> If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to di

> If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist. Battlefield tactics did in fact change during WWI. Quite a lot. Infiltration, use of tanks, combined arms, how artillery was used and coordinated. Some of these innovations were kept and used successfully in WWI and beyond. However, the over-riding reason for stalemates in WWI was because static defensive firepower technology and tactics had, briefly, outpaced maneuver warfare technology and tactics. Accurate and fast-firing long distance firearms neutralized the millenia old technology of cavalry, and made mass advances extremely costly. Mechanized and air power had yet to counter this, but they were quickly developed. And armies had to learn new tactics as well. But that takes time, and losses.