Evidence Simulation can make training more repeatable, observable and easier to review. The evidence is task-specific, however: it supports carefully designed practice and assessment, not the automatic replacement of live or field training. Independent research The most useful studies define the task, participant group and outcome precisely. Their findings should not be stretched beyond those boundaries. Our analysis of mixed-reality CQB training within an LVC environment applies these evidence principles to the Army Collective Training Service context. Method: Review of 15 military VR studies, including marksmanship and situational-awareness research. Finding: The evidence is most encouraging for marksmanship and repeated practice. Limit: The authors describe the evidence base as partial and call for stronger comparisons with real-world training. Method: A 2025 paired pre/post study of 105 South Korean military personnel. Finding: Participants reported increased combat-performance self-efficacy after VR combat training. Limit: The measure was perceived mental readiness, not live marksmanship or operational performance. Method: A Dutch military room-clearing study involving 35 recruited participants. Finding: Embedded VR measures showed promise for assessing situational awareness and shoot/don’t-shoot decisions. Limit: This validates an assessment approach; it is not evidence that VR training itself improved performance. Method: A Naval Postgraduate School analysis of small-arms training options. Finding: A well-sequenced mix of simulated and live fire can reduce training costs while maintaining marksmanship quality. Limit: The result is specific to the studied programme and should not be treated as a universal savings forecast. Independent research Method: 173 participants took part; 125 completed paired questionnaires after VR training about coercive and controlling behaviour. Finding: Most respondents reported better understanding, greater confidence in recognising CCB and willingness to recommend the method. Limit: These were immediate self-reported outcomes. Missing data, enthusiasm bias and the absence of longitudinal follow-up constrain the conclusion. Method: An initial cohort of 19 officers completed immersive scenarios and evaluation. Finding: Average confidence increased, with observations of enhanced composure and empathy among many participants. Limit: The programme is still being evaluated, and the published account notes that long-term transfer to real-world performance has not yet been established. Operational adoption Defence organisations use simulation and immersive systems across weapons, collective training, navigation and maintenance. These examples establish operational relevance. They do not, by themselves, prove a learning effect. VBS3 has supported individual and collective training; Soldier Virtual Trainer uses STE software for weapon proficiency, use-of-force and call-for-fire tasks. VR bridge training enables repeatable navigation scenarios, recording, replay and instructor-led debrief. The Helicopter Aircrew Training System includes virtual-reality trainers within a wider training system. An AR remote-maintenance case resolved faults in four electronic shelters without deploying the usual contact team. BattleVR measurement BattleVR can help instructors capture evidence within a defined exercise: The data supports instructor judgement; it does not replace it. Cost and resource evaluation Research supports evaluating a blended simulation and live-training model. A credible business case should use the organisation’s own baseline for: Savings should be measured during implementation, not assumed from a generic headline figure. Specify the behaviours, decisions and conditions the exercise is designed to train. Record current performance, resource use and delivery constraints before deployment. Apply repeatable scenarios, rubrics and scoring while distinguishing self-report from observed behaviour. Where appropriate, check whether improvement transfers to live, field or operationally representative assessment. Report participation, attrition, adverse effects and limitations alongside positive outcomes. That makes the evidence useful to instructors and defensible to procurement teams.Evidence for Simulation-Based Firearms and Decision Training
What the evidence supports
What it does not prove
Military training and assessment
Military VR systematic review
Combat-training self-efficacy
Measuring situational awareness
Simulation and live-fire sequencing
Policing, judgement and confidence
College of Policing CCB study
Dyfed-Powys Police pilot
Evidence of use, not proof of effectiveness
US Army
Royal Navy
Australian Defence Force
US Marine Corps
Make performance visible
Build the case from your baseline
How to evaluate an implementation
1. Define the task
2. Establish a baseline
3. Use consistent measures
4. Validate transfer
Choose the guide that matches your evaluation
For research, limitations and outcome measurement, read how effective firearms simulators are. For instructor setup and delivery, use the firearms simulator instructor’s guide. For academy procurement and scenario control, use the police scenario simulator guide.
Request the evidence pack or plan an evaluation
Tell us the training task, audience and outcomes you need to measure. We can map a demonstration or pilot around those requirements.
