Question - besides accurate firepower and besides the lack of maneuvering room due to the large sizes of the armies, could the constitution of the armies of the period be said to be a reason why armies had to, after a brief time, forsake movement in the open field in favor of availing themselves of the protection of field fortifications?
Were there any examples of armies constituted of professionals which at first tried unsuccessfully to maneuver against their opponents in the open field and then failing to achieve a quick victory that way were relegated to sitting in trenches for the duration of their wars?
Perhaps that continental armies from revolutionary French times up to WWI had been mass armies consisting of conscripts was the reason for trench or field fortification warfare being the dominant form of warfare.
Perhaps what made these wars to be as they were was that the most recent experience in large scale warfare had not been possessed for several previous generations. And perhaps the changes seen in WWII were due to the experience in WWI learned and applied within a single generation of a largely professional German army cadre.
