I've watched a number of documentaries and movies and read books about the Korean War recently and there seems to be a commonality with WW1 in that some engagements would have a heavy artillery barrage which would lift, (or airstrikes for the American side), and then a rush at the enemy lines. After this had failed so completely in WW1 and the 'creeping barrage' had proved a successful tactic, did it endure in later conflicts? If not, why not? I can't help but wonder if those Chinese infantry wave attacks were able to hit right behind a lifting barrage if the result of some of those battles would have been different. Thanks.
The creeping barrage today it is one of many options of how to use artillery. It can be very effective in situations where communication is limited, there is sufficient concentration of guns, enemy position is fixed, and the objective is to gain ground or lines of defense. However, it is wasteful and it requires that the attackers synchronize their movement with that of the barrage.
In WW2 it used on several occasions on the eastern front by the USSR because it was suitable in many situations. The USSR army had limited communication, and the static condition in some battles meant they knew where the enemy was, or at least where they wanted to attack.
With improved communication, and improved artillery targeting, it is more effective to directly target certain positions, either relative to where the enemy is or relative to where your troops are. In the Korean war this is how artillery barrages were used by UN forces: they called for a barrage in the areas surrounding their defensive positions when they are attacked.
The military still uses artillery for a number of methods. Without discussing tactics that I shouldn't, we used artillery for cover when we could. The walking indirect fire onto your target and sustaining it for a specified time is still used to this day. It's highly effective