"Dumbest" attack?

I thought they had problem that they tended to pass straight through buildings before exploding and buried themselves in the ground so deep the HE was muffled whereas lower velocity guns like the old french field gun they fitted in the first generation shermans didn't.

 

The HE shell was redesigned with a smaller charge in time for D-Day.

 

That must have been a large assessment, 178 tanks

 

This site varies slightly in number, and doens't add the "assessment" qualifier.

"The British converted some 600 of their basic M4A4 Sherman tanks into Fireflys with some 160 landing into the hands of American forces.

From:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=248

Another thing that must be kept in mind is that the A4 was a slightly longer (hull and track) M4 than the standard "Sherman" with either radial, Ford, or GM diesel engines. It was longer due to that bizarre Chrysler engine which coupled five (count 'em 30 cylinders) flat-head six water cooled truck engines together in a star arrangement all driving a common output shaft. This was heavy, and longer than the other engines so it moved the Center of Gravity of the unit toward the rear, and somewhat countered the longer barrel of the 17 pounders sticking out over the hull.

 

Operation Barbarossa, so many bad decisions were made.
The majority of the Elite German troops were tied up there and lost along with their weapons.
It turned out to be a good thing for the Western powers as they never had to face the full force of the German Military.

 

I'm certainly in no position of expertise to decide "the dumbest attack" but the Operation Reservist portion of Torch definitely qualifies as a tragic comedy of errors. The fate of Peters was the perfect ending.

 

What about Mussolini's attack on Greece? It was based on the assumption the Greeks would not fight back (probably the most optimistic assumption possible). When they did the Italians found themselves facing a superior force operating on home ground with no plans for bringing up reinforcements, no ready reserves or stockpiled equipment and only one very bad harbour they could land anything at. The resulting logistical mess, with troops sent to the front in dribbles, often without heavy weapons or artillery ammo as they where loaded on a different ship, is a textbook instance on how not to handle logistics. The end result was they barely managed to stop the Greek counterattack despite having committed a good part of their available army. If you add to it that the benefits of the occupation of Greece were practically nill (no strategic resources to speak of to offset the need of committing substantial garrison forces) it's difficult to immagine a dumber move. Even a possible motivation of acquiring bases in the Eastern Med makes no sense as the Dodecannese islands where already under Italian control. It was a politician's plan based on faulty political assumptions and as the miltary "bought" the political nonsense they made no contingency planning at all. It's difficult to say no to a dictator but Mussolini was not Hitler, a general that spoke his mind risked his career not his life.
BTW the two "Guinness book on military blunders" by Geoffrey Reagan, are really worth the read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

 

Hi all, I'm new, but I'd say the dumbest attack had to be Poland in '39. Destroyed half a world and several countries ultimately!

 

Agreed.