Rise and fall of the strategy of exhaustion: technological changes gave birth to a new strategy of warfare aimed at an enemy's logistics—and to its demise

Army Logistician, Nov-Dec, 2004 by Lawrence M. Smith

Armies that adopted the tactics of Napoleon Bonaparte, the great French general of the early 1800's, achieved decisive victories. However, as the 19th century progressed, growth in the size of armies, combined with technological advances such as the railroad, the telegraph, and rifled and repeating weapons, reduced the ability of those tactics to lead to decisive victory. Napoleon's tactics were still valid. The problem was that they tended to produce stalemates when employed by opponents who were relatively equal in strength and tactical proficiency. A significant advance in the practice of warfare was needed to help make Napoleonic tactics decisive again. Union General Ulysses S. Grant, with his strategy of exhaustion developed late in the American Civil War, provided that next step.

The strategy of exhaustion shifted an army's main effort from either the enemy's army or its key geographical points, such as its capital, to its strategic-level logistics. It supplemented the tactics of Napoleon with focused attacks on an enemy's war-supporting infrastructure. By its willingness to target all of the things that enabled an enemy to wage war, an army could resolve a conflict more quickly.

Logistics, of course, had always been a target of opposing armies, but after February 1864 it would become the main target of most successful war campaigns. Attacking an opponent's logistics at a macro level helped expedite the outcome of a war, but it also placed important new demands on any post-war peace. Victors were wise to provide sincere assistance to the loser in rebuilding its economy and in reconnecting with its people. Otherwise, insurgents and guerrillas were potential byproducts of the deep feelings of revenge that a war of exhaustion could engender.

The strategy of choosing an enemy's logistics systems as its center of gravity helped an army win wars in three ways. First, it robbed the enemy of raw materials and infrastructure needed to support and maneuver its own large forces. Second, it weakened the resolve of enemy soldiers to fight by forcing them to question if the wartime hardships endured by their families and countrymen were worth the rewards that might come after a possible future victory. Finally, it countered the impact of technological improvements by focusing an army's efforts on destroying enemy railroads and telegraphs while allowing it to bypass enemy concentrations of rifled and repeating weapons.

Deficiencies of Napoleonic Tactics

So what did Napoleon's tactics lack by the time of the American Civil War in 1861? To answer that question, one must first examine the essential tenets of those tactics--

* Make the enemy react to your maneuver to disperse his mass and extend his lines into areas with reduced defensive advantages.

* Fix the enemy in place using skirmishes, artillery, feints, and demonstrations while probing his lines.

* Conduct attacks at multiple points of probable weakness, keeping the enemy off balance while still withholding a strong reserve.

* Use flexibility and interior lines to reinforce successes, divide the enemy force, and achieve decisive victory.

Napoleon's tactics seemed comprehensive. Unfortunately for the infantry soldier in the attack during the Civil War, the battlefield situation had changed greatly in favor of the defender--

* Telegraphs conveyed intelligence rapidly, giving the defender much more time to react, tactically and strategically, to an attacker's actions.

* Railroads were used to transport troops and materiel quickly to locations where telegrams had indicated to commanders they were needed most.

* Larger armies, more lethal weaponry, and entrenchments combined to make even the weakest defensive points relatively impregnable to attack.

Defenders thus could react to every flanking movement an attacker attempted, extend their lines, and still present defenses too formidable to be assailed. When attackers literally ran out of room to continue flanking, or realized that their next flanking movement would hit even stronger defenses than the ones currently to their front--which happened with the defenses of Richmond, Virginia, and Atlanta, Georgia, in the Civil War--stalemates ensued. Frontal assaults were always attempted as a last resort, but they were costly, and their failures eroded political resolve back home. So, what to do?

Exhausting the Enemy Wins the Civil War

The solution to stalemate was the strategy of exhaustion. In this strategy, the attacker maintained enough of a presence to discourage the defender from leaving his current positions to reinforce other positions. Then, after having fixed the defender's main forces, the attacker launched aggressive, deep operations in force that targeted the defender's means of waging a protracted war. This attack was not made just with cavalry, as in the past. Now, the attacker added large formations of infantry and engineers who had the means and training to more thoroughly destroy the enemy's logistics infrastructure.

This strategy was first employed on the railroad junction at Meridian, Mississippi, in February 1864. Moving east from Vicksburg, Mississippi, Union General William T. Sherman hoped to destroy the railroads south and east of Meridian so completely that the Confederates could not rebuild them. Sherman's troops were able to destroy 115 miles of track, 61 bridges, and 20 locomotives and render the depots and other support facilities at Meridian unusable by the Confederates.