Maintenance Moving Forward

By Staff Sergeant Brandi Schneider

January 1, 2026 | Engineer, 2026 E-Edition

Read Time: < 9 mins

Pfc. Parker Tannehill and Pv2. Nikolas Versis, maintainers with the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, perform maintenance on an AH-64 Apache helicopter at Katterbach Army Airfield, Germany, Sept. 10, 2025. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Terrell Mason)

The contents of this article do not represent the official views of, nor are they endorsed by, the U.S. Army, the Department of War (DoW), or the U.S. Government.

This article was edited with the assistance of AI tools, and subsequently reviewed and edited by relevant Department of War (DoW) personnel to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with DoW policies and guidance.

When you think large-scale combat operations (LSCO), what comes to mind? Army doctrine publication 3-0 defines LSCO as extensive joint combat operations in terms of scope and size of forces committed conducted as a campaign aimed at achieving operational and strategic objectives. 1 Professionals who seek to become experts should use this definition as the starting point to identify, analyze, and evaluate historical examples; synthesize those examples into lessons; and apply those lessons in real-world operational plans.

The Army’s culture has been shaped by previous wars, and we have learned from each war in which we have fought. During the war in Iraq, the Army was successful in many ways; however, retired Colonel James K. Greer states that the Army’s logistical system was strained and failed in several areas based on reports at the time. 2 This means that logistics must now be prioritized more than ever to keep up with today’s warfare. In an article published in Military Review, Majors Dzwonczyk and Merkley assert that the best way to get in the right mindset to fight today’s war is through leadership development, particularly education and training. 3

Success in today’s environment hinges on a robust and adaptive logistical system—making its continuous improvement more critical than ever. A focused assessment of maintenance-related military occupational specialty (MOS) roles is critical for determining their strengths and weaknesses. The 91-series MOS often faces significant challenges due to a lack of knowledge about specific equipment components and the procedures required to repair them.

As a maintainer, you are expected to be the subject matter expert (SME) on all equipment you have listed in your unit’s modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE). However, there is always room to sharpen your skills and expand your expertise as a maintainer. Experience levels among maintainers can vary significantly. While some have extensive experience with commonly used equipment found in most units, others may be assigned to units where they encounter unfamiliar systems for the first time. For instance, a 91B wheel vehicle mechanic who is accustomed to working in a forward support company (FSC) or similar unit that has strictly wheeled vehicles might be assigned to an engineer unit that has a completely different MTOE. In this engineer unit, personnel would collaborate closely with the 91L. Construction Equipment Repairers maintain and operate various platforms—including hydraulic systems, tracked vehicles, and boats. Technical skills proficiency across diverse equipment platforms and systems is essential to ensuring combat readiness.

While mechanics must understand the basics of equipment operation, most have received a limited amount of training specific to their MOS. To overcome these challenges across the Army, leaders implement cross training in the motorpool (in accordance with guidelines per Army techniques publication [ATP] 4-33, paragraph 4-121) 4 to improve efficiency. However, this process is more complex than it appears, underscoring the need for a more standardized and robust approach to initial training within the 91-series MOS.

Advanced individual training (AIT) within the 91-series MOS should implement a more systematic approach to equipment instruction, ensuring that all maintainers receive consistent training across the force. AIT courses vary in complexity and outcome; some offer industry-recognized certifications, while others provide 8 weeks of foundational, hands-on training without a formal credential. Integrating standardized certifications across all 91-series AIT courses would enhance Soldiers’ knowledge and understanding, ensuring that every MOS maintains a baseline maintenance capability.

A reload crew of Patriot Launching Station Enhanced Operator and Maintainers with Delta Battery, 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 38th ADA Brigade, performs reload operations on their air defense system on Oct. 28, 2024 during the battery’s deployment in support of Keen Sword 2025. (U.S. Army photo and caption by Staff Sgt. Connor Davis)

This approach would enable Soldiers to contribute to problem-solving immediately upon arrival at their units, rather than requiring additional support. Furthermore, recognizing the diverse learning styles within the force is critical; adapting training methodologies to accommodate these differences will maximize Soldier proficiency and enhance battlefield effectiveness. Adopting a model similar to field-level maintenance new equipment training (NET) would benefit Soldiers of all different learning styles.

While often delivered by civilian contractors, the Army should transition NET instruction to a diverse cadre of military personnel to reduce associated costs. This SME could deliver comprehensive instruction tailored to a unit’s MTOE, prioritizing systems that are frequently non-mission capable and pose risks to its combat readiness. This change would deepen Soldiers’ understanding of motor pool equipment across the Army and mitigate equipment readiness gaps that may occur.

When we raise concerns about combat readiness, the focus inevitably shifts toward the equipment readiness—specifically, whether it is fully mission capable. When the equipment is deemed not fully mission capable, the initial focus should be on operator proficiency and accountability before placing responsibility on the maintainers. This shift in focus is critical, as operator proficiency and preventative maintenance are foundational to equipment readiness.

The relationship between the operators and mechanics is often contentious due to a lack of ownership from some operators over the equipment they operate daily or during training exercises. This neglect leads to recurring faults—and sometimes more severe issues—that the mechanics are left to resolve repeatedly, fostering frustration and eroding trust.

Comprehensive NET for operators is crucial for developing SMEs within the Army and should be complemented by standardized, directed driver training programs. Furthermore, diligent and thorough preventative maintenance checks and services (PMCS) can prevent minor faults from escalating into more significant maintenance issues. Addressing faults while still in the rear helps prevent problems for operators and mechanics on the battlefield. Although PMCS may appear routine or redundant, it remains a critical step in sustaining equipment readiness. Unfortunately, many operators bypass this responsibility, often relying on maintainers to catch any issues. Shifting this mindset requires instilling a sense of ownership in operators. While accountability through charges for negligence is an option, it does not address honest mistakes. Requiring retraining for such errors may be redundant and, in some cases, counterproductive. To prevent actions like this from happening, leaders at all levels must be engaged, knowledgeable, and—most importantly—present during operator training and PMCS. By ensuring that operators take proper care of their equipment, we can improve the efficiency of the repair process. Addressing these specific issues can also help alleviate logistical problems related to the timely distribution and delivery of repair parts.

Many problems in the motorpool can easily be prevented, and it begins with the operator conducting a simple yet thorough PMCS. Building upon this foundation of operator responsibility, the Army is actively pursuing technological solutions to further enhance maintenance efficiency.

The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Combat Support (PEO CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) has introduced technologies designed to enhance the operator and maintainer relationship and improve equipment readiness. Modern warfighting capabilities increasingly rely on technological advancements across all domains.

The creation of the Data Integration for Ground Systems in tandem with the Digital Logbook revolutionizes the operator and maintenance process by enhancing efficiency and streamlining data movement. PEO CS and CSS describe this advanced tool as a key enabler of seamless data integration. It streamlines the processes of collecting platform-specific diagnostic fault data, navigating model-specific technical manuals, requesting and selecting parts, and submitting fault reports into the Global Combat Support System–Army. 5 Additionally, it automatically updates technical manuals, software patches, and data synchronization across networked devices—keeping manuals and software current and compliant. It is easy to use because, once docked, no further action is required. 6 This device helps to bridge the gap between operators and maintainers with real-time updates on parts ordering, because it prevents duplicate fault entries—one of the top complaints from operators. While this modernized system may face logistical challenges in LSCO, it can significantly build and sustain combat readiness in rear areas by identifying fully mission capable and non-mission capable equipment.

TRADOC Pamphlet (PAM) 525-92 emphasizes that successful operations in today’s Army require protecting and maintaining supply chains and maintenance support, as these are high-value targets for adversaries during LSCO. 7

It is important to recognize that certain aspects of the Army’s logistical system may sometimes be overlooked, particularly as operations increase in intensity and complexity. As ATP 4-33 notes, maintenance operations must increase to meet the demands of a high operational tempo during armed conflict. LSCO introduces levels of complexity, lethality, ambiguity, and speed not commonly seen in other operations. 8

To mitigate potential issues in LSCO the Army should prioritize leader development, focusing on education and training to enhance Soldier capabilities. Comprehensive training, encompassing proficiency in various equipment platforms, for maintainers and operators across the Army will increase lethality in modern warfare.

Notes