And how Grant applied this phrase to his invasion of the South?
2006-12-03 12:45:21 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Attrition warfare is a strategic concept which states that to win a war, one's enemy must be worn down to the point of collapse by continuous losses in personnel and materiel. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such reserves.
It's basically a war of logistics. The Union Army was much larger and better supplied than the Confederate. In almost every battle where the forces were equal the Confederates won. The objective of his "war of attrition" where Ulysses S. Grant pushed the Confederate Army continually in spite of losses, confident that the Union's supplies and manpower could overwhelm the Confederacy even if the casualty ratio was unfavorable. That proved to be the case.
If you are the general its not that bad of a concept. If you are a grunt in the trenches, it sucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=war+of+attrition&go=Go
explains it better even.
2006-12-03 13:15:39 · answer #1 · answered by jessica a 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Grant used 'sledge hammer' tactics against the South, using superior numbers, he was able to wear down and beat his enemies. His losses could be made good by replacements and the seemingly unlimited resources of the industrial north. The South, on the other hand, had no reserves in men or supplies, so by "attrition" they were on the losing end.
A war of attrition can only be waged by the side with the most men and resources. The other side needs to rely on better tactics or strategy, otherwise the war of attrition will wear them down and they will lose.
2006-12-03 16:39:29 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In addition to the fine answers given previously, wars of attrition have typically refered to a man-for-man loss ratio. Grant intended for the war of attrition to be a monetary or production war of attrition refering specifically to resources rather than manpower. Knowing that the North could outproduce the south he intended that the South be 'starved out' by trying to keep up with northern war production.
2006-12-03 14:11:23 · answer #3 · answered by Scott 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Grant's concept was that the South could not afford the loss of men and material (they were not as readily replaceable as they were for the North) for prolonged engagement. While Lee sought out a limited number of battles to get decisive outcomes, Grant was determined to make as many battles with Lee as possible to sap his precious men and supplies. Grant even went so far as to suspend the exchange of prisoners with the South to keep more rebels from the ranks. The South needed these prisoners, but the North did not need theirs nearly so much. A war of attrition is a war designed to grind out over time until one side is unable to continue due to lack of supplies or manpower.
2006-12-03 12:51:43 · answer #4 · answered by sofgrant 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
War Phrase
2016-12-14 14:16:55 · answer #5 · answered by carle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both sides keep killing each other in the hope that one side will just get too short of men or hope to keep on fighting. It's what we were doing in Nam because we could not get a strategic edge
2006-12-03 12:53:16 · answer #6 · answered by spicoli 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Giving a quote from Gen Patton "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Basically if you kill enough of the enemy they can't fight anymore.
2006-12-03 12:52:53 · answer #7 · answered by jaymactx 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
that the tactics and strategies demands killing of large number of men on both sides.
2006-12-03 13:00:01 · answer #8 · answered by singh a 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look up "last man standing"
2006-12-03 13:37:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
basically i believe it means killing the enemy faster then they can recruit and train new solders.
2006-12-03 13:37:16 · answer #10 · answered by jonnydollar1950 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋