Thread:Ghelæ/@comment-29927902-20161001081010/@comment-4991685-20170327193055

Ghelæ wrote: This is more Drodo's area of expertise, so you'd probably be better off with an answer from him, but loosely speaking, it seems to be something like that. Attrition is not necessarily about morale, however; both types are just as much about making the enemy physically incapable of waging war. Maneuver is about precise targeting; attrition is more widespread devastation.

Sorry to answer months late, but...

Not quite. The difference between maneuver and attrition warfare, as I understand it, has less to do with the devastation wrought and more with the intensity of the war, strategies, and nature of the combatants. Maneuver warfare is generally a very decisive, high-intensity sort fought symmetrically with the aim of crushing the enemy's will to fight-- examples would include the Second World War and the Napoleonic Wars.

Attrition, meanwhile, is a very-drawn out of war mostly consisting of constant medium or low-intensity warfare with the aim to wear down the enemy's will to fight. Attrition warfare can be both symmetrical, as with the western front of the Great War, or asymmetrical, as with the Vietnam War.

Also note the language-- will to fight, as opposed to physically incapable. Its impossible to make a target population physically incapable to wage war. If you destroy all the factories and seize all the cities, but their will to fight remains intact, then the enemy will simply switch tactics and the war becomes asymmetrical. Its also not advisable to destroy all infrastructure related to the prosecution of war, as that just leaves a mess you'll need to clean up later in the event of annexation. The ultimate victory is to make the enemy surrender, preferably without bloodshed as opposed to their complete annihilation.

Hope this helps.