Economical Scorched Earth - how it is used in military operation and how it affect operation outcome

[hellheaven1987]

So, as mentioned in other thread that I have been reading Liddell Hart's book regarding General William Tecumseh Sherman's military campaign during American Civil War. One thing that quite interest me is how Sherman decided to destroy all valuable properties that would benefit Confederate during his March to Sea campaign, left a smoking path in his way. His conduct of this economical warfare reminds me how Sweden King Gustavus Adolphus dealed Catholic League using same type of strategy - systematically destroyed economical properties so those properties could not support enemy again. His method was so effective that British historian Veronica Wedgwood claim Gustavus was "worst of all commanders during the war, because his plundering system was so effective and complete that most lands had no hope to recover." Brutal or not, Gustavus' strategy did nearly brought Bavaria, the biggest supporter of Catholic League, into knee, just like how Sherman brought Confederate into defeat. Consider these two examples, it brings a few questions regarding this "economical scorched earth warfare".

1. What is the distinction between terror campaign and economical scorched earth??

2. What are the targets for economical scorched earth??

3. How does it affect the outcome of campaign??

4. Can it still use in modern warfare??

Oh, by the way, I think the best example of "modern" economical scorched earth was done by Soviet after WWII.

[Tiberius Tosi]

1. What is the distinction between terror campaign and economical scorched earth?

It kind of depends on your own defintion of terrorism. Terrorism is usually done for the sole purpose of striking fear in the supposed enemy to turn them against their currently government or belief. Scorched earth, while yes striking fear in the enemy, more importantly cripples the enemies ability to make war in and of itself. The actions done by a scorched earch policy will make the enemy fearful, as it is usually not a norm in most wars, but its effect is not for the sole purpose of targeting people (in particular civilians) to a political end. Also, scorched earth usually has limitations on it, while say a factory may be burned down, few will go as far as killing the factory workers because they possess skills to actually make weapons (and can be used as a means of production for enemy mobilization) whereas with terrorism, all gloves are usually off.

2. What are the targets for economical scorched earth??

Probably most important is food, then factories, houses, warehouse, and any other object that can conceivably be used by the enemy. In modern times, electricity (you have to knock out the civilian electricity too), radio, television towers, etc. etc.

3. How does it affect the outcome of campaign??

Ideally the enemy will be able to field less of an army against you (you have removed much of their food supplies) and will be producing much less weapons than before, and thus you now have a numerical strength, as well as you having usually lived off their land, have consumed relatively small amounts of supplies of your own and have not had to maintain and expensive, slow, and cumbersome supply train for a very long time.

4. Can it still use in modern warfare??

Oh, by the way, I think the best example of "modern" economical scorched earth was done by Soviet after WWII.

Yes and no. First question one would have to ask is "is it worth the political backlash" and the answer is generally no. Also, against an invading army, scorched earth probably works much less than it did in the past as armies are able to supply themselves much more easily. Think if say Iraq had tried scorched earth to themselves to slow down or halt the Coalition during the Gulf War, in all honestly it wouldn't have done a single spankin thing. Now, could the US have gone around and taken out all of the Iraqi's food, infastructure, etc. etc. Well, to an extent they did, with modern bombing electricity, water, and basic infastructure are usually knocked out before an invasion, and so this can be seen as a minor scorched earth policy, but it is usually not going to be, or need to be, taken to the extent to where farms are burned and factories burnt to the ground.

[GreyFox]

Scorched earth has been around for centuries. Medieval armies used it (they called it the 'chevauchée') by going around and torching farms, crops, etc while on the march, the idea being that if a lord could not collect taxes from his populace then he would not have the cash with which to pay and equip troops.

In the Peninsular War, Wellington retreated back behind the line of Torres Vedras, and took all the foodstuffs that he could and destroyed that which he could not. As French armies lived off the land, they were not able to supply themselves as they lacked a significant logistics train and so were forced to retreat a few months later.

Scorched earth can also discredit the target's government in that it shows the populace that their leadership cannot protect them from the enemy.

[hellheaven1987]

Scorched earth has been around for centuries. Medieval armies used it (they called it the 'chevauchée') by going around and torching farms, crops, etc while on the march, the idea being that if a lord could not collect taxes from his populace then he would not have the cash with which to pay and equip troops.

Yes, but Sherman's intention was not to burn everything on his path, but chose specific targets to destroy.

Today, a Scorched Earth policy would only net an invading army a huge partisan problem behind their lines. Modern armies do not live off the land, they are supplied anyway, thus destroying nearby foodstuffs and resources would deny them to the enemy, but unless they're running short of the stuff it won't effect them much, if at all.

It would only slow your advance (allowing the enemy to reorganise and form a new defensive line) and spawn partisans in the local populace (forcing you to deploy soldiers to defend key areas and convoys, keeping them off the frontlines where their presence could be vital).

Perhaps, but if the destruction is so great that even civilian cannot survive it would only force them to flee to enemy side - partisans cannot fight without supplies and civilian support. That is exactly how Genghis Khan did - scorch earth everything and force local civilian to flee to enemy.

The problem is human right group would bombard you to hell due to massed-destruction of civilian properties.

The Greeks used this strategy very effectively during the 18th century in order to stop the Turkish forces from crushing the Greeks in their war for independence.. It was also used during the Byzantine-Turkish wars of the medieval era by both sides.. Today the only way it can be used is in a long war of attrition where roads, railroads and fuel stations can be destroyed in order to slow down the enemy's march.. Anyway today there's so much mobility in the war that you won't probably have the time to stop the enemy by destroying a road.. Besides it can be rebuilt very quickly.

1. The war was fought in 19th Century...

2. What made Greek won the war was because British accidently destroyed Ottoman fleet, which result Ottoman unable to supply its army.

[Poach]

Today, a Scorched Earth policy would only net an invading army a huge partisan problem behind their lines. Modern armies do not live off the land, they are supplied anyway, thus destroying nearby foodstuffs and resources would deny them to the enemy, but unless they're running short of the stuff it won't effect them much, if at all.

It would only slow your advance (allowing the enemy to reorganise and form a new defensive line) and spawn partisans in the local populace (forcing you to deploy soldiers to defend key areas and convoys, keeping them off the frontlines where their presence could be vital).

[Danny_K_1]

Only modern example I know of is when Hitler ordered the destruction of many factories (which they desperatly needed) all to spite the enemy even though Albert Speer (chief of armnament) advised against it which didn't really help them.

It appears to have worked against them in the long run.

[Landsknecht_88]

1. What is the distinction between terror campaign and economical scorched earth??

I would say that generally the distinction is that with scorched earth, the civilian suffering is a side effect, whereas in a terror campaign, the very purpose is often to impose suffering on the civilians.

2. What are the targets for economical scorched earth??

It may be performed about anywhere. In one's own lands, in those of the enemy or even in those of an ally. In the Great Northern War during Karl XII's Polish campaign, for instance, both the Swedes and Russians ravaged the Polish countryside to feed their armies. Later as the war progressed into Russia itself the scorched earth was performed there aswell, forcing the Swedish army to head south in a quest to feed itself.

3. How does it affect the outcome of campaign??

In pre-industrial wars the use of scorched earth was usually a decisive factor, but it lost its importance when armies became capable to supply themselves.

4. Can it still use in modern warfare??

Yes, but since armies are not dependent on living off the land today it would not effect the outcome of the war to any significant extent.

[GreyFox]

Yes, but since armies are not dependent on living off the land today it would not effect the outcome of the war to any significant extent.

I wouldn't say that. If one side's economy is wrecked then their means of supporting their armies is compromised.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The Greeks used this strategy very effectively during the 18th century in order to stop the Turkish forces from crushing the Greeks in their war for independence.. It was also used during the Byzantine-Turkish wars of the medieval era by both sides.. Today the only way it can be used is in a long war of attrition where roads, railroads and fuel stations can be destroyed in order to slow down the enemy's march.. Anyway today there's so much mobility in the war that you won't probably have the time to stop the enemy by destroying a road.. Besides it can be rebuilt very quickly.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

1. Yes, my mistake.
2. Who said that? The Greeks had fought by themselves for many years before the British (and not only them, the Russians and the French also) intervened just to accept that the Greeks had gained their independence. It wasn't a naval battle of such a great importance.

[hellheaven1987]

2. Who said that? The Greeks had fought by themselves for many years before the British (and not only them, the Russians and the French also) intervened just to accept that the Greeks had gained their independence. It wasn't a naval battle of such a great importance.

Misha Glenny has pointed out that Ottoman was well steamrolled Greeks until British smashed Ottoman fleet in Battle of Navarino, which cut off the supplyline from sea, hence Ottoman force had no choice but abandoned the campaign.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Anyway I just said some information about scorched earth operations in the Balkan region.. I didn't come to say who helped who.. When the Turks invaded south Greece (Pelloponisos), the Greeks poisoned some wells and burned some villages.. After a few weeks the Turks were forced to leave the place..

[Hanny]

1. What is the distinction between terror campaign and economical scorched earth??

the former is when you destroy the assets of another to cause privation beyond the requirements of war, the latter is when you destroy your own assets to deny them to an enemy whome you atre unable at this time to resisist from taking control of those assets.

2. What are the targets for economical scorched earth??

Any resource bthat would be of benifit to the occupiier, in Ancient times or societys dependendt on agriculture it would be focused on crops, water irigation systems, mills being the most common one destroyed throught history.

3. How does it affect the outcome of campaign??

To variable to qunatify, this tactic is but one of manmy used in war, in some it plays little or no part and in others it is instrumental in contributing to ndefeat.

4. Can it still use in modern warfare??

former is now ilegal, USAF was not allowed to bomb salination planst in GW1 as it impqacted on civilains, the mongols destroyed the quanat water system of the Middle east when they swept through it and remodeled the terrian. The latter is still legal.

Oh, by the way, I think the best example of "modern" economical scorched earth was done by Soviet after WWII.

After ww2?.

[hellheaven1987]

After ww2?.

Ya, you don't know Soviet simply removed every industrial hardwares from occupied areas and sent them back to Soviet?? The policy was so "brilliant" that 70% of industries in Manchuria were systematically removed and sent back to Russia.

[Hanny]

Ya, you don't know Soviet simply removed every industrial hardwares from occupied areas and sent them back to Soviet?? The policy was so "brilliant" that 70% of industries in Manchuria were systematically removed and sent back to Russia.

What happened post war is not scorched earth policy.

what happened in the war was the SU relocated1650 major industrial centres to the east, transported several million skilled workers to run them, and then produced from this new mil industrial centres, the machines of war to outproduce the Germanys and win the war, so yes it was brillant and without precedednt.

Manchuria was occupied by japan at the time and had next to no industrial capacity, so 70% of next to nothing is, well still next to nothing.....and thast after the SU occupied it in the first place.

[hellheaven1987]

Manchuria was occupied by japan at the time and had next to no industrial capacity, so 70% of next to nothing is, well still next to nothing.....and thast after the SU occupied it in the first place.

Wrong. Japan had put a large number of investment in Manchuria ever since late 19th Century, which reached as high as 60% of Japanese oversea investment in 1931. That was the reason why Japanese wanted to direct control Manchuria and why Nationalist wanted to retake Manchuria after the war - it was simply the most heavy industrial region in whole China at that time.

[Hanny]

Wrong. Japan had put a large number of investment in Manchuria ever since late 19th Century, which reached as high as 60% of Japanese oversea investment in 1931. That was the reason why Japanese wanted to direct control Manchuria and why Nationalist wanted to retake Manchuria after the war - it was simply the most heavy industrial region in whole China at that time.

Again this is not an example of scorched earth, its an example of repartaions post war by the victors.

Yes it did, i did not post that it did not, i posted about capacity, the principle Manchurain contribution to Japans wartime economy was 2200 airfrmes from its Aircraft industry whioch was dismatled post war and shipped off to Russia, during the war it thus contributed under 3% of all air frmaes produced, ie Manchurian capacity was extremly limted.

Japans investedtreme levels in Manchuria because subsidys was the only way to devolpe it, the yen went into coal mines and hydro electric dams, SU would find it hard to relocate them i would think. A search on Manchurain economy in ww2, will tell you it was a drain on japan war makeing capacity not a benifit. it was reduced to using wind powered woden ships to move its coal to japan in 45.