From Proficiency to Lethality

The Framework for Continuous Improvement in Armored Crews

By SFC Chas D. Ward, SFC Kenneth L. Shelton

Article published on: March 15, 2026 in the Spring 2026 issue of Armor

Read Time: < 6 mins

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 consistently scores “distinguished” on all crew-level training tables, a dangerous period of stagnation can occur where after-action 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 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 decision-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 advantageous for units to track metrics such as “time to fire,” “time to kill,” “scanning 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 Awareness (COFT-SA) and other simulators are a critical, yet often underutilized, asset for advanced training. After a crew qualifies on Table VI, they should maintain a minimum of four hours per month in the simulator. These hours spent in the simulator 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 scenarios 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 engagements over a month, compared to the 160 engagements the same crew would see while conducting two gunneries 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 requirements, allowing crews to proceed directly to the GTLF exercise; saving valuable time during high-operation tempo calendar 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 consider” a process of identifying, assessing, and assigning personnel. A key part of this is ensuring that “Vehicle commander (VC)/gunner combinations are selected together. This maximizes the key leader’s longevity and future proficiency ratings in a more stable manner.” Pairing key leaders to maximize their time together builds the communication and cohesion necessary for high performance. Furthermore, new crews must be allotted sufficient time to master foundational skills during Gunnery Skills Test (GST) training and simulations, without being rushed. This investment in time during prerequisite tables produces higher success rates and greater comfort with the platform. For crews that struggle, commanders can utilize “Table B: Basic Skills Engagements” to provide on-demand, remedial training. Although this requires ammunition outside of standard authorizations, it is a vital tool for elevating a potential Q2 or Q3 crew to a Q1 standard, thereby strengthening the unit’s overall lethality.

Implementing Advanced Challenges and Fostering Competition

To truly test the mastery of top-tier crews, leaders should integrate challenges that go beyond standard qualification tables. This includes creating detection drills with peripheral targets, small threats, and artificial obscurants. Furthermore, “Table C: Complex Engagements” is an existing tool designed for this purpose. According to TC 3-20.31-25, “Table C provides a series of live-fire engagements to showcase a unit’s experienced crews on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), demonstrate their mastery of their profession, and to demonstrate their lethality in a rigorous, competitive course of fire.” This table serves as an excellent framework for internal competitions, such as “Top Gun” or Sullivan Cup selections, creating a competitive environment that pushes the best crews to further hone their skills and demonstrate true mastery of their platform.

Conclusion

Leaders’ responsibility to the Armor community extends beyond meeting qualification standards. We must actively cultivate lethality by using every asset at our disposal. For our new crews, it means providing the time and stability necessary to build a strong foundation for future success. For our experienced crews, this means shifting the focus of AARs to combat effectiveness, maximizing advanced simulator capabilities, and introducing complex challenges. While these efforts may demand additional time and resources, the goal must be to create the most proficient and lethal crews possible, ensuring our forces are prepared for the rigors of combat.

Secretary of the Army, Hon. Dan Driscoll, fires a 25mm cannon from an M3A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle while visiting Fort Stewart, GA., June 23, 2025. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. David Resnick)