During the two World Wars bunkers became the dominant mode of

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to man's stupidity", so sayeth general patton

>>3027035
So they should immediately try a moving one then.

>>3027035
He said as he was stuck outside Metz for ages.

Probably something that takes defense in depth to the extreme. With long-range artillery and fairly accurate aircraft that can blows lots of shit up, concentrating your forces into static fortifications is just painting a giant bullseye on your forces.

Fixed fortifications are useless in the context of modern, extremely mobile warfare.

>>3027187
Are you using a bizarre definition of "Fixed fortifications", or are you just completely ignorant as to how actual modern warfare works?

Do you have any idea how many zillions of kilometers of trench, barbed wire, mines, and bunkerization happened in WW2? And just about every war since?

Virtual fortifications like firewalls.

>>3027187
>>3027035
It's still useful at operational level. You see a lot of temporary fortified HQ all the time. I mean the idea of a makeshift or portable temporary fort designed to be mass produced and spread all across the map isn't so bad at all.

>>3027190
*fixed* as in maginot line or hinderburg line.

File: germ_warfare_intro.gif (4KB, 320x240px)

4KB, 320x240px

>>3027002
>What will be the next step of fortification, if there is a war which utilizes the full destructive capabilities of our current technology?
Self sustaining orbital habitat.

>Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

AA artillery, ABMs, cruise missiles replaced classic fortifications, because the best defense is to not the get hit at all.