I'm currently reading a fairly good WW1 history - The World Unmade and I've previously read quite a few memoirs of WW1. I've also read a fair bit about the Polish-Soviet war which is essentially the same technology and tactics. There are also a lot of ebook versions of memoirs from the period http://manybooks.net/categories/WAR I'm interested in sharing ideas and interpretations of why things happened in a certain way then, and how the big pictures fitted together. I don't want to clog up the pre-industrial or modern warfare threads either. So far, there are a few trends that are definitely noticeable. Absolutely massive numbers. The British army was small by European standards and had 4 million men by 1918. It would be impossible to create such numbers of soldiers so quickly in the modern world. Total dominance of artillery. Responsible for nearly 60% of casualties, and it's massive power and slow movement dictated tactics. Poor communication and reconnaissance. Armies started using radio and aerial photography, but the systems were slow, inaccurate or cumbersome. Whole armies appeared that the enemy had no idea about. Chaos. The Austro-Hungarians, Turks and Russians were utterly disorganised. Movement. Massive use of railways to move troops made nodal points absolutely vital. Armies could only function away from rail heads for a handful of days. Breakthroughs. Armies could break through lines, but couldn't exploit it well due to their speed, the massive amount of space an exploiting force needed to deploy, poor communications and problems with artillery support. Tactics. The more I read, the more I think that the tactics weren't so much bad as warfare had practically outgrown tactics. This was the era of war by railway timetable and everything had to be planned in advance. It's no wonder tactics were poor when armies were immense, slow moving, hard to supply and hard to control.