During WW1, was the attrition a wise strategy?

Question

Were there any alternatives to the attrition? Were there any strategies/tactics that the commanders of WW1 overlooked?

"was attrition a wise strategy"

Answer 1

"Attrition" in and of itself isn't usually a strategy. The trench warfare that resulted in a war of attrition came about because of advances in certain technologies and stagnation in others. For example, the development of the machine gun totally changed the battlefield by increasing firepower (and casualties). But the fact that battlefield communications were still pretty much at the same level of the Napoleonic Wars meant that commanders a) couldn't get accurate, up-to-the-minute imformation on battlefield conditions and b) couldn't react fast enough to changing situations. As a result, armies began to dig in when they couldn't use maneuver to defeat the enemy. There were many alternatives tried (such as opening new theaters of war in the Middle East, submarine warfare) but most didn't work until the Allies developed the tank, which by itself wouldn't break the deadlock but when working together with infantry and artillery was able to move the war from one of attrition back to one of maneuver.

Attrition itself, however, WAS used deliberately in at least one instance during WWI. When the Germans launched the Verdun offensive in 1916, one of the stated objectives of the German plan was to "bleed the French white", meaning they intended to cause so many French casualties that the French Army would be unable to operate effectively. It almost did; however in the process the Germans suffered so many casualties of their own that it offset the French losses.

Answer 2

WWI was a war of attrition although attrition wasn't a real strategy, it was a way of life in trench warfare. Trench warfare arose when there was a revolution in firepower without similar advances in mobility and communications. It reached peak brutality and bloodshed on the Western Front in the First World War. Defensive firepower was leaps and bounds ahead of offensive which made attrition so important. Which side could live longest. Yes, there are tactics today that could have changed the war but were totally unheard of then. WWI tactics were the most advanced to date. Combined Arms were pretty much unheard of. For example air power was in it infancy. There was no such thing a CAS Close Air Support until the very end of the war. Using planes as more than spotter at the beginning of the war and dog fighters in the middle could have changed the whole appearance of the battle field on the western front.

Answer 3

it grew to become into (earlier the jews torpedoed Lusitania and drew u . s . to conflict). earlier u . s . joined the conflict, the two factor have been in stability and the only thank you to defeat others is attrition. yet after the jews torpedoed lusitania and u . s . connect the conflict, allies have many sparkling troops interior the battlefield and have been waiting to defeat the first