During WW1, was attrition a wise strategy?

Question

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

Answer 1

Attrition is never a GOOD strategy to use. However, at times it can emerge as the ONLY strategy. Aircraft at that time were not heavily equiped. At the beginning of the war, "bombers" consisted of dropping a handgrenade in a glass jar. To be frank, aircraft lacked the destructive power to do much more than significantly interupt ground operations. Artillery rained in as the kings of destructive power on the battlefield, and even today you sometimes hear that title STILL used for Arty brigades. At the same time, tanks hadn't come out yet, the ones that did DURING the war were woefully innadequate. Several armies started WWI with mounted cavalry still in use. The invention of the machine gun, however, prevented any successful infantry or cavalry charge from being capable of crossing the "no mans land." This meant that the only means of employing military power demanded trench warfare (which is about how warfare runs whenever defensive capabilities of both sides outweigh the attacking capabilities of each side). Attrition meant massive logistical problems and the crumpling of the axis powers was due indirectly to the loss of life, but tied much more intimately to the loss of industry.

Answer 2

it was (before the jews torpedoed Lusitania and drew USA to war). Before USA joined the war, both side were in balance and the only way to defeat others is attrition. But after the jews torpedoed lusitania and USA join the war, allies have many fresh troops in the battlefield and were able to defeat the central

Answer 3

world war 1 was a REALLY brutal war... they fought trench to trench but the problem is that they where stilling useing napolean tactics.... problem with that? we now threw in SEMI Autos and machine guns... not fun