العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolATTRITION WARFARE
(Redirected from War of attrition)
:''This article is about the military strategy. For the Israeli-Egyptian conflict, see War of Attrition, for the game theoretical model see War of attrition (game). For the Dying Fetus album, see War of Attrition (album)''
'Attrition warfare' is a strategic concept which states that to win a war, one's enemy must be worn down to the point of collapse by continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such reserves/resources.[1]
Most military theorists through history 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 so forth. 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 evenly matched or nearly so, 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. War always contains an element of attrition. However, you can be said to pursue a strategy/operational method/tactic of attrition when you make it your main goal to cause gradual attrition to your opponent (as opposed to trying to conquer some piece of terrain or trying to isolate large sections of the enemy through manoeuvre and annihilate them). Historically, attritional methods are something one tries 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 to totally defeat a nation, other methods are necessary.
The most well-known example of this strategy was during World War I on the Western Front. Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches that ran 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 continually attack each other head on and to grind the other down.[2]
An example where one side used attrition warfare to neutralize the other side's advantage in maneuverability and unit tactics, occurred during the later 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 could overwhelm the Confederacy even if the casualty ratio was unfavorable. That proved to be the case. [3]
★ Battle of Actium of 31 BC during the Roman civil wars.
★ Trench warfare in the American Civil War, notably the Siege of Petersburg.
★ Trench warfare in World War I, including the Battle of the Somme (1916), the Battle of Verdun and many others.
★ Static battles in World War II, including the first phases of the Battle of Stalingrad.
★ The War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel.
★ The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88.
★ Castillo-Corrales
★ Fabian strategy
★ Heroic failure
★ Ivan Bloch
★ Loss Exchange Ratio
★ Maneuver warfare
★ Mexican standoff
★ No-win situation
★ Winner's curse
★ Win-win game
1. Types of War, www.military-sf.com, undated (accessed 20 January,2007
2. About World War 1,www.english.uiuc.edu, date unknown, (accessed 20 January,2007)
3. Ulysses S. Grant, www.nndb.com date unknown (accessed 20 January,2007)
:''This article is about the military strategy. For the Israeli-Egyptian conflict, see War of Attrition, for the game theoretical model see War of attrition (game). For the Dying Fetus album, see War of Attrition (album)''
'Attrition warfare' is a strategic concept which states that to win a war, one's enemy must be worn down to the point of collapse by continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such reserves/resources.[1]
| Contents |
| Strategic considerations |
| History |
| Further examples |
| See also |
| References |
Strategic considerations
Most military theorists through history 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 so forth. 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 evenly matched or nearly so, 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. War always contains an element of attrition. However, you can be said to pursue a strategy/operational method/tactic of attrition when you make it your main goal to cause gradual attrition to your opponent (as opposed to trying to conquer some piece of terrain or trying to isolate large sections of the enemy through manoeuvre and annihilate them). Historically, attritional methods are something one tries 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 to totally defeat a nation, other methods are necessary.
History
The most well-known example of this strategy was during World War I on the Western Front. Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches that ran 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 continually attack each other head on and to grind the other down.[2]
An example where one side used attrition warfare to neutralize the other side's advantage in maneuverability and unit tactics, occurred during the later 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 could overwhelm the Confederacy even if the casualty ratio was unfavorable. That proved to be the case. [3]
Further examples
★ Battle of Actium of 31 BC during the Roman civil wars.
★ Trench warfare in the American Civil War, notably the Siege of Petersburg.
★ Trench warfare in World War I, including the Battle of the Somme (1916), the Battle of Verdun and many others.
★ Static battles in World War II, including the first phases of the Battle of Stalingrad.
★ The War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel.
★ The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88.
★ Castillo-Corrales
See also
★ Fabian strategy
★ Heroic failure
★ Ivan Bloch
★ Loss Exchange Ratio
★ Maneuver warfare
★ Mexican standoff
★ No-win situation
★ Winner's curse
★ Win-win game
References
1. Types of War, www.military-sf.com, undated (accessed 20 January,2007
2. About World War 1,www.english.uiuc.edu, date unknown, (accessed 20 January,2007)
3. Ulysses S. Grant, www.nndb.com date unknown (accessed 20 January,2007)
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
