"How good was Fritz Bayerlein?" Topic

Have been reading about Panzer Lehr's actions from Normandy to post Bulge and come to the conclusion that Fritz Bayerlein wasn't that good a commander. He came to prominence as Rommel's chief of staff and was then given Panzer Lehr to command. Performance of the division in Normandy was about average in that it got chewed up in the meat grinder that was the British and Commonwealth sector, but it certainly did no better than the other divisions and possibly a bit worse. Much was expected of the counterattack in Lorraine against 4th AD and 44th ID, but it bogged down fairly quickly. To be fair Knobelsdorf the overall commander predicted the attack would achieve little and 4th AD and 44th ID made very little headway against Panzer Lehr after it went over to the defensive. However in the Bulge Bayerlein missed an opportunity to drive unopposed into Bastogne and take it before the 101st Airborne got there. While it would have had no effect on the overall outcome of the battle and 101st Airborne would have been thrown into the path of the German advance at some other point it remains a serious error when engaged in an offensive that relied on speed for any chance of success to sit around for 12 hours doing nothing.

According to some stories he was dallying with a captured American nurse for those hours in the Bulge :)

He did quite well after the war as technical advisor to a number of American and British war movies :)

I have read a book on Fritz Bayerlain possibly the same book. I don't think he was a bad commander but not one of the stars either.

I don't think, reading between the lines he was happy about some of the equipment. The Panther he thought was totally unsuitable for Normandy in particular the Bocage area . I do like the Panther but have to agree with him on that one. You can never get the best from a Panther in Normandy . A MK4 as he mentioned can do a better job. He liked the Panzerjager 4 but wanted them fitted with L70 guns and not the L48 of which he got.

I agree with Scott above he is more of a technical type person than say a strategic commander like Rommel. The technical side of things is what made his book an interesting read IMO.

Just finished reading a book on Panzer Lehr which suggests that he was a good organiser and trainer, but that he suffered from the problems that the whole German war machine was suffering from by 1944. Delays in sending them to Normandy allowed the allies to bring on more troops. Supply problems, especially fuel, and poor roads made the whole offensive a massive gamble that was never likely to succeed.

I am not suggesting that Bayerlein could have turned round the whole Bulge offensive by taking Bastogne. Clearly it would have been stopped somewhere. Most likely 101st would have conducted a forward defence of the Meuse. Pz Lehr might have got a bit further, but ultimately the offensive was far too ambitious to succeed.
Normandy was bereft of opportunities for tactical flair. Attacking against troops with complete air superiority and devastating naval gunfire support is never going to be fun.
Lorraine is a tricky one. Much was expected of Pz Lehr and little delivered, but 4th AD, one of the best US AD's did little better when they attacked, so I am inclined to give him a pass on that one too.

I think Bayerlein was one of those commanders who had the less favourable set of features/skills and was given an ungrateful task even a military genius would have found daunting.

Bayerlein was a very skilled administrator and army manager who was also quite competent at leading troops in combat. He did however lack that self-aggrandizing larger-than life personality that many generals seem to cultivate and propels them into the history books because it's so much fun writing about them. Baylerlein's bio reads like "The guy did mostly OK" Hardly a page-turner.

And then he got stuck in Normandy a battle would make any general look like a fool because it was the dirty business of attrition, no fancy maneuvers, no heroic charge that changes the course of the entire battle (no, Wittmann doesn't even come close …) That's why the Panzer Lehr with all its promise couldn't do much more than slowly get ground to pieces. It was impossible to disengage the Panzers and keep them in reserve to smash the inevitable allied breakthrough.

And once again he's stuck in the Ardennes on a battlefield that gives you zero room for maneuver in an offensive where the attackers is more like the hapless defenders of 1940 and the defenders are more like the attacking Germans of 1940 but with superior logistics, equipment and a solid doctrine.

In military history you get a handful of geniuses who can pull off miracles, a few more highly competent people who stand out once or twice and then you have a huge chunk of the quietly competent guys who usually did good if conditions were on their side and did poorly if conditions were adverse and only occasionally got a lucky break or a really bad day.

Bayerlein was one of those guys who did his job within acceptable parameters, winning some, losing some. The invincible general defeating all his foes with disconcerting ease is very much the exception, never the rule.

Wittmann was too low level a commander to pull off any battle changing manoeuvres, but his exploits at Villers Bocage and his mysterious death (who delivered the fatal shot?) makes him the Baron Von Richthofen of WW2.
Patrick R I guess that is it, being Rommel's side kick doesn't give you much chance to shine. He missed out on the opportunity to make his mark in Russia when the Germans were on the offensive.