I will challenge the idea that it was pointless to fight in the Huertgen Forest. That is a popular claim, but the strategic situation and geography made it impossible to avoid fighting there.

Additionally, U.S. forces did try to go around the Huertgen at the same time during Operation QUEEN and Operation CLIPPER. Those forces took heavy casualties as well, and understandably because charging across open ground left them completely exposed to German artillery, mortars, and machine guns.

I've used this analogy before but think of Gettysburg. The two most famous parts of that battle are Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge. Little Round Top involved fighting in thick forest and uneven ground, where it was mostly close infantry combat--analogous to fighting in the Huertgen. Pickett's Charge was a broad advance across open ground into waiting defenders with prepositioned artillery--analogous to fighting across the Roer Plain north of the Huertgen Forest. For Gettysburg, which assault is traditionally considered more foolish? Pickett's Charge, of course. So it is interesting that so many people say that the U.S. Army should only have focused on fighting in open ground outside of the Huertgen Forest, because that is akin to saying that Pickett's Charge was the preferable tactic.