[retread]

Technological advances had changed the face of warfare in ways that those conducting the war had still yet to discover, yet alone to adapt to.It was a new game.
The Russians were sending wireless communications that were usually not even coded.This was a fountain of intelligence for the Germans. Add aerial observation and any sizeable body of forces on the move cannot be kept a secret. What if Hooker had such capabilities during the battle of Chancellorsville? Lee's most daring victory would probably have ended in his destruction.
What is interesting about Tannenberg is that the Russians who had (apparently) roughly equal numbers of planes and pilots available as their opponents failed entirely to (again apparently) produce convincing intelligence that would have so opened the eyes of Samsonov and Rennenkampf as we are traditionally led to believe German aerial observation opened the eyes of Hindenberg and Ludendorff.
If true how come? Was it logistics? Organizational differences? Perhaps personality differences of opposing commanders. More likely a combination of such factors.
So often the commanders of the combatant nations during WW1 are portrayed as befuddled fools. I myself do not buy this in large. I feel it was more a case of rapidly developing technological capabilities that fundementally so changed the face of warfare that those who trained and studied all their lives for armed conflict-be they American, English, German, French, Russian et al- were left without effective options.
Until they learned to employ their new weapons and tools and develop new modes of thought regarding warfare.
Is it inexcusable that this would take a number of years? Is it even surprising? Speaking for myself I feel it is niether.