Attrition warfare was not what people had in mind when they sent off their sons, husbands, and friends, or mailed white feathers to the “cowards” who did not go. We can also see the impact of attrition in the extensive efforts to boost the morale of those at home, far from the fighting - what was referred to as “the home front.” It also contributed to a view that attrition required that terrain be occupied at all cost in order to ensure success. This created an aversion to or negative view of an attritional war. It was characterised by high personnel and equipment losses an inability to bring the war to a decisive end and bloody attritional fighting where, in a number of cases, the aim was to conquer terrain with no tactical and strategic value. Esterhuyse writes:Īlthough campaigns were conducted in different parts of the world, the First World War was largely restricted to a relatively small geographical area in Western Europe. In a paper entitled The Theories of Attrition versus Manoeuvre and the Levels of War, Abel J. “The war will be ended by the exhaustion of nations rather than the victories of armies.” - Winston Churchill This situation led to a stationary war, wherein each side engaged in an incessant hurling of ammunition in the hope of eroding the other’s morale and supplies. Strategists and commanders were somewhat out of their depth, as no one had any real experience with this type of warfare. Leaving the trenches meant the loss of the most valuable resource - people - and the usual techniques were irrelevant. In the process, millions of people died and vast sums of money were spent on ammunition and other resources. Germany slowly lost strength, leading to the eventual failure of their army. Trenches provided a somewhat effective means of protection, as long as soldiers remained within them. Perhaps the most poignant comment on this comes from Harry Patch, the longest surviving World War I soldier, who lived to 111: “If any man tells you he went over the top and he wasn’t scared, he’s a damn liar.”Įven when territory was gained, moving the heavy weapons was difficult and predictable. The goal for much of the war was for each side to amass artillery and troops faster than the other, in order to grind down defenses and sap resources. Both sides were reduced by pure attrition. The large-scale recruitment of horses for cavalry officers, who were then pitted against shells and machine guns, provides a classic image of this sad discrepancy between what was understood and what was done. Raised on Tennyson’s images of heroic hand-to-hand combat, soldiers found themselves instead confined to trenches in a vicious fight to gain territory, inch by inch. Military technology evolved at an unprecedented rate during the start of the 20th century, and the usual maneuvers and tactics were irrelevant. One of the clearest examples of attrition warfare is World War I, so much so that many historians refer to it as “the War of Attrition.” To understand attrition warfare, we can look at examples of how it works. Let’s examine two wars where attrition played a substantial role. By not scoring a decisive blow, the winners leave room for the losers to believe they can win the next time. And most of the time when you win, it’s only temporary. These methods tend to result in far fewer casualties, waste fewer resources and are a display of superior intellect, rather than just strength.Īttrition warfare is usually a last resort only. Traditional military theorists such as Sun Tzu (“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting”) and Machiavelli (“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception”) evangelized for clever tactics. Indeed, theorists are divided as to whether attrition is even a separate tactic, rather than a ubiquitous feature of all conflict. The International Encyclopedia of the First World War defines attrition warfare as “the sustained process of wearing down an opponent so as to force their physical collapse through continuous losses in personnel, equipment and supplies or them down to such an extent that their will to fight collapses.”Īttrition warfare is considered a somewhat dirty tactic, although necessary in some situations. “When you do as everyone else does, don’t be surprised when you get what everyone else gets.” - Peter Kaufman The best way out is to use a different approach - through tactics, strategy, or weaponry. It’s hard to see when you’re in it, but most people and businesses are in some form of attrition warfare. The winning side usually has a slight advantage in production capability or resources. When warring opponents use similar approaches and possess similar weapons, trench warfare becomes inevitable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |