Yes I would argue that the US had a similarly hard time adjusting to the reality of the first world war in a similar manner to the Europeans. US war doctrine was developed in 1911 and was based around achieving fire superiority with riflemen, then attacking in mass formations. Of course, these mass formations were easy targets for German artillery and machine guns, which led to huge, unnecessary loss of life for US forces, whose generals saw this as acceptable. The Germans also noted that the Americans were poor attackers, and did not dart from cover to cover or crawl on their stomachs to avoid enemy fire. They also lacked the ability to capitalise on there gains where they were made. What the Americans had going for them was a large, fresh army that wasn't ground down by years of attrition and fearless men who weren't afraid to throw themselves at the enemy. Of course they learned extremely quickly and we're fighting very effectively by the end of the war. If I had to quantify the difference between European forces and US forces at the time I would I put it down to the Europeans extremely accurate and efficient artillery and better infantry coordination. Source: the western front companion, can't remember the author I'm on my phone will edit later