Semantic Differential Scales-Mean Ratings

Scale FTX CPX

Wordy - Succinct .45 1.58Vague - Prerise -.33 1.00Worthless - Valuable .60 1.60Excited - Calm -.02 .24

Demographic and Attitude Questions: Participants were asked to respond to 24questions concerning their experience with FTX and CPX training environmentsand concerning their attitudes and beliefs pertaining to messages obtained inthe two environments. These questions, together with responses, are presentedbelow.

I. Have you ever participated in a Command Post Exercise (CPX)?

Response: Yes - 90.3%No - 9.7%

2. Have you ever participated i.. a Field Training Exercise (FTX)?

Response: Yes - 100.00%

3. DD you think it is possible, in general, to tell CPX messages from FTXmessages?


4

Do you consider the following to be recognizable differences between CPX

and FTX messages?

4. Length of Transmission:


5. Vocabulary:


6. Emotion of the Speaker:


7. Speaker, i.e. First Person Voice or Third Person:


8. Completeness of Sentences:


9. Accuracy of Descriptions:


10. Passive Voice vs Active Voice:


11. Present Tense Speaker vs Past Tense Speaker:


12. Use of key "tip-off" words:


13. Do you think the transmissions will be longer in an FTX or CPX?

Response: FTX - 35.5%CPX - 64.5%

5

14. Will the speaker be more emotional in a CPX or FTX?

Response: FTX = 93.5%CPX - 6.5%

15. Will the speakers have a more varied vocabulary in an FTX or in a CPX?


16. Will the transmission contain more accurate information if from a CPX orfrom a FTX?


17. Do you feel that the quality of training can be affected based on the

realism of radio transmissions that describe the battlefield to the Commanderand staff?


18. Have you ever participated at an opposing force exercise at the NationalTraining Center?

Response: Yes - 80.6%

No - 19.4%

19. Have you ever participated in a CPX using ARTBASS?


20. Which environment, CPX or FTX, provides the best training for yourself?


21. Which environment, FTX or CPX, provides the best training for the battal-

ion staff?

Response: FIX - 58.1%CPX - 41.9%

6

22. The self-administered program you just completed is the initial phase of aproject to describe differences in communications between CPX and FTX. Thegoal of the project is to provide more realistic training environments. Do youthink this self-administered message judgment program will show those differ-ences?


23. I also wish to determine if there is a training difference between CPX andFTX. I am going to use the differences in message traffic to describe thatdifference. Do you think this program will help to identify the training dif-ferences?


24. Is this type of research, determining differences between CPX and FTXmessages to improve training, beneficial to the Army?


Discussion and Conclusions

As currently practiced, CPX training does not provide realistic tacticalmessages for the training audience. This is primarily because the controllers,who are responsible for message generation have too little time and too great aworkload to adequately produce realistic messages. There is a widely holdview, supported by the majority of the Army officers who participated in thisstudy, that the quality of training can be affected by the realism of messagesthat describe the battlefield to the Commander and staff. These participantsalso indicated that they believe that they can distinguish messages generatedin a CPX environment from messages generated in an FTX environment. The pur-pose of this study was to determine if CPX and FTX messages could, in fact, bedistinguished, and to ascertain which characteristics of the messages were mostsalient in this identification. Ultimately, this information could be used toeither automate the message generation process or provide guidelines for con-trollers which would contribute to the production of more realistic messages aswell as reduce controller workload.

The results of this study indicate that the participants could distinguishCPX from FTX messages, but their accuracy was somewhat less than anticipated.Although classification accuracy was significantly better for FTX messages thanfor CPX messages, this could have been the result of a general FTX responsebias when in doubt about a message's true classification.

Nevertheless, the participants expressed strong beliefs concerning the sali-ent characteristics which distinguish CPX messages from FTX messages. Partici-pants expressed the belief that CPX messages are longer, less emotional and

7

contain more accurate information than FTX messages. Additionally, they be-lieve that CPX and FTX messages can be distinguished on the basis of vocabularyand "tip-off" words.

The analysis of the semantic differential ratings yielded similar results.Participants rated CPX messages as more succinct, precise and valuable than FTXmessages. There was a discrepancy here in that CPX messages were rated as moresuccinct, but participants expressed the belief that they are longer than FTXmessages. The fact that the calm-excited scale failed to provide any addi-tional information could be explained by the fact that the stimulus messageswere presented in the form of written text rather than spoken form, which wouldprovide more opportunity for projection of emotion.

Although further research may be needed to resolve the discrepancy in theresults concerning the saliency of message length in message classification,the information obtained in this study has been formulated into rules for gen-erating more realistic CPX messages. These rule-generated messages were testedto determine if participants would perceive them as FTX messages. The resultsof this study are presented in Lussier, Solick, Keene and Linville (1989). Thefollowing example demonstrates how this transformation process may work.

Original Alert Message: HA/B/3-41 visually detected at NK 320 321 1 T64.

Transformation Message: I've got a lone T-64 off to the North of myposition. Looks like it may be disabled, but can'ttell for sure.

In this example, the CPX simulation alert message was made more realistic byadding uncertainty and vagueness. When the transformed version of this messagewas presented to participants, 87% perceived it as a FTX message (Lussier, etal 1989).

References

Lussier, J. V. Solick, R. E., Keene, S. D., and Linville, J. M. (In prepa-ration, 1990). Construction of Realistic Messages from Computer Gen-erated Alert Messages (ARI Technical Report 871). Alexandria, VA: U.S.Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Solick, R. E., Liebhaber, M. J., Obermayer, R. V., Linville, J. M., and Ober-mayer, A. H. (In preparation, 1989). Judging Samples of Command Post andField Training Exercise Messages (ARI Research Note 89-32). Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Solick, R. E., and Lussier, J. V. (1988). Design of Battle Simulation forCommand and Staff Training (ARI Technical Report 788). Alexandria, VA:U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.(AD A196 655)

9

Appendix A

L 0 C14 C4 m0 0 -qu

co en -.

It 9% r.0 0 4 1

C'4~~~ M0~ 0 01 0

&4

-14 Ln Ln en co 0

en 10c

e%4 '4 14 -4 0 0

W c

w0 0

U3 w 03w14 en~

W U3

0

-O W

V 14w

0A 0

cc I w o -o 0 0~ 0 l4

0) W~ -J00 10

0. 00 Q)c

1w ~ ~~~~ ad -4 .&w~~~~- 0 ) o0 w

0 j =0 3t0

P0 . )A or "-44 U- r. 0 0

&J) M4 0 a- 0 r. .jm000 CL W Lj 0- 4. M 0 W .04j MO4 .0 14U 6) 0

0 0 ~0 ~*A. 0-ab 9 &A 000 0H -4 W.0Hu

CL 0 C' 0 -W w- wo a0 0 I- >. 0. 93 w- 4)

.c0 b0 *1~ 0 0 r-L

0.0 v b w (0OCl 1c 0- -W . r. 0 04. 44 0I. a o 0 c , 0 - 4.) 4I

CZ 0 j 4 j 0 0 00 0 &jo~ 00 I 0 d 6

0 ~.0 0 0 4.' 100%. .4U 0

Appendix A

'00

0!0

cc 0~ uoC

01

M gal - c-io 0

is 4J w a

4) oU

w o0 t

-434 0

* * 0

0 4J4 Um00 ~C cW -.

cc V

01)

0 0 L

0 ) In L4AicJ0 %D 0U3 .0 0

co4 C 0

bo s 4T 0 'w

00t4 0 a -404

be ~~~ V- 4cc c: 00

00 0% 0 1L A0 '4-' to 44 1.-J ca V n

X4~ " 0 U0 .Co&f 14 ..- Cc0bo0. -r - U >.0 a- ~ -~.-4 Li z &

to :1 4) > 4 0 00v0j.b0 4 0 W b .. 1sO0W I " bo "0.0

J- go W 4. 4 '. 4 AJJ LM 0.Z C

0 X 4 r E0'.' 0 ..Q.-( -)410. Q#o a Lm o to~ " X

04 m~ 4.)0~iJ~ 0 CorJcc 0oO .04 =O' "~. Li

0 LA ~ 4-1~

w0 o 0o -"' 0 o4 M 0 0 .- ( 9 ) * C0

Appendix A

I 0 IA 040% ~0' A

NY* 0 A -00

li 0

v4 C4 IA00 -tq

00

U~~~> '7a.C,

p.. -T CIA. Go. IAO.4

o1 4) -4% 0 0D4) 7 - N 4 V z

44 r. U, u0b

£12 0i m

o 0 % . C oI

N u C:, -H ' 00 1 ag 0 0 ZD-

0 bi~~~ ~ 1 .-- 4i -0 112

Ap~pendix A

0 '

C4 0 co

00- -4

0 ci

-4-

0 Go w

0i~ .10 "

0 In 0

0_

U 0

00 0~

0 bO 0

w* w

0 ~0 m 04

0 I0

00n

1. 0 . L

V4 "I4 b4 A 0 ' i v .9 0 0 r40 L

04 aa. w C.)

4w r4 %

0 to .0c

A4 c:V-

0~~~ as . C0

A- A* v) " - 0 ) -a 4o

4,' ", 00 b W W P- 6j .ti 1-4005st9- 4) ;0% .~ U

(a 04 P% 54 0 CD*o. "0A 3 w 0b 0r 4,..4

a W 4) 4) 0. bo 0 to

44,~ 0 0 10q w.L:0"4' U 4 a

w 00 0 4C-4I

-1 &A 0b4 w0 4 04. - (v o

M,,0 0

c U 04

0 X: bd0- 00 0.0 -C -

13 '

Appendix A

Cn r4 0 0%

m 0~ 0 .- 4 cu Vcc

0%~C 0 -. '4 C4J

So t-.C'4 C4

000 ox0 n

CA 0!

-t~( -4- IV0 I 4 d U

CA 02. 00iJO '~, w0 S

" 0 ' .c' ' 04 J

w 3. 00)

0 4 . 4 .10 0 0 LM O

P. V.-4W-,

0 b 0

-4 n

a 00 a 0o0g

V4. U w U I cc 1 wr 0C~~~~~ .. 0P2 4 N-W W 4j A C

Uj 00.. & ) 2e

LA W0 PO0

W f Cf ='6 o 0 0 -'w.4- 4)0 W 2 8 W 0 N 8

w o o0 %d 0. 44" (2 -W0 lN

w " 0 0 0 (D w 4 0. 0 4W- o 0%0w u MU0

W2 CJ Wl 0% * 0 en0(% 8

~-4. ~.0 * -4 0 1 14. 0

Appendix A

*n C4 C

C4 C14m LM 0

.0 0% 00 as %

in .4 r4 eq 4r w

~ccJ m

w1 LfA 0-

0 4

C4 V

U37 w 00C4 N C.)a 4

41 000.c 04

0 . 0'N . - 0'-0-o

a 0X

v 0~

V 0

0C 0o41

0 Ij C.

.4 (U cc %4t0o .0 0 0

C) > -v A 0 0

w 0 q X u W0

H Aj 'm 0 bD

a Hz )w0 0 co "a C0 6 Ol% C V1 414 z4 90

0 NI C4 b1- - 4 L- =(. 0 c- w 01r_

X .~ ~ La * j~ >r.N S Cl.~' * 4J 0 >J0 S10 a0 Ll. H 00 Ubzo c4 r- .~0 0

1 0 4j Li be 41.0 0 H 0u

0 .~4 '.i'. -,-4 M '00 r-4 m

0 4)a0o9w : 0 Z u 41 A 0 0

0) 0 T 0.4 ~ C. 0cc 0 m -f0 X co 0 m 4 w.4 0

0eQ0 t .)0 * '0- go0 -41J 4. 4 ad go

15 b~

Appendix A

o -- 0% 7

0 Q

0 t 0

CIA C14 -4 - q ~

W 0 m,

-4~~~~ Lr 7I % -

-C- C)I - 4 A~

00. ~0

4) mU

916, U3.J

o &4 C0 CJ 0o '4 0 > -7i 0

CO

-- 047 -7vs~i1- 4

0 w 74

wc - co D t -H r '4 -H4:X4,- 00 :.0 -

W) 4.) 4 i.. Wo 0 0 0 0 0

-4 L-A 00b

0j "o0w-r

VI :3 W 4 c wb-.

Ujj

P4 LA V .W DboX >

0 W4o41,o>, l

0~~~~- CO Ad >>v U

C cw0 0 w0 04 X -) n% 0

0 a 4. fA4 .

160%,

Appendix A

M% C14--f r! co

0 0

0%0

0I

0 cc

in 0C0

co r-10,70

CU 0 cc

0% 00 0 ~cO

00"1d. 0 0

I Io(UI

CO4to 91 J -

0 0to.0 )

> 0 (u

U C,4

A4 0 co 0 00cc4 z' .coc

0 to

00

m~. ou U).6 4) CL1-

c C 0 &J0

'0 . . 0) .,- 0

.00 V) 0bo >a~ '4 wt%*

identification of command post c*1 exercises (ftx) messagestechnical report 875 identification of...

Documents