I don't trust field fortifications anymore.
The accuracy improvement of 120mm mortars and 152-155mm guns and the capabilities of sensors (especially aerial ones) are scary. Some radars can produce accurate pictures of trenches (even between bushes) at a distance of more than 300 km. The technology was available to NATO nations 20 years ago - and initially (much less impressive performance) used in the Vietnam War. We might be on the reflecting end of this soon.

Entrenching doesn't work very well when you need to be mobile anyway.

It doesn't work well if you need to cover a large area / wide frontage with few troops as is usual requirement in staff exercises.
Our brigades need to cover frontages as did corps in earlier wars. That cannot be done by entrenched troops, not even on the static defense.

It's always good to dig for added protection when you've got time and strength to do so, but I believe that it's not remotely as important or effective against 1st rate opponents as it was a generation ago.


@Ken;
Collective experiences coin expectations and perceptions. That's why I mentioned the seemingly unrelated stuff.

I didn't take the most extreme losses of WW2/Korea as example to close in on the more modern low casualty perception. The plan was to reduce the dissent to keep the discussion easy. No kidding.

The solution to that -- and I am totally serious -- is not to lay down, that's an invitation to trouble.
I don't get why.