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, materiel, and morale.[1] 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.[2][3]
Attrition 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.[4] Attrition warfare does not include all kinds of Blitzkrieg or using concentration of force and a decisive battle to win. The side that reinforces their army at a higher speed will normally win the war. Clausewitz called it the exhaustion of the adversary.[5]
A side that perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages over time. Sun Tzu has stated that there is no country that has benefitted from prolonged warfare,[6] but Russia in 1812 won the war with attrition warfare against Napoleon. 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. World War I military commanders on both sides ineffectively relied on attrition warfare, which resulted in casualties without a strategic result.
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. 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. 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). Attrition warfare also tries to increase the friction in a war for the opponent.[7]
Although attrition warfare may seem like a logical choice for combatants with more resources or asymmetric advantages than their opponent, there are also significant disadvantages. Perhaps the most common reason for failure of attrition warfare is related to the time required to fulfill one's war goals. 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. Additionally, the attrition strategies gives opponents time to adjust tactics and strategy.[8] 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.
Scythian tactics during the of 513 BC, which was in deep steppes retreat, avoiding a direct confrontation with Darius I's army, while spoiling the wells and pastures.
European Scythian campaign of Darius I
The Athenians, who were weaker in land warfare during the , employed attrition warfare using their navy.[15]
"Military Geology in the United States Sector of the European Theater of Operations during World War II"
McPherson, James (1988). . Oxford University Press. p. 734. ISBN1442097515. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
Battle Cry of Freedom
Merriam Webster Dictionary (2021). . Retrieved 3 April 2021.
"attrition"
Murray, Nicholas (2021). . Retrieved 3 April 2021.
"Attrition Warfare"
nctimes (2012). . Archived from the original on 4 September 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
"Airstrikes turn Libya conflict into battle of attrition"
.gif)