Talk:Attrition warfare

message: I found this on this forum: http://www.jimgilliam.com/2005/03/oreillys_henchmen_wear_suits.php
"A war of attrition is a war in which neither side has an exploitable strategic or tactical advantage, and the continuation of the war is just the slow bleeding by both sides of their strength. Thus, the war will be won by the side with greater reserves of personnel and war material, the loser eventually succumbing because they run out first."
-LaborTalkLaw Encyclopedia
I was thinking that the encyclopaedia might have been one of the sources for the article. raptor 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The article says: "The most well-known example of this strategy was during World War I on the Western Front. Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches that ran from Switzerland to the English Channel. " I am less than happy with the word "strategy" here. At the outset of WWI no one planned for a war of attrition so at least at the start attrition warfare wasn't a strategy. It was just something that happened. Also at least most offensives (except Falkenheyn's planning for Verdun) were meant to create a breakthrough and make manouevre warfare possible. They were not planned as attrition warfare. Therefore I am highly sceptical of using WWI as a prime example of attrition warfare as a strategy. WWI certainly was to a great extent a case of war of attrition, however, this was in spite of what both sides planned, not a deliberate strategy on either side. -Sensemaker
: Firmly seconded. Toby Douglass 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is really WWI such a good example of an attrition ''strategy''

message: Can anyone find a source that states that the current Iraqi civil war/insurgency (whatever you want to name it), is attrition warfare? Or suicide bombings in general? It seems to me that it is, but that's only my opinion, and would violate WP:NOR. -- 12.116.162.162 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi civil war/"insurgency"/etc. 

message: From "Strategic Considerations":
Most military theorists[who?] and strategics like Sun Tzu have viewed attrition warfare as something to be avoided.
I think it'd be hard to find a theorist who doesn't view attrition warfare as something to be avoided when possible. Even a layman like me understands why this is not a desirable situation. Do you really need to specify someone here? Come on, now. TaintedMustard (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't had time to put a lot of work into this, but will continue research and posting of useful information to help lay out references of military strategists and theorists who support or do not support the use of Attrition warfare. While I agree most all people would view attrition warfare as a bad idea, It is not -always- a bad idea. The use of attrition warfare as part of a greater strategy is always an important part of war. I think what we really need to do is narrow down references to the usage of Attrition warfare, and how it is part of a broader strategy. 
View this for discussions about Colonel John Boyd, by Major Jeffrey L. Cowan. . Marcumw18d (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most theorists [who?]" Huh? 

message: The first line of the page is formatted incorrectly, meaning the initial clarification for disambiguation/redirect/similarly named pages (appearing before the real content). I'm confused by the Wikipedia syntax for this so I can't fix the format myself and am requesting someone else please do so. The "game theory/game theoretical" sense of the term is different from the actual game called war of attrition. The prior is an academic theory about strategy in fields like politics and economics; the latter is the title of a video game for the consumer market. So these should be designated as distinct subjects (like the Arab-Israeli war sense of the term already is). 
Also, there is no link back to this page ("Attrition warfare") on the one for the Arab-Israeli war sense of the term ("War of Attrition"). These two usages are easily confused so there should be the same option for suggested links there. But as above, I am requesting someone who knows how to please add a link for this page ("Attrition warfare") to the other one ("War of Attrition") in case people arrive at the wrong page by mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.17 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  page links 

message: This section seems to confuse attrition warfare with Fabian strategy. Attrition warfare is a component of Fabian strategy, but it's a broader concept. I reworded part of it, but it probably needs a further rework. TheWhiteGuar (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I follow this definition https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=575 saying "The reduction of the effectiveness of a force caused by loss of personnel and materiel. (US DoD)". I will add "by any means, including scorched earth, delayed operation, battles, guerrilla war, people's war and so on...What is not attrition warfare for me? Anything connected with "Blitzkrieg". I will slightly adjust your wording in this direction.Ruedi33a (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategic considerations