User talk:Bombshelterjoe

Asymmetric Tactical Level Training
There is a clear distinction between training that is intended for conventional warfare and training that is intended for unconventional conflicts, irregular warfare, asymmetric battles, counterinsurgency operations, or small wars as they are called. Consider the following distinctions.

Training that is designed for traditional forms of warfare can utilize the well-know task, conditions, and standards format, and the crawl, walk, and run approach. This form of training does indeed accomplish the intended goal of task automization. Task automization is the point at which a specific task like weapons crew drill, vehicle driving, or the operation of a radio becomes automatic. Task training, or the repetition of a task, step-by-step, over and over again does in fact produce a deep familiarization of the task. This deep familiarization allows the person doing the task to divert some of their attention to other tasks. For example, when an individual takes a-part a weapon over and over again for great lengths of time, day after day, the task becomes automatic. The more the task is repeated the better the person gets at the task. As the person repeats the task their concentration can be diverted from the individual steps of the task to other smaller tasks, like talking or listening to others, or eating or drinking. With traditional task training motor skill and cognitive familiarization occur and the individual does not need to focus all of their attention on the steps of the task they are completing.

As compared, asymmetric tactical level training, by its very nature, in the majority of cases should not lead to automization. In the case of unconventional warfare soldiers need to be taught how to asses, think, and adapt. For instance, if sensitive site exploitation or searching a house were taught to soldiers with the task, conditions, and standards format and this created automization would this be a problem? The answer is yes. Soldiers searching a house have to keenly focus, all their attention, on the task at-hand and be very aware of victim initiated IEDs. If Traffic Control Point Operations were conducted the same way each and every-time would this be a problem? Again, the answer is yes. The entire crew of the vehicle has to pay special attention to the area in which they are operating in, because of potential IED threats. For this type of task to become automatic could lead to injuries and deaths. In an asymmetric tactical situation traditional forms of training are not adequate. Training designed for asymmetric tactical level training has to address and then improve a soldiers cognitive abilities, their survivability, their problem solving skills, their flexibility, their memorization skills, and tech them learning techniques, and then allow the soldiers being taught to use these skills, methods, and techniques in various training environments.

Another reason why traditional task training is not appropriate for asymmetric tactical level training is that enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) constantly change. Because of this, it is actually quit difficult for conventional task training schemes to keep ahead of, or even keep pace with emerging enemy TTPs. For instance, conventional task training utilizes a Program of Instruction (POI)that is structured in the following manner; task, conditions, and standards. If a friendly task is designed to counter specific enemy activity and the enemy activity is changed, or the conditions in which the enemy uses the activity are altered then it takes valuable time to make changes to the friendly TTP. There is a time delay between doctrine based training and the actual use of doctrine based tasks in the field. It takes valuable time to document, approve, disseminate, and implement doctrine based tasks.

Advanced teaching and training techniques such as chunking (1.), the sequencing of instruction (2.), conditions of learning (3.), mnemonics (4.), meta-processing (5.), levels of processing (6.), and realism (7.) must be a part of the design, development, analysis, and presentation of all training intended for asymmetric conflicts. Inclusion of these advanced teaching, training, and learning techniques would in fact improve the overall quality control, quality assurance, standardization, and evaluation processes of military training.More information about this topic can be found at http://www.asymmetrictacticaltraining.comBombshelterjoe (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

1.(a)George A. Miller, (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two : Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information.

(b)Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C. H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J.M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 236-243.

2.Bapi, R. S., Pammi, V. S. C., Miyapuram, K. P., and Ahmed (2005). Investigation of sequence learning: A cognitive and computational neuroscience perspective. Current Science, 89:1690-1698.

3.Robert M. Gagne, (1965). Conditions of Learning, originally published in 1965 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

4.Richard J. campbell, (2010). Asymmetric Tactical Training. United States Xlibris publishers.

5.a)Rhodes, M.G. & Anastasi J.S. (2000). "The effects of a levels-of-processing manipulation on false recall" (pdf). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7 (1): 158–62.

(b)Toth, J.P. (1996). "Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: Levels-of-processing effects on familiarity". Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 50 (1): 123–38.

(c)Kapur, S., F.I.M Craik, E. Tulving, A.A. Wilson, S. Houle, & G.M. Brown (1994). "Neuroanatomical Correlates of Encoding in Episodic Memory: Levels of Processing Effect". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91 (6): 2008–2011. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.6.2008.

(d)Craik, FIM; Lockhart RS (1972). "Levels of processing: A framework for memory research". Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 11 (6): 671–84. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X Bombshelterjoe (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)