A. No reconaissance was used except for a hot-air balloon that hovered directly over the soldiers, shouting down instructions. The Spanish got the privilege of shooting men they couldn't see while on foot. B. The attack was led by a slew of National Guardsmen, whom were inexperienced soldiers with outdated black-puff-spouting rifles. Of course, that marked them as targets, so eventually they had to lay down in the grass and let other men fight. C. When American troops reached the barbed wire, no one brought wire cutters or artillery. They hid in the jungle, but when a battery of Gatling guns (miniguns) arrived, they let out a cheer, which of course attracted attention. D. When the Americans advanced on the hill, their artillery opened far too late: it killed more Americans than Spanish. E. The Americans had huge naval guns that would have won the battle instantly, but the fools never used them.

Custer at Little Big Horn.

The Union Army at Fredericksburg (or almost any other battle where Ambrose Burnside was involved).

People tend to forget that Germany had defeated Russia in World War I, which Hitler no doubt thought was more relevant that Napoleon's experience a century earlier.

<Here's the stupidity of the Americans, arguably the most laughable of all time: The war in Cuba against Spain is an atrocisty.> <If you can find any battle/war stupider than this, please post it here.>

I had always thought the Polish cavalry charge with drawn sabres against German tanks in 1939 retired the stupidity prize. The U.S. doesn't qualify for your contest anyway, since it won the war/battle in question.

I think that in every war, both sides will make mistakes. These are some the QUALITIES required for one side to win: The successful commander should (in no particular order)... 1. Learn from the history.
2. Know how to set traps.
3. Know how to exploit the other side's mistakes.
4. Willing to take risks in order to take the initiative. 5. Willing to note down his/her advisors' suggestions (ie not being too stubborn) 6. Be keen on reconaissance
7. Know his/her troops well (ie their limits, advantages, disadvantages and try to highlight/hide these) 8. Take great care with the supplies line(s).
9. Always have a PlanB or be prepared to do a successful retreat. 10. Be realistic (ie do not dogmatically stick to rules/principals but adapt them to the situation - eg terrain, weather, etc)

Other Kibtzers may like to add to the list...

<more additions to stupid battles> At the Battle of Loos in 1915, a British commander ordered his men to march to their deaths right into entrenched German machine guns. The Brits had no wire cutters to break through the wires guarding the trenches. The soldiers were inexperienced, numbering in 10,000. Casualties- Brits-8,000 Germans-zip The Germans didn't even fire on the retreating survivors.

In WWI, the Germans could have captured Paris if they didn't get so drunk in French wine country.

< As a result, the Wehrmacht conducted a major demotorization programme, procuring horses and wagons to offset the critical truck shortage. The transport of supplies became more dependent on horse, than motorised power. During 'Operation Barbarossa", the Wehrmacht relied on more than 625 000 horses.

Although the Germans committed themselves to a strategy that favoured rapid movement over long distances, heavy reliance was made on horses, which were used to pull everything from field kitchens to artillery pieces.>

Come on no ones that stupid ;-)

I saw Americans, (perhaps Battalion size. Can't remember, possibly far more) in b/w footage walking across fields only to be mown down by MG's. The narrator said it was if they still thought it was 18th Cen warfare.

I don't know where you got the casualties for Loos from, but though they were high, the operation of attack and German counter was between 25 September and 16 October 1915, where actual dead were 7,766.

Loos being Frenchman CinC Joffre's plan. Opposed by the then 1st Army commander Douglas Haig for very real reasons.

Anyway showing the initiative and how 'undumb' the state of British operations were, as in the Op:

'Various localised feint attacks were conducted, to persuade the enemy to man the forward trenches during the shelling. These ruses included the use of dummy troops, bayonets showing above the British parapets, bagpipes playing, men shouting hurrahs, etc.'

Their were some good actions in attack and defence in this operation like the London regiments or the 7th Div for example.

An action for the Grenadier (English) Guards:

'The 3/Grenadier Guards were pushed back some way, but eventually formed a block and then counterattacked (supported by two companies of the 1/Scots Guards and the bombers of the Irish Guards) recovered the lost trenches and caused heavy loss to the enemy.'

<That was German war propaganda. It never happened.>

I should have guessed.

I just read a book about the Crimean War, including the charge of the Light Brigade. Pretty amazingly stupid, but no one seems to be quite sure why the brigade attacked where it did.