|
|
|
|
Attrition warfare
|
| |
|
| |
Attrition warfare is a military tactic in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and matériel. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.
The Vietnam War is typically used as a prime example of a war of attrition: American strategy was to wear down the enemy until it lost its "will to fight".
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Attrition warfare' Start a new discussion about 'Attrition warfare' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Attrition warfare is a military tactic in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and matériel. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.
The Vietnam War is typically used as a prime example of a war of attrition: American strategy was to wear down the enemy until it lost its "will to fight". Another example is World War I, when Russia, France, Britain, and eventually the United States wore down Germany to the point of capitulation.
Strategic considerations
Most military theorists and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided. In the sense that attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories through manoeuvre, concentration of force, surprise, and the like. On the other hand, a side which perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage in manoeuvre warfare or unit tactics may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages. If the sides are nearly evenly matched, the outcome of a war of attrition is likely to be a pyrrhic victory. The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial, since war always contains an element of attrition. However, one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent, as opposed to trying to conquer terrain or to isolate large sections of the enemy through manoeuvre. Historically, attritional methods are tried when other methods have failed or are obviously not feasible. Typically, when attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are abandoned in favor of other strategies. Attritional methods are in themselves usually sufficient to cause a nation to give up a non-vital ambition, but other methods are generally necessary to achieve unconditional surrender.
History
The best-known example of attrition warfare was during World War I on the Western Front. Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches running from Switzerland to the English Channel. For years, without any opportunity for maneuvers, the only way the commanders thought they could defeat the enemy was to repeatedly attack head on, to grind the other down. An example in which one side used attrition warfare to neutralize the other side's advantage in maneuverability and unit tactics occurred during the latter part of the American Civil War, where Ulysses S. Grant pushed the Confederate Army continually, in spite of losses, confident that the Union's supplies and manpower would overwhelm the Confederacy even if the casualty ratio was unfavorable, which indeed proved to be the case.
Further examples
See also
|
| |
|
|
