I think you'll find resounding themes in nearly every conflict, most notable are those that deal with bureaucratic archtecture and dynamics. The inertia is real.
Hindsight is certainly a tricky thing. There seems to be a trend among academics of turning history into something linear, which then seems to invite a particular illusion of predictability, "if only we study history more, we won't repeat the same mistakes." In this way, hindsight tends to produce the appearance of a complete understanding of facts and complexities. The reality is that things such as society, warfare, economics, etc. are interactively complex systems which are non-linear - actions of the parts produce inconsistent effects on the whole. Effect valuation is fairly difficult. Only after the fact, are those values able to be "determined." One of John Boyd's last presentations was something he called "Conceptual Spiral." It essentially summarized the path to notable technological development. It translates fairly well to tactical evolution. Two good reads if you have the time are: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn and "The Limits of Airpower: The American Bombing of North Vietnam" by Mark Clodfelter.
It leads to a consideration of the military's space between rhetoric and action when it comes to innovation.
