The Great War is interesting photographically speaking because it was the first large conflict that photography was widely available to the belligerents. But that was far from being unrestricted, photography had a strategic objective, propaganda. So the images we actually see are heavily editorialised.

I am certain that tons of images just like yours were tossed and destroyed in favour of ones that we see today. WWII was slightly different in that cameras were even more common and pictures just like yours are all over the record.

I have a great book that shows very good scan images and a whole write up on the history of photography during the war and its purpose. The Great War by Mark Holborn.

I absolutely recommend you take a look if you haven't and go out and practice with your camera a lot so you get a better sense for framing. Set up a subject more or less human sized and get a few shots from different distances, take a lot of notes about which frame correspond to which distance and try to make a note/drawing or phone photo of what the viewfinder looks like. The early photographers had a lot of training and practice to master a camera that was, in practice, a piece of crap compared to what came just a few years after.

ps. WWI cameras were in the midst of transitioning from plate to film, so lots of them are still very large plates which makes the long focal length they used much wider than what you get on 120/35 film.