I had neglected this thread after the first dozen posts and when I started again today the Battle of Lissa came to mind pretty soon. The result of this battle was that several capital ships were to be sunk in the next quarter of a century by ramming, all by ships of their own navy, none in war.
We can go back even further. Line tactics by sailing ships seem to have used since the middle of the 16th century and to be systematized by the admirals Tromp and De Ruyter in the middle of the 17th. At the same time fire ships were used to attack large warships and they were very much more effective in destroying these in the very few instances when they were effective at all. In 1588 at Gravelines the English were able to burn one Spanish ship for the expenditure of eight fire ships. But many Spanish ships cut their anchor cables and escaped to sea were they were vulnerable to the English fleet. I think the last time fire ships were successful during a sea battle was in 1692 at the Battle of La Hogue. But fire ships remained part of navies for another hundred years.
In short a large variety of weapons to attack some target, even if many of them are unlikely to be successful, complicates the tactics of the other party because of the need to guard against them. That no doubt is why we see the Iranian Revolutionary Guards developing so many small and for the most part simple weapon systems to deter the US. They have already succeeded in having senior military officers in the US and Israel saying there is no evidence that Iran has decided to develop nuclear weapons, an argument that would have been irrelevant if the Iranians hadn't been so active. No doubt the tactics employed in the 2002 war game would fail spectacularly if used in a war tomorrow, but the notion that you can be overwhelmed by an unexpected combination of tactics by a creative opponent stands.
