Attrition Warfare

Willy OAM, who has a popular website discussing the Ukraine war, often say something like, “According to attrition warfare doctrine…” Could anyone out there remind me where such doctrine is written down or who is the supposed attrition warfare guru? I’m uncertain there really is such a thing, or if there is, it is pretty thin gruel. Yes, attrition is a method generally mixed with other ways of going about battles, campaigns, wars and so on, but a whole doctrine on ‘attrition warfare’? Educate me. For some reason I ignored it, missed it, dismissed it. I dunno. Even the greatest living military strategy theorist (the current GLMST) can suffer gaps. Don’t want that. Please speak up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Attrition Warfare

  1. Cullen says:

    Who is willy oam ?

    • Holmes Oliver says:

      Ahhh. Good call. He’s a diligent, honest blogger following the war. I need to remember to put the URLS in my posts. (8) Willy OAM – YouTube; WillyOAM – Telegram. But easy to find on YouTube or Telegram. Thanks

  2. Geoff Demarest says:

    Today Willy OAM ((8) Willy OAM – YouTube; WillyOAM – Telegram) listed three tactical options (all poor) for taking Crimea back from the Russians — airborne assault, amphibious assault and ground assault from the north through the neck of the peninsula. There is a fourth option I wish you had mentioned. It must already have been considered and even attempted — guerrilla war from within via saboteurs and pro-Ukraine insurgents assisted by Ukrainian special operators. If memory serves, that’s mostly how the Russians went about it in 2014. Might it be that the near non-mention of such internal action by the Ukrainian propagandists is due in large measure to there not being enough militia-worthy Crimea civilians willing to fight for Ukrainian identity? Could it be that a majority of Crimeans would just as soon identify as Russian? I don’t know the answer, but your recurrence to the idea of attrition warfare is somehow to be applied here. Guerrilla operations or insurgent operations are historically used to wear down a larger enemy. Looking to attrit enemy resolve is a guerrilla typical purpose. The knot is comparative resolve, comparative morale. Might the relative absence of the guerrilla option (even extending to your analysis in spite of ‘attrition war’) not be an indicator that Ukrainian sovereignty (as defined by 1991 borders) simply does not inspire a required level of resolve inside Crimea? Might it be also that the Ukrainian war planners know this and therein lies a reason why they might not be as worried about collateral deaths to civilians in Crimea? A lot of rhetorical questions there. Me? I do not thing the US should be fighting against the Russian nation over atmospheric Ukrainian sovereignty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 512 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here