How US Army Tests the Mobility and Responsiveness of Its Artillery Units for High-Intensity Warfare.

At Fort Drum, New York, on May 18 and 19, 2025, the artillery guns of the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment (2-15 FA) fired as part of the Table XVIII qualification, the final certification phase before the unit’s scheduled rotation to the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). Far from being a routine drill, this training event reflects broader structural changes within the U.S. Army in terms of doctrine, operational tempo, and joint-force integration. This tactical episode provides a detailed, real-time snapshot of a military force transforming.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

This operational logic reflects the U.S. Army’s broader objective in recent years: preparing for high-intensity conflicts characterized by speed, dispersion, interconnectivity, and the need for precise synchronization across force components (Picture source: US DoD)

Table XVIII represents the culmination of the artillery unit evaluation process. It took place under demanding conditions, following directly after Mountain Peak 25-01, a large-scale training exercise that involved over 3,000 soldiers. The back-to-back nature of these two events highlights the Army’s intent to validate not only the technical readiness of its systems but also the physical and cognitive resilience of its personnel, operating at a tempo aligned with the standards of a deployable, expeditionary force.

Tactically, the exercise illustrates a shift in operational approach. The maneuver is no longer linear or centralized: artillery batteries operate semi-independently under battalion fire direction control, repositioning frequently to adapt to shifting battlefield conditions. These continual movements support an adaptive dispersion model, designed to complicate enemy targeting and ensure survivability. The objective is not just to deliver accurate fire, but to do so while in motion, day and night, while maintaining logistical continuity and coordination among batteries, observers, and command elements.

Statements from junior officers, such as Lieutenant Stephen Van Matre and Lieutenant Christian Petrilli, confirm the emphasis on integration. The skills being developed go beyond basic fire procedures; they involve operating as a coherent system capable of managing the complexity of combined arms operations. This requires a flexible command structure able to function under uncertainty, as well as multi-skilled operators accustomed to acting independently while remaining connected to overall maneuver objectives.

This operational logic reflects the U.S. Army’s broader objective in recent years: preparing for high-intensity conflicts characterized by speed, dispersion, interconnectivity, and the need for precise synchronization across force components. Table XVIII serves as a benchmark for operational maturity, marking a threshold that confirms units are capable of functioning in information-dense, high-threat environments while maintaining continuous mobility.

The conclusion of the Table XVIII exercise at Fort Drum demonstrates that U.S. artillery units, such as those within 2-15 FA, are no longer positioned solely as static support elements for infantry. Instead, they are configured to play an active role in combined arms operations, with the ability to reposition and engage effectively in concert with other maneuver forces. This training scenario thus serves as a revealing indicator of the Army’s evolving posture, shaping adaptable, integrated, and mobile units designed for the multi-domain operational environment.