Attrition warfare

Attrition warfare is a military strategy in which one side attempts to wear down an opponent by continually expending resources and inflicting battlefield losses until the enemy’s ability to fight collapses. The term attrition comes from the Latin word attritionem, which means “a rubbing against,” in the sense of rubbing or wearing something away. In attrition warfare, the warring side with the greater number of soldiers, equipment, and supplies typically uses these resources with seemingly little regard toward cost. The hope is that the constant pressure of the barrage eventually proves too much for the enemy to sustain a defense. The strategy has been used in some form since ancient times and stands in contrast to the tactic of maneuver warfare. In modern times, attrition warfare is most often associated with World War I (1914–1918), a conflict in which millions of soldiers were killed for relatively little battlefield progress.

Background

Military experts often define warfare and battlefield strategy in different terms. As a result, a consensus agreement as to the types of warfare is difficult to achieve. In general, forms of attrition warfare are believed to be among history’s oldest types of fighting strategy. Victory in battle was typically achieved by the superior size of the fighting force and its ability to either destroy its opponent or inflict enough casualties to force its opponent to surrender.

A contrasting style of warfare, known as maneuver warfare, developed after ancient civilizations domesticated the horse and later invented horse-drawn chariots. The increased ability to maneuver on the battlefield allowed armies to use various strategies to disrupt an enemy’s ability to fight without engaging the main force directly. Maneuver warfare may include a quick-strike attack that catches an opponent off guard, or the use of battlefield intelligence to concentrate an attack on an enemy’s weak point. Historically, this type of warfare has been used by smaller military forces to defeat larger armies.

In general, most warfare uses some combination of attrition and maneuver tactics. For example, in 216 BCE, Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy and defeated the armies of the Roman Republic in two decisive battles. In response, Roman commander Fabius Maximus decided on a hit-and-run strategy in which the Romans engaged Hannibal in constant smaller skirmishes and then retreated. The tactic took a toll on Hannibal’s forces, slowly whittling away his manpower through attrition and interrupting the army’s ability to plan a concentrated attack. A similar strategy was used by American general George Washington to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783).

Overview

World War I is often held up by military experts as the prime example of the modern concept of attrition warfare. The conflict was the result of years of simmering tensions in Europe and a series of military alliances that obligated nations to take sides in the event of war. On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a Bosnian Serb nationalist. His death caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, triggering the many alliances among the European powers. By August 1914, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the other Central Powers were at war with Russia, France, Great Britain, and other Allied forces.

Germany faced enemies on two sides, with France and Great Britain to the west and Russia to the east. Its military leaders believed it could win the war in the west quickly by overwhelming the French and capturing Paris before British forces had time to join the fight. The German army poured through neutral Belgium and into France, but was stopped in its advance by the French and British just thirty miles outside of Paris. The two sides dug into trenches and fortified their positions, a defensive stance that protected their troops but made advances on the battlefield difficult. This standoff known as the Western Front persisted for years.

In 1916, German general Erich von Falkenhayn devised a plan to win the war on the Western Front by orchestrating a massive attack on French forces at Verdun, in northeastern France. Von Falkenhayn’s goal was to “bleed France white” by a war of attrition in which German forces would relentlessly hammer the French with artillery fire and waves of soldiers. He believed the French would put everything they had into defending Verdun, even pulling troops from other areas to reinforce their losses. His hope was the French would be so beaten down and demoralized by the German onslaught that their defenses would eventually collapse. With France defeated, von Falkenhayn believed the British would begin negotiating peace terms.

The German assault began in February 1916 and, as expected, it took a significant toll on the French army. However, the French defenses held and the Germans captured only a few trenches after the opening attack. French military leaders knew that defending Verdun would come with a significant toll in human lives, so they decided to counterattack in hopes of maximizing German casualties. For months, the two sides suffered heavy losses and continually replaced those killed or wounded with fresh reinforcements. By December 1916, German leaders realized continuing the attack was futile and withdrew from Verdun. The battle resulted in an estimated 378,000 French and 337,000 German casualties with minimal ground gained in ten months of fighting.

Attrition warfare was a common strategy during World War I in an effort to break the stalemate in the European trenches. The tide turned in 1917 when the United States joined the Allied effort, and by November 1918, Germany had surrendered and World War I was over. In the four years of fighting, more than 8.5 million military personal on both sides were estimated to have been killed and more than 21 million were wounded.

Military strategists often claim that some attrition warfare is necessary to allow maneuver warfare to be effective. The strategy of attrition warfare was used to varying degrees in World War II (1939–1945), the Korean War (1950–1953), the Vietnam War (1954–1975), and numerous other conflicts, though not to the extent it was used in World War I. In general, the use of attrition warfare in the modern era is limited by the high cost in lives and the monetary cost in equipment and supplies. The use of the strategy can also lead to longer conflicts that can inflict serious damage on the nation in which the fighting occurs. This can, in turn, result in political repercussions even after the conflict ceases.

Bibliography

“Attrition Warfare: When Even Winners Lose.” Farnam Street, 2019, fs.blog/2017/07/attrition-warfare/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Boff, Jonathan. “Fighting the First World War: Stalemate and Attrition.” British Library, 6 Nov. 2018, www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/fighting-the-first-world-war-stalemate-and-attrition. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

“Fabian Strategy.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, 2019, www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/fabian-strategy/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Killerlane, John. “Attrition Warfare: The Battle of Verdun.” History Collection, 2019, historycollection.co/attrition-warfare-battle-verdun/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Kiprop, Joseph. “What Is Maneuver Warfare?” World Atlas, 16 May 2018, www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-maneuver-warfare.html. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Malkasian, Carter. A History of Modern Wars of Attrition. Praeger, 2002.

Murray, Nicholas. “Attrition Warfare.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War, 13 Jan. 2016, encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/attrition‗warfare. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Philpott, William. War of Attrition: Fighting the First World War. Overlook P, 2015.