It reminds me a lot of ~1900 exercise field fortifications. It's just a bit too empty for a 1900 illustration, of course.
The rest of the manual has many very elaborate buildings (supposed to be field fortifications) that would be inadequate for peacekeeper outposts, too easily hit in static warfare and too elaborate for mobile warfare.
Field fortifications and field manuals seems to be a NATO-wide if not world-wide problem. The state of the art seems to lag behind technology by decades, and many field manuals lag behind the state of the art by even more decades.
Germans and Austrians rarely create grenade sumps, for example.
The Bundeswehr did (and I think it still does) prefer field of fire absolutely over protection - as if it was still in the "our MG42 provides 80% of the squad's firepower and the squad only has one, therefore it needs maximum field of fire!" mode despite the introduction of automatic rifles and two MG4 into the squad.
And then there's the generally stupid idea of trenches in open terrain. That's easy to illustrate - and idiotic.
Field fortifications is one of the topics that promise a rude awakening in the next great war. The peacekeeping and small war above-ground fortifications surely did much harm to the idea of field fortifications.
Bookmarks