Sustaining Readiness Through Recovery
By Sgt. Maj. William H. Powers, Jr. and Sgt. Maj. Zachary D. Wriston
Sergeants Major Academy
Feb 27, 2026
Download the PDF 
In the complex and dynamic battlefield where the military must thrive, senior NCOs must not neglect the post-operations recovery process. Failure to be ready for large-scale combat operations (LSCO) will bear fatal consequences (Weimer, 2024).
Recovery is not simply about identifying damaged or missing personal equipment; it is a methodical approach with essential phases that preserve and enhance readiness, increasing formations’ lethality.
Delivering combat-ready formations requires a “system of systems” approach, a coordinated, collaborative effort across subsystems that prioritizes recovery in training. The post-operations recovery process is an NCO-driven, holistic framework that requires active leader involvement at all echelons.
What is Recovery?
Recovery consists of the planned, deliberate steps that follow a training event or operation. Its purpose is to sustain and enhance readiness and combat power within formations (Department of the Army [DA], 2021).
These phases vary based on the type of training, the unit mission, and the commander’s priorities (DA, 2021). Without a proper post-training recovery plan, issues with personnel, equipment, property, supplies, and training will persist, impacting unit performance in subsequent training events or deployments.
In offense, recovery activities are integral to maintaining tempo and asserting pressure on enemy forces (DA, 2024b). When sergeants major emphasize recovery during training, they instill the same priority across the organization in battle.
Prioritizing Recovery Operations
Richardson et al. (2021) developed a five-phase cycle that emphasizes recovery operations as the starting point for returning an organization to a combat-ready state. Through their efficient command team, they connected personal and organizational accountability to vehicle, equipment, facility, and personnel maintenance, establishing a clear quantitative goal of sustaining 10/20 standards (Richardson et al., 2021).
This approach removes readiness vagueness and uncertainty about standards in the formation, ensuring everyone, from junior Soldiers to the commander, understands that 10/20 is the benchmark rather than the subjective “mission capable.” The five-phase process also recognizes a holistic approach to recovery.
NCO-Driven Holistic Approach
At its core, the recovery process goes beyond equipment, focusing on sustaining Soldier lethality. Post-operation recovery is leader-driven and depends on committed NCOs, who “have the greatest effect on accomplishing organizational goals and achieving mission success” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2014, p. 11).
Sergeants major are the connective tissue of staff teams, advising the commander, influencing first sergeants, and integrating NCOs to achieve mission success in combat (Gardner et al., 2023).
LSCO will involve contested logistics from powerful adversaries, significantly increased lethality, and sustained challenges to the Army’s ability to generate and reconstitute formations (DA, 2024a).
Integrating support elements such as medics, maintainers, supply, and personnel sections is critical in enabling unit readiness and survivability. Involved leadership from squad, platoon, company, and battalion echelons is paramount in the recovery framework.
The success of the post-operation recovery relies on involved leadership committed to prioritizing them through a “system of systems” approach.
“System of Systems” Approach
The recovery process operates as a coordinated network of support elements that ensure unit readiness and sustain operational dominance.
This “system of systems” emphasizes multiple subsystems collaborative efforts, each functioning independently but with an interconnected role. This approach describes the structural framework that achieves recovery operations.
Battalion command teams task company leaders with planning and executing recovery in their formations, coordinating all support element efforts (Richardson et al., 2021).
The recovery process integrates personnel readiness through the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A), Soldier health through the medical protection system (MEDPROS), equipment status via the command maintenance discipline program (CMDP), and proper equipping under the command supply discipline program (CSDP).
At its core, recovery embodies the “whole Soldier” concept.
Medics, maintainers, suppliers, and personnel sections are critical to battalions’ recovery success. They all have established processes that form a system to address issues in their wheelhouse.
LSCO will challenge existing capabilities and systems, forcing Soldiers and leaders to rapidly adapt to counter “organizations, technology, and tactics to exploit fleeting opportunities” on the battlefield (DA, 2024a).
Soldiers are committed to increasing and sustaining unit readiness through processes employed by support elements that are nested in the battalion’s framework, directly affecting effectiveness.
If a small component fails, larger unit systems could be compromised, undermining overall readiness. One prime example of a small system is checking Soldiers’ Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) post-exercise, which is vital to ensuring they are properly equipped and combat ready.
This quick control, if not performed, can have significant repercussions on unit readiness.
Another example is the Command Supply Discipline Program (CSDP), which helps re-equip Soldiers and ensure combat effectiveness. Additionally, CMDP enables units to identify failures in keeping equipment ready.
These small systems support post-operations recovery effectiveness, which subsequently enables battalions’ successful cycle of training, execution, and recovery. Therefore, this process is crucial to maintaining the “system of systems,” a responsibility that requires active, involved leadership at every level.
Leadership Involvement
Post-operations recovery success depends heavily on the emphasis from unit leadership at all levels — squad, platoon, company, and battalion. Lack of discipline or accountability at any level gives the enemy a strategic advantage (Weimer, 2024).
Leadership involvement is essential, as shortcomings in one echelon undermine the entire recovery effort. At the platoon level, NCOs play a significant role in initiating and enforcing this process.
Platoon: NCO Action
At the platoon level and below, NCOs are the most influential leaders in the post-operations recovery process.
With their muddy boot experience, they are uniquely situated as the standard bearers of discipline, readiness, and fieldcraft (Hester, 2024). With their experience as equipment operators, NCOs are subject matter experts on common equipment issues, enabling them to quickly identify and remedy problems that arise.
“NCOs must ensure Soldiers have a comprehensive understanding of fieldcraft so they may operate effectively in any environment” (Hester, 2024).
They are trusted with understanding tactical and technical areas, as well as their Soldiers’ human dimension.
These junior leaders sustain the “system of systems” approach through daily interactions with Soldiers and equipment inspections. They are entrusted with effectively and efficiently communicating Soldier and equipment concerns to their company level command teams.
Company Command Teams
In a company, leadership focuses on training and identifying shortcomings. Conducting after-action reviews with subordinates helps to narrow the focus and gauge training effectiveness.
Command teams are also tasked with ensuring Soldiers are ready to deploy at all times. Without operators’ technical knowledge, squad leader engagement, and platoon and company leader oversight and influence, the recovery process falls apart at the seams (Richardson et al., 2021).
At the next echelon, battalion command teams provide direction and synchronization, which unifies these efforts across the formation.
Battalion Command Teams
Battalion leadership must ensure that company training schedules align with the commander’s intent. Before publishing schedules, battalion command teams must allocate time for post-recovery operations and actively participate through their presence and active engagement.
Additionally, they should task companies to inspect each other — a cross-inspection approach that reduces bias, validates the recovery process, and help maintain or enhance the organization’s lethality.
To achieve this, battalion leadership must implement the Army’s eight-step training model, which provides a structured training approach to planning, executing, and assessing alignment with the commander’s guidance and mission requirements (DA, 2021).
Adhering to this model ensures a systematic approach that enhances training effectiveness, drives continuous improvement, and sustains or increases the organization’s lethality.
Conclusion
The post-operations recovery process is a critical component in maintaining and enhancing unit readiness and lethality. This methodical approach, driven by NCOs and supported by a “system of systems” framework, ensures all aspects of recovery are addressed, from personal and organizational accountability to equipment and personnel maintenance.
Success relies heavily on active leadership involvement at all levels, emphasizing the importance of recovery in both training and combat scenarios. By prioritizing recovery operations, units can achieve and sustain combat readiness, ultimately contributing to their overall effectiveness and success on the battlefield.
References
Department of the Army. (2021). Brigade combat team (FM 3-96). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31505-FM_3-96-000-WEB-1.pdf
Department of the Army. (2024a). The operational environment 2024–2034: Large-scale combat operations (TRADOC Pamphlet 525-92). https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/26EDC9BD-A6C6-4BD8-B663-88DB4528F896-1734185694520/TP525-92_Final.pdf
Department of the Army. (2024b). Infantry rifle platoon and squad (ATP 3-21.8). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN44065-ATP_3-21.8-001-WEB-3.pdf
Gardner, B., Aleong, A., & Black, W. (2023, November–December). At the point of friction: The role of the modern command sergeant major in today’s Army. Military Review, 84–97. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2023/At-the-Point-of-Friction/
Hester, B. (2024). NCOs enable continuous transformation. NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Muddy-Boots/Continuous-Transformation/
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2014). The noncommissioned officer and petty officer: Backbone of the armed forces. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/ncobackbone.pdf
Richardson, C., Allen, W., & Moreno, A. (2021). Tactical perspective: Recovery operations marks the beginning, not the end of ops. U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/article/245404/tactical_perspective_recovery_operations_marke_the_beginning_not_the_end_of_ops
Trujillo, A. (2020). Building a 10/20 fleet. Army Sustainment, 52(2), 44–51. https://alu.army.mil/alog/ARCHIVE/PB7002002FULL.pdf
Weimer, M. (2024). Combat doesn’t care: How ready are you? NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Muddy-Boots/Combat-Doesnt-Care-Weimer/
Sgt. Maj. William H. Powers, Jr. is vice chair of the Department of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Operations, at the Sergeants Major Academy (SGM-A), Fort Bliss, Texas. He is a 2022-23 Sergeants Major Academy Syracuse Fellow. He holds master’s degrees in management and instructional design. He previously served as Command Sgt. Maj. of 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sgt. Maj. Zachary D. Wriston is an instructor in the Department of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Operations, SGM-A. He is a 2022-2023 Sergeants Major Academy Penn State Fellow. He holds master’s degrees in public policy from Liberty University and adult education and lifelong learning from Penn State University. He previously served as operations sergeant major of the 300th Military Police Brigade, Inkster, Michigan.
Back to Top