Yes, it did take a long time for the strategy to catch up with the techonology. However, in the above quote, the guy is giving an example of the technology lagging behind the strategy. How is it that most of the world is incapable of logical thought?
Anyway, what the guy is really referring to is the tactics not keeping up with the technology, but he doesn't know the difference between tactics and strategy.
Personally, I think the problem was more the strategy rather than the tactics. Marching in to battle in line formation was necessitated by the fact that there was no other way to keep control of them men. Hence, the need to keep them shoulder to shoulder. This state of affairs prevailed, albeit to a lesser degree, through world war 1.
The great breakthrough in strategy was the smaller independent unit, which neccesitated better trained and more loyal soldiers, led by better trained and more numerous officers.
Nobody will admit it of course, but it was Rommel's book "Infrantry attacks" that really changed everything.
Great. And for added realism, they could also have had a few large piles of recently amputated arms and legs stacked and stinking in the sun outside the hospital tents, courtesy of the regimental surgeons' bone saws. That would have really "entertained" the little dears about the medical realities of the Civil War much, much more then their insipid and mundane tales about bleeding with leaches.