From Proficiency to Lethality


The Framework for


Continuous Improvement in Armored Crews


SFC Chas D. Ward SFC Kenneth L. Shelton


As leaders, we are often faced with the challenge of how to continuously improve a crew that has already achieved a high level of proficiency. When a crew has been together for over a year and consis- tently scores “distinguished” on all crew -level training tables, a dangerous period of stagnation can occur where after-ac- tion reviews (AARs) yield little substance for improvement. To counter this, leaders must evolve their training philosophy. The focus must shift from simply training for qualification to training for combat, a principle that applies to developing both highly experienced crews and new crews alike. By leveraging advanced simulation, implementing targeted challenges, and fostering stability, we can create a cycle of continuous improvement that forges the most lethal and proficient crews possible.


Evolving Training for Experienced Crews To push an experienced crew beyond basic proficiency, we must first change how they measure success. During Crew Gunnery Tables IV-VI, evaluators should focus less on scoring and more on the combat-relevant metrics, such as the time from enemy exposure to engagement. If a crew waits until the last moment of a 50-second exposure to engage from a defensive position, we must question if the action is tactically sound or simply a method to guarantee a high score. As stated in Training Circular (TC) 3-20.31- 25, Gunnery: Bradley Fighting Vehicle, “Proper evaluation and assessment of


8


crew performance is key to improving individual and crew skills prior to moving to collective live-fire events.” AARs for these crews should dissect tactical de- cision-making, scanning techniques, and target acquisition speed, framing the conversation around what would be most effective in actual combat. As of now, AARs during simulations tend to focus on “open time”, “close time”, and time spent in the defilade. These matrices are applicable to the grading process but do not focus on combat effectiveness. The doctrine reinforces that it would be ad- vantageous for units to track metrics such as “time to fire,” “time to kill,” “scan- ning techniques,” “exposure time”, and “engagement techniques” to identify where to apply additional training effort. This change in mindset ensures that training directly contributes to a higher level of proficiency and a better outcome during collective-level events.


Maximizing Lethality through Advanced Simulation Conduct of Fire Trainer - Situational Aware- ness (COFT-SA) and other simulators are a critical, yet often underutilized, asset for advanced training. After a crew quali- fies on Table VI, they should maintain a minimum of four hours per month in the simulator. These hours spent in the simu- lator are not just to repeat gate to live- fire (GTLF) nor to train for a better score within the simulator. AAR comments from live-fire exercises (LFXs) can be a great starting point for less experienced crews to choose exercises that directly relate to past behaviors. For experienced crews, TC 3-20.31-25 advises that “the unit should


develop or utilize more challenging sce- narios within the system to maintain crew proficiency.” This consistent practice provides significant advantages. A crew maintaining this regimen by utilizing the combat-focused tables (401-421) will conduct approximately 1,920 digital en- gagements over a month, compared to the 160 engagements the same crew would see while conducting two gun- neries in a year. This massive increase in repetitions – totaling a potential 2,080 engagements when combined with live -fire – builds deep institutional knowledge and streamlines future training require- ments, allowing crews to proceed directly to the GTLF exercise; saving valuable time during high-operation tempo calen- dar weeks (T-6 to T week).


Developing New Crews and Remediating Underperformers The foundation of an expert crew begins with stability and time. As outlined in TC 3-20.31-25, effective crew management, which starts the moment a Soldier arrives at the unit, is paramount. TC 3-20.31-25 further specifies that to “best manage crew turbulence when establishing crew rosters, the commander and staff con- sider” a process of identifying, assess- ing, and assigning personnel. A key part of this is ensuring that “Vehicle com- mander (VC)/gunner combinations are selected together. This maximizes the key leader’s longevity and future profi- ciency ratings in a more stable manner.” Pairing key leaders to maximize their time together builds the communication and cohesion necessary for high perfor- mance. Furthermore, new crews must be


CAVALRY & ARMOR JOURNAL Spring 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52