Do you have any sources for the dominant role of artillery in WW1, Effrem? My impression was that because the technology was rather backward, artillery was not nearly as effective as you make out. You may be right it was the big killer, but I am not sure how many offensive battles it won. Generals over-relied on it. WW1 seems to be a catalogue of offensives that were supposed to be decisive because of the weight of supporting artillery, but still became bogged down. War only became fluid only when they had mastered other approaches - infilitration tactics, tanks etc. Dogged infantry, dug in and defending in depth with ample machine guns can take a lot artillery fire (going out of context, Monte Cassino in WW2 is a case in point). Even if they break, it's not hard to establish another trench line a few miles back if the follow throw to any successes is delayed (as it often was due to the poor communications of the time).