The Evolution of Ground Combat: Maneuver, Attrition, & the Dominance of Defense

Modern ground warfare has become increasingly complex. Movement on the battlefield is no longer just about speed and firepower; now, surveillance from drones, satellites, and precise long-range weapons have made defensive positions much stronger. Traditional maneuver warfare, which was once the key to battlefield success, now relies heavily on supporting systems. The ongoing war in Ukraine, particularly the 2023 counteroffensive, highlights how the dynamics of large-scale operations have fundamentally changed.

Understanding Operational Maneuver

Operational maneuver involves moving large military forces to disrupt an enemy’s system and create a strategic advantage. This could include:

• Outflanking
• Breaching defenses
• Targeting key command and logistics structures

The goal is to unbalance the enemy without needing to destroy everything directly. Successful maneuver requires fast coordination, secure logistics, strong communication, and minimizing exposure to enemy surveillance and fire. When these elements align, maneuver may disrupt the enemy’s system. However, without the right support, it may fail or lead to costly attrition.

The Role of Attrition in Modern Conflicts

When maneuver becomes difficult, operations often shift toward attrition. This method focuses on slowly wearing down the enemy’s strength over time, usually through repeated strikes. It involves:

• Static positions
• Artillery duels
• Prolonged campaigns centered around endurance, not movement

Attrition warfare is more sustainable when defenders control key terrain, and attackers struggle to break through fortified defenses. In situations where maneuver is limited, attrition becomes the dominant form of warfare.

Challenges in Modern Maneuver Warfare

Several factors now limit the effectiveness of traditional maneuver warfare:

• Persistent surveillance from drones and satellites reveals troop movements early.
• Precision weapons strike targets before forces may reach key positions.
• Air support is difficult to maintain when defenses are dense and radar-guided.
• Breaching obstacles under fire is dangerous for engineering teams.
• Communication networks may be jammed or hacked.
• Differences in training and doctrine among allied forces slow coordination.

These challenges may halt offensives before they reach their objectives, highlighting the vulnerability of traditional maneuver in modern warfare.

Case Study: Ukraine’s 2023 Counteroffensive

Ukraine’s 2023 offensive aimed to break through Russian-held territory but faced significant hurdles:

• Deep, multi-layered defenses: Russia had set up extensive defenses with mines, trenches, and electronic warfare zones that limited Ukraine’s mobility.
• Fragmented training and doctrine: Ukrainian forces trained by various NATO countries followed different doctrines, making coordination difficult.
• Insufficient critical enablers: Key enablers like air cover, breaching equipment, and robust logistics were not available.
• Disruption from Russian forces: Russian drones and electronic warfare disrupted Ukrainian targeting, communication, and artillery operations.

As a result, the offensive stalled, and Ukraine faced slow, costly fighting over narrow areas. Rather than achieving rapid breakthroughs, Ukraine's offensive became a battle of attrition.

Limits of Deep Strikes

Long-range precision strikes, such as attacks on command centers or fuel depots, may disrupt an enemy’s ability to fight. However, without ground forces to follow through and control the territory, deep strikes generally cause only short-term disruption. Movement is still necessary to hold the battlefield. Deep strikes may delay an enemy, but they rarely lead to decisive victory on their own. Without maneuver to exploit these strikes, the enemy may adapt and recover.

The Strength of Defensive Warfare

Modern defense systems, bolstered by technology, provide a significant advantage:

• Constant surveillance: Surveillance tools alert defenders to incoming attacks, providing early warnings of enemy movements.
• Guided missiles and drones: These weapons strike advancing forces with precision, making it difficult for attackers to maintain momentum.
• Electronic warfare: Electronic warfare disrupts communication and targeting, further impairing the ability of attackers to coordinate and execute their plans.
• Mobile reserve units: These units may quickly move to reinforce weak points, preventing attackers from exploiting gaps.

These tools make it difficult for attackers to maintain speed or surprise, emphasizing the need for deliberate suppression, deception, and coordination to support maneuver.

What Still Makes Maneuver Possible

Maneuver is still possible in modern warfare, but it requires careful preparation and support. Success depends on:

• Suppressing surveillance and long-range fires to limit the enemy’s ability to detect and target forces.
• Specialized breaching teams and equipment to break through defenses.
• Strong, flexible communications to maintain command and control under attack.
• Close coordination between ground and air units to support operational tempo.
• Secure, well-maintained logistics to ensure sustained movement and support.
• A unified command approach across all units to ensure operational coherence.

Without these elements, maneuver may fail or stall, reinforcing the need for comprehensive planning and coordination in modern operations.

Historical Lessons from Past Operations

Looking at past wars offers valuable insights into maneuver warfare:

• Blitzkrieg (WWII): Speed, surprise, and an unprepared enemy allowed rapid advances and breakthroughs. Blitzkrieg succeeded due to the ability to disrupt the enemy’s cohesion using speed and surprise.
• Soviet deep battle tactics: The Soviets used massed forces and coordination over large areas to break through enemy defenses, demonstrating the importance of overwhelming force and synchronization.
• Desert Storm (1991): The Gulf War demonstrated the success of maneuver supported by air superiority and unmatched logistics, allowing for rapid advances and overwhelming force.

These operations succeeded due to specific conditions—control of the air, surprise, and coordination—that are harder to achieve today due to technological advancements and fortified defensive systems.

Doctrinal Shifts for Future Conflict

Military doctrine must evolve to match the realities of modern warfare. The following adjustments are necessary:

• Firepower is no longer enough: Operations must be designed to begin with suppression and breaching, not just firepower.
• Logistics must be central: Efficient supply chains, even under fire, are vital to mission success.
• Training must prepare for communication under jamming and disruption, ensuring command and control remain intact.
• Cyber, space, and information tools must be integrated into every operation, not just traditional ground tactics.
• Maneuver must be part of a larger, synchronized system: Success depends on the integration of multiple domains—air, ground, cyber, and space.
• Winning future wars will depend less on rapid movement and more on how well different components of a force work together under pressure.

Conclusion

Ground combat has changed significantly in the modern era. Defenders now possess powerful tools to detect, block, and destroy attackers before they gain momentum. While maneuver is still possible, it requires careful design, suppression, deception, and coordination across all domains to succeed. In future conflicts, victory may favor those who may adapt faster, not those who move faster. The evolving nature of warfare demands an approach where success depends on synchronization, resilience, and multi-domain integration.