Most Pointless Battle

[rotorgun]

On the tactical/operational level, I have always thought that the battle of Mortain, fought by the Germans in 1944 in Normandy to be particularly useless. It failed to obtain any of it's objectives, severly weakened an already depleted 7th Army, and made it possible for the allies to cut them off and destroy them in the Falaise gap. What a monumental waste of a fine army that had fought so heroically to prevent the allied breakout. A much better use of the, still intact, 7th would have been to fall back in stages behind the Seine River. I still can't believe it when I read about the appalling losses that Hitler inflicted upon his soldiers for no gain at all.

[Kraxis]

Ok useless isn't always pointless...

The counteroffensive at Mortain had a point, and a good one. It was meant to cut off the Allied formation that had broken out. Had it succeeded then the Allies would have been in trouble. So it was more a failure than a pointless battle.

[edyzmedieval]

Many pointless battles were in history.

Look at the Kawanakajima battles in the Sengoku Jidai period in Japan. 5 battles, totally useless and pointless slaughter, because both sides were very equal.

[rotorgun]

Ok useless isn't always pointless...

The counteroffensive at Mortain had a point, and a good one. It was meant to cut off the Allied formation that had broken out. Had it succeeded then the Allies would have been in trouble. So it was more a failure than a pointless battle.

While I agree with your point, I was speaking in terms of the chances of its success. Any temporary stalling of the American advance on Avranches did not justify exposing the 7th Army to annihilation. All OKH had to do was look at the map and see that with the fall of Caen, the situation was untenable and did not support a counter offensive in Brittany. I agree that it was a good objective- but rather out of reach considering the reality on the ground.

[Redleg]

My nomination comes from a battle fought in WW2 by the Americans, Hurtgen Forest.

What a utter waste of time, resources and lives to drive the Germans from a forest that was easily defended and difficult to attack into.

No tactical value in destroying the German Division in the forest. No Tactical value, minumial stragetic value in gaining the forest. The German unit in the forest did not have the ability to pose much of a threat to allied lines - the terrian would have made it just as difficult for them to attack with the limited resources available to them.

Completely pointless and one of the only command mistakes ever made by General Bradley.

[Kraxis]

My nomination comes from a battle fought in WW2 by the Americans, Hurtgen Forest.

What a utter waste of time, resources and lives to drive the Germans from a forest that was easily defended and difficult to attack into.

No tactical value in destroying the German Division in the forest. No Tactical value, minumial stragetic value in gaining the forest. The German unit in the forest did not have the ability to pose much of a threat to allied lines - the terrian would have made it just as difficult for them to attack with the limited resources available to them.

Completely pointless and one of the only command mistakes ever made by General Bradley.

Very good nominee! I would agree with you, it was very pointless, and bloody for it.

And you are right that the div posed no thread as it was one of the later Volkgrenadier units (the early units were infantry units that had earned the title). Basically the Germans didn't hold the 'usual edge in experience, training and small scale leadership. And they were even worse than usual in terms of equipment and quality of men.
It was a purely defensive unit in a defensive position. You want to leave those alone.

rotor- you make a good point. But the Allies won becasue they had intel, not because the Germans couldn't have pulled it off. Had the Allies not gotten the intel as they did, the attack would perhaps not have been a supreme surprise, but the strength would have surprised them. And given the limited advance they would have needed to make, it wouldn't have been that far out to see them actually pull it off.
Remember, that was the only way the Germans could have seen it. Of course then it is arguable how much of a chance they had and if it was worth the risk of failure, and that was why the German commanders weren't too sure about this. But that only underline that some at least considered it possible.

So the plan was sound, the meaning of the battle was correct and the position of the Germans was that it could be done from what they knew. Not pointless in my eyes. Had they known what the Allies knew, then it would have been pointless.

Remember one thing of the battle. It is the alltime highest scoring battle for 'Jabos'... says the 'Jabos' themselves. They claimed 126 tank kills. Actual German losses were somewhere around 60, and total amont of tanks were just less than 120, and after the battle it was confirmed that the AT-guns knocked about 50 tanks out. So either the pilots inflated their kills so badly that it begs a questioning of their entire record, or the Germans had many many more tanks than they let on.

[Prince Cobra]

I have a brilliant example of a pointless war ( not only a battle). I always praise the achievements of Balkan states in Middle ages (when they deserve it of course) but in XIV century their rulers were surprisingly blind, blind, blind...if not stupid Of course I mean their attitude to the Ottoman Turks.
So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ) .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.

[rotorgun]

So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ) .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.

A very good example, and well presented. It reminds me, although you speak of a pointless war rather than a battle, of the battle for Pork Chop hill, in the Korean War. This battle was fought entirely by both sides just to save face at the bargaining table during the peace talks leading up to the cease fire. Both sides sent men to their deaths for control of a worthless point on the map for nothing more than pure national pride. It was never meant to be anything than a test of resolve. That worthless hill was not worth the lives of anyone and yet....there you have it.

As a soldier myself, I resent any casual throwing away of good people for no gain. It happens so often in war, that I don't wonder why the worlds soldiery doesn't rise up in protest over it. Battles like this are a stain upon the honor of nations. Generals who think this way should be forced to participate with their so called plans by leading the first rank up the hill. Er......sorry, I do tend to get a li'l riled up about some things.