The Stupidest War in History?

[Arcturus Novus]

I change my answer to the Football War (more of a battle than a war, though).

[Bears Armed]

English boys being given a football and told that the one to kick it in the enemy trenches while charging would get a medal

Source?

Did they really do the same 18th century tactics (like in the British Empire vs USA) in WW1?

No. Not even early-to-mid 19th century tactics.

[Zersium]

English boys being given a football and told that the one to kick it in the enemy trenches while charging would get a medal

Source?

Did they really do the same 18th century tactics (like in the British Empire vs USA) in WW1?

No. Not even early-to-mid 19th century tactics.

Ah I was just curious because someone said apparently people "marched" towards the Enemy.

[Horsefish]

Ah I was just curious because someone said apparently people "marched" towards the Enemy.

Common misconception. It was the case in some battles, esp. near the outbreak of the static stage of the war but it was altered and rectified as more technology/better tactics became avaliable

[Bears Armed]

Source?



No. Not even early-to-mid 19th century tactics.

Ah I was just curious because someone said apparently people "marched" towards the Enemy.

Generally in rather more open formations, with considerably more emphasis on individual marksmanship (rather than massed volleys) and use of fire-&-movement tactics than had been the case back in the 18th century... although admittedly once the trench-lines had been established and the groudn between them was largely bare mud, advancing at anything faster than a slow walk became difficult.
Also, most forces tended to wear unforms in drab colours into action, to blend into the scenery, rather than the brightly-coloured ones of yesteryear.

It was the case in some battles, esp. near the outbreak of the static stage of the war but it was altered and rectified as more technology/better tactics became avaliable

And as the effectiveness of machine-guns became obvious...

[Horsefish]

And as the effectiveness of machine-guns became obvious...

Plays into the better tactics. They started teaching people to dodge

[Zersium]

And as the effectiveness of machine-guns became obvious...

Plays into the better tactics. They started teaching people to dodge

Too bad noone told the soldiers at Somme that.

[Horsefish]

Too bad noone told the soldiers at Somme that.

The only trouble with the Somme is it kind of acheived it's aims. It's just that an overconfidence in shelling and an incompotent genral spoiled a battle that could've been an success.

[Zersium]

Too bad noone told the soldiers at Somme that.

The only trouble with the Somme is it kind of acheived it's aims. It's just that an overconfidence in shelling and an incompotent genral spoiled a battle that could've been an success.

well let's face it, most Generals ruin perfectly-good armies.

Same with Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Stupid people ruin very well-trained armies.

And British Generals probably more so.

[Bears Armed]

Plays into the better tactics. They started teaching people to dodge

Too bad noone told the soldiers at Somme that.

Difficult to dodge in a large-scale advance across open ground...

The only trouble with the Somme is it kind of acheived it's aims. It's just that an overconfidence in shelling and an incompotent genral spoiled a battle that could've been an success.

well let's face it, most Generals ruin perfectly-good armies.

Same with Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Stupid people ruin very well-trained armies.

And British Generals probably more so.

The British forces would probably have had significantly lower casualties, and the Germans higher ones, if it had been the Germans trying to retake enemy-occupied country and the British mainly just trying to hold what they'd already taken. Nobody's generals knew how to cope properly with a situation like the Western Front...

[Knoxcrest]

WWI

Anyone who says Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam needs to learn a little thing called perspective. Were they stupid? Yes, but by far nowhere near what WWI was.

Like I've said, it was a tactical and strategical clusterfuck.

First, you're using tactics that may have worked in Korea in Vietnam. You've understimated your enemy, and some of your equipment can go frightfully wrong in the jungle.

So, I'll say that it can be called on near even terms with WW1 for stupidity.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

I'd have to say that all wars are equally the stupidest.

Though I wholeheartedly agree with you, the people here are probably discussing tactics and whatnot. So it's probably not an ethical question, granted, the OP was somewhat vague.

[Cytania]

The Iraq war is the stupidest in my opinion. The fact that no chemical weapons were even found ultimately proves that it was a waste of time. Not only that, but why stay there years after Saddam Hussein has already been captured?

[Blazedtown]

WWI

Anyone who says Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam needs to learn a little thing called perspective. Were they stupid? Yes, but by far nowhere near what WWI was.

Like I've said, it was a tactical and strategical clusterfuck.

First, you're using tactics that may have worked in Korea in Vietnam. You've understimated your enemy, and some of your equipment can go frightfully wrong in the jungle.

So, I'll say that it can be called on near even terms with WW1 for stupidity.

In Vietnam tactics weren't the problem, it was strategy, ie, we didn't have one. Tactically we beat the Viet Cong in every battle.

[Knoxcrest]

Like I've said, it was a tactical and strategical clusterfuck.

First, you're using tactics that may have worked in Korea in Vietnam. You've understimated your enemy, and some of your equipment can go frightfully wrong in the jungle.

So, I'll say that it can be called on near even terms with WW1 for stupidity.

In Vietnam tactics weren't the problem, it was strategy, ie, we didn't have one. Tactically we beat the Viet Cong in every battle.

[Blazedtown]

In Vietnam tactics weren't the problem, it was strategy, ie, we didn't have one. Tactically we beat the Viet Cong in every battle.

Strategically, yes. But we weren't beaten on the battlefield, we were beaten politically on the home front. They didn't defeat us, we defeated ourselves.

Edit: Also, just quote and bolding your last statement doesn't make you look very good.

[Icamera]

Did they really do the same 18th century tactics (like in the British Empire vs USA) in WW1?

No. Not even early-to-mid 19th century tactics.

If you consider the Civil War to be mid-19th century, it's somewhat true. Trench warfare was used in a few rare cases.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No. Not even early-to-mid 19th century tactics.

If you consider the Civil War to be mid-19th century, it's somewhat true. Trench warfare was used in a few rare cases.

To be fair, the American Civil War was a reversion in military thinking in America. We went from modern equipment and modern thinking even in the Spanish-American war to Napoleonic concepts and, even worse, Napoleonic equipment.

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

American civil war was a lesson about napoleonic tactics were not outdated.

[SaintB]

War on Drugs

[Kemaliste]

Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya wars.

[Farnhamia]

American civil war was a lesson about napoleonic tactics were not outdated.

It was a lesson in how they were outdated.

[The Rich Port]

American civil war was a lesson about napoleonic tactics were not outdated.

It was a lesson in how they were outdated.

Who would have thought that walking in a straight line towards an enemy that is firing at you would be a bit of a bad idea?

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

Too bad noone told the soldiers at Somme that.

Difficult to dodge in a large-scale advance across open ground...

well let's face it, most Generals ruin perfectly-good armies.

Same with Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Stupid people ruin very well-trained armies.

And British Generals probably more so.

The British forces would probably have had significantly lower casualties, and the Germans higher ones, if it had been the Germans trying to retake enemy-occupied country and the British mainly just trying to hold what they'd already taken. Nobody's generals knew how to cope properly with a situation like the Western Front...

British Forces except in German ofensives in 1918. Were in offensive roles so a higher casualty rate had to be normal compared to their German counterparts. Which also had terrific loses in the Verdun offensive. Also French suffered mutinee's in 1917 while british didn't.

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

It was a lesson in how they were outdated.

Who would have thought that walking in a straight line towards an enemy that is firing at you would be a bit of a bad idea?

Sorry. I wanted to say that the were outdated.
Napoleonic musquets fired black powder and their lethally falled over one hundred meters, minnie butlleted, rifles we're more precise, quick to recharge and lethal at longer ranges. Also rifled artillery was appearing into the battlefields.
The same happened in Franco-prussian war.