The best-known example of attrition warfare might be on the Western Front during World War I. Minard's map of French casualties see also Attrition warfare against Napoleon Best known The Battle of Verdun resulted in over 700,000 casualties It shows the steady decrease of the number of soldiers of the French Grande Armée during the course of the war. One of the best visual representations of the Russian attrition warfare strategies was created by Charles Joseph Minard. The French invasion of Russia is a textbook example how elements of attrition warfare interfered with Napoleon's military logistics and won the war without a decisive battle. Although the strategy is typically victorious for the more well-resourced nation, it may eventually fail due to operational and geopolitical mishaps, such as Athens during the Peloponnesian War, or due to strategic miscalculations, such as Germany during the Battle of Britain.Įxamples in history Most typical Animated map of the Russian campaign Additionally, the attrition strategies gives opponents time to adjust tactics and strategy. The geopolitical and strategic situation may shift dramatically over long periods of time, potentially giving the opponent an edge if victory is not achieved soon enough. Perhaps the most common reason for failure of attrition warfare is related to the time required to fulfill one's war goals. Īlthough attrition warfare may seem like a logical choice for combatants with more resources or asymmetric advantages than their opponent, there are also significant disadvantages. ![]() Attrition warfare also tries to increase the friction in a war for the opponent. That should be seen as opposed to other main goals such as the conquest of some resource or territory or an attempt to cause the enemy great losses in a single stroke (such as by encirclement and capture). One can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition if one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent eventually amounting to unacceptable or unsustainable levels for the opponent while limiting one's own gradual losses to acceptable and sustainable levels. The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial since even a single battle normally contains an element of attrition. World War I military commanders on both sides ineffectively relied on attrition warfare, which resulted in casualties without a strategic result. When attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are often complemented or even abandoned by other strategies. Sun Tzu has stated that there is no country that has benefitted from prolonged warfare, but Russia in 1812 won the war with attrition warfare against Napoleon. Ī side that perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages over time. Clausewitz called it the exhaustion of the adversary. ![]() The side that reinforces their army at a higher speed will normally win the war. Attrition warfare does not include all kinds of Blitzkrieg or using concentration of force and a decisive battle to win. ![]() Strategic considerations Īttrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent's ability to make war by destroying their military resources by any means including guerrilla warfare, people's war, scorched earth and all kind of battles apart from a decisive battle. The word attrition comes from the Latin root atterere, meaning "to rub against", similar to the "grinding down" of the opponent's forces in attrition warfare. Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel, material, and morale.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |