syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Digging in to a beach under constant attack, does give you a better position. Plus the British would not need to advance on you, it's the invasion that has to move. If you're contained and dug-in on the beach, you've lost the battle.
You didn't read my posts. Flak would come along as was planned in Sealion 40. No Luftwaffe Flak but the Flak attached to the divisions.Seems tough for you to comprehend that BC would be bombing at night on the beaches? And flak isnt going to be a problem because you neglected to bring them for your invasion.
That sounds strange as the beaches were already obstructed by concrete/metal anti-tank constructions.SHAEF specifically told the AF's (of the Brits and US) not to bomb the beaches themselves as it would create obsticals for the trucks and tanks, and for follow on landing craft.
Digging in.And what are your forces going to do at night for heavy artillery?
Blaim the weather guy who told them the weather would be good and try to make to most out of it.And what will your forces do during the daytime when low hanging clouds limit the LW?
YesAnd once your forces retreat for the night, the allies can sail right on in and mine them again.
Got ya! The Germans could place their submarine force in the Channel and sink every Royal Navy that the Luftwaffe fails to sink/neutralize.The RN could station subs in the channel to be used solely for anti shipping. Hazardous, but well worth the risk.
For the second time in a row, I didn't say it's not degrading. But so is the RAF. And as most combat will happen over the Channel and the German held beaches, the RAF wil lose more pilots per shot down plane than the Germans.Why is your LW not degrading as a force after intense combat and sortie rate?
I didn't say the LW would protect the troops over a broad front. I said the LW would protect the bomber and only a part would be used for CAPs over the beaches.Why is your LW able to defend on a broad front, both your bombers and your own ports and the KM at sea?
Why are they light?Your divisions are all light infantry.
The Germans wont have any surprise. Theres only a few specific dates you can invade, the weather and sea state dictates whether you sail or not, the resistance will tell the allies whether your forces are boarding the barges, etc, etc.[/quotes]D-Day was to be a surprise yet the Germans also knew when the weather and sea state would have been right. In that case, no invasion is ever a surprise.
The British wouldn't know for sure that the invasion would take place. Until they have certainty their units will stay where they are. Else they'll be moving back and forth every week.
With the ships the British had in the Channel? I doubt it.theres no guarentee that the allied navies wont be able to bust through a thin defensive line your navy has set
I disagree.you have no amphib forces to facilitate the rapid movement of supplies from off shore directly inland off the beach.
Now that's interesting. Why were things easier in 1941 than they were in 1942?1941, risky. 1942, failure was guarentee'd.
Syscom, if you don't have anything new to add, don't bother to post. I'm tired of repeating the same and pointing out that you don't read my post and that you keep putting words in my mouth.
Kris
Hi David. I'm going to rush through things. From what year is "Burning Blue"? And what does the title refer to?
Spot on! Germans will have to be using CAPs on the first day but if the Channel Dash was an indication, the British were easily taken by surprise and not very well organized. That makes me conclude that on the first day the British won't be able to muster all their aircraft.
From the second day onwards the German fighters will mainly be used to escort the bombers, so no more CAP. (Except for the 250 or so over the beaches). I am thinking about the possibility of forward escorting though. As the Royal Navy would place itself in firing range of the beaches, the German bombers would attack them and the German fighters in their forward escorting style as favoured by Galland would in effect be flying over the beaches. This is not wishful thinking from my point - well that too - but it's the only way it could have gone down.
In any case - given the fact that the British lost twice as many fighters as the Germans in 1942 - I think the Germans would have been able to seriously reduce the threat of the RAF. I also said before, that 1/3 of the barges were expendable (of course after delivering their loads). I don't think this is such a wild assumption.
Are you sure? I think they had more of them (over 60 in August) though I could be mistaken. Unless you mean 42 in Britain alone?
Ok. How many RCAF squadrons were there by 1942?
Please David, I already explained this more than 5 times. The KM would protect and support the invasion of the first day after which it would retreat. As such it will only have to fight the forces which are already in the Channel. The bulk of the Royal Navy was at least a day away from the Channel.
German E-boats were far superior to the British MTBs.
I agree.
But let's take Anzio as an example again. The allies failed to exploit their numerical advantage and soon they were up against an enemy as strong as they were. They were hard pressed to hold on but they did, for months! I'm only asking the Germans to hold on for two-three days. And in the end ... the Allied army broke through the German lines and conquered central Italy within weeks.
I don't think the German army is going to love me anyhow as I plan on using them as a bait for two-three days.
In any case, German AF was capable of holding off the CW AF in North Africa, so I think moving both forces to the Channel will result in the same stalemate. .
So these German boats couldn't have been used along the English coast during the invasion?.
No, it's not. I told you that Bomber Command had less than 500 bombers available in the middle of 1942. The 1000 bomber raids were a result of saving of bombers and use them once every month. So sure, you could use 1000 bombers once. Normal availability however was less than 500.
And again, the British bombers would suffer the heaviest night time losses ever, with 300 German night fighters knowing exactly where to find them!
Losses on the German bombers was high but not on German night fighters, and that's what I was talking about!
Yes, childish to loosen up a bit. You may call it whatever you want but one ship out of a fleet attacking another ship out of a fleet is a fleet action. Is there a clear-cut definition of "fleet action"?I see you're resorting to childish behaviour without actually facing the challenge. My point: one ship attacking does not make it a fleet action. Why? Because for it to be a fleet action two opposing fleets must meet in battle, one ship does not make a fleet.
Were we talking about Royal Navy or about reinforcements in general? Weren't we talking about moving RAF units from Africa to Britain? Divisions and tanks maybe?Defeating the Soviet Union would not increase the German naval assets elsewhere.
I don't get it. You'll retreat Force H because the SU is defeated?as I mentioned it would take a few days for Force H to sail to the Channel. So, they would not need to be returned as soon as Soviet Russia was defeated.
Exhausted troops? What's this all about???? They fought in Russia so they can't be transferred?I'm sure you do. Pray tell your wonderful plans for shipping your exhausted troops from Soviet Russia and through the Med, past all those roaming Royal Navy and RAF assets?
What? What are you on about? Sending two extra divisions will mean victory at El Alamein and close down Alexandria and the Suez. And in time, the end of the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean due to attrition and finally retreat.It would be nice to increase the numbers Rommel had, but the fact of the matter is you'd have to prepare the exhausted soldiers and ship them to North Africa before the battle.
Would the outcome have been different? Can you guarantee that less ships would be sunk?It would have been completely different had there been a squadron of Hurricanes or two on Crete. Given that the Luftwaffe used close escort the air battles would rage around the bomber formations, which means the raids would have been disrupted and bombers would have been shot down.
Well, I didn't ask you to discuss with me. The last thing I need is a Brit thinking Britain is still an Empire.How old are you? It's like "discussing" with a child. No, I didn't say all the Kriegsmarine had was Battlecruisers, Destroyers and Submarines.
On the first day?The Royal Navy would deploy more guns, meaning the Kriegsmarine would be out-gunned.
You may know your stuff about British forces, you really need to read up on Hitler and German HQ. Do you really think Hitler cared about those dead soldiers? The only thing it caused was him concluding that FJs weren't as effective as he had hoped. He drew the opposite conclusion of the allies who promptly stepped up the paratrooper program.Is that why the heavy Fallschirmjager losses at Crete, around 50% (KIA and WIA), caused a big upheavel in German High Command and with Hitler?
I never said they wouldn't have a single idea. I say they could have been tricked and confused by spreading false information, including in the decoded messages. There's nothing sci-fi about that, these are simple precautions which hardly take effort. You have a very limited view of German ingenuity as if they were completely incapable of ingeniouty, always thinking they'll walk right in to whatever trap the British have waiting for them, never giving them any credit to beyong that what you're aware of.Do you even read your own words? Seriously, to proclaim that an invasion would go through without the British having a single idea about the time or place is beyond belief.
Friendly. Can't win the discussion so why not start that way?It's surprising you don't fall over more often given that your sense is wandering.
Took great effort? I already dug up the day-by-day air missions and don't see a very concentrated attempt to knock them out. The Germans tried to knock them out but when they saw that the British were still scrambling their fighters in time, they gave up. As many of those radar installations are close to the shore, many would be taken by German forces or at least shelled by them while others could be attacked by German bombers once they had finished neutralizing the RN. That means that the British radars would have to moved to other locations which would surely take time. A similar thing happened in Germany in 1944 when the allies conquered territory up to the Rhine giving away German early radar warning for western Germany.Of course, Kris, all those radar installations would be destroyed just like they weren't in the Battle of Britain. If you look at the Battle of Britain in some more detail instead of simply reading the part about how Britain won, you'd see that the Germans took great effort in destroying the radar chain and didn't do it.
Of course many aircraft would make it back to British territory. But the majority of shot down planes go down instantly which is indicated by the fact that half the pilots of shot down planes are killed.Actually a lot of the time aircraft would be able to fly some distance before crashing. This gave pilots chance to get back to friendly terrority before bailing. Drowning in the Channel would be a problem for both air forces.
What about Anzio? They were contained for months and broke out? And it's not like my troops will be contained on the beaches. I was thinking of advancing up to 5 miles in certain areas.If you're contained and dug-in on the beach, you've lost the battle.
You didn't read my posts. Flak would come along as was planned in Sealion 40. No Luftwaffe Flak but the Flak attached to the divisions.
That sounds strange as the beaches were already obstructed by concrete/metal anti-tank constructions.
Digging in.
Blaim the weather guy who told them the weather would be good and try to make to most out of it.
Got ya! The Germans could place their submarine force in the Channel and sink every Royal Navy that the Luftwaffe fails to sink/neutralize.
For the second time in a row, I didn't say it's not degrading. But so is the RAF. And as most combat will happen over the Channel and the German held beaches, the RAF wil lose more pilots per shot down plane than the Germans.
I didn't say the LW would protect the troops over a broad front. I said the LW would protect the bomber and only a part would be used for CAPs over the beaches.
Why are they light?
D-Day was to be a surprise yet the Germans also knew when the weather and sea state would have been right. In that case, no invasion is ever a surprise.
The British wouldn't know for sure that the invasion would take place. Until they have certainty their units will stay where they are. Else they'll be moving back and forth every week.
With the ships the British had in the Channel? I doubt it.
Now that's interesting. Why were things easier in 1941 than they were in 1942?
Syscom, if you don't have anything new to add, don't bother to post. I'm tired of repeating the same and pointing out that you don't read my post and that you keep putting words in my mouth.
Kris
If you would have bothered to read my posts, you would have known about it.More and more goodies are brought along.
Does that mean you don't think I'm smart but just playing dumb?Playing dumb now?
Go ahead, just don't expect me to respond. Goodbye Syscom...Youre right. Your arguments for your invasion are pathetic, ill considered, poorly thought out and amaturish. And I will keep adding my comments if I damn well like to.
Must have been someone else who suggested that. I can't remember who said what.I never mentioned moving RAF units from Africa to Britain. The RAF was already larger than in Britain than it was 1940.
Ok. And I consider them to arrive too late if they arrive in a few days. If you're going to send the Royal Navy in bit by bit, I think it's easier to take these ships out.I said Force H wouldn't need to be pulled back because the Soviet Union was defeated. If, or when, an invasion attempt was made ULTRA would be aware of the general time and date - if considered Force H could be there in a few days.
No, German divisions were usually moved from one front to another without R&R. German HQ didn't require their divisions to up to full strength. They would rather take two divisions at half-strength than to get one up to full strength. And that worked out fine.I never said they cannot be transferred, but they would need rest and refit which can take weeks. Since they would have suffered heavily in Russia, it may have taken months.
This is simply not true. You're probably confusing it with late 1942 when the allies stopped supplies reaching Tunisia.Those supplies going to North Africa suffered heavily at the hands of the Royal Navy, RAF and USAAF. You propose sending more shipping through, which is going to get hit just the same. I'm pointing out the simple fact that while you propose to send all that to North Africa, most will not make it - just like real life.
I was thinking of one PzDiv and one InfDiv. How many divisions did Rommel have in 1942? How close was he to victory with those?Two extra divisions? Infantry? Motorised? Armoured? What kind of divisions are you proposing to send? And I see you're 100% sure that two extra divisions (of what, we don't know) will secure victory in North Africa. No, it doesn't work like that. Rommel was out-numbered in tanks and artillery, even two extra panzer divisions would render his tank numbers and artillery numbers less than that of the 8th Army. Since Rommels divisions in N.Africa were under-strength by El Alamein.
Two squadrons versus 200 German fighters as escort? Disrupting the bombers at the same time they're attacking the ships? I think the result would have been negligable.It's only reasonable to assume that the Royal Navy would have not been hurt as much as it was.
Just a joke. I'm childish, remember?Since when did I say Britain still maintained an Empire?
The only reason why he complained about losses was because it reduced the battle strength of the army.No, pal, you need to read up on Hitler and the German High Command instead of listening to the clichéd stories of them not caring about life. During the Russian conflict, Hitler constantly complained about the losses suffered right up until he became practically insane in 1944.
That's what I was saying!!The difference between German command and the West was the simple fact the Germany was willing to suffer heavy losses to achieve its goals.
Again, a typical example of how you make Neptune a standard. Had the allies done half of their deception the same result would have been achieved. 135 out 136 SS intelligence reports said the invasion would take place outside of Normandy.I'm most surprised about the "hardly take effort" part. Have you read about the deception effort the Allies made for Neptune?
Didn't they change the Enigma a couple of times? Germans after the war said they thought it would have been possible to break the code but that the allies wouldn't go to the trouble of decoding all of their messages.You have a very limited view of reality. Germany never knew about ULTRA until after the war, they continued to maintain that their enigma was unbreakable. Because of this the German High Command never took great effort to be deceptive, for that reason the ULTRA team knew about every invasion made by the Germans.
We've been through that before. I do think the British would have photographed the lot. But then there's the matter of interpretation. The British would know the Germans were going to invade and that they were assembling their invasion forces. I already said that. But the Germans could deceive the British. To name one way, they could sail a couple of times before as an exercise.How do you propose stopping them taking pictures of your invasion build-up and reporting it?
Typical. So now I need to destroy all of them to get a result? Why were there so many radar installations if only a few were needed?The Germans gave up because they good not destroy the radar chain. Radar towers are easily repaired, you need to bomb them day after day to keep them down.
Most of the radar stations were further inland than 5 miles. And since there were chains in Dover and far around, you aren't going to capture them all.
And yet I'm only saying the Germans would have to hold out for two-three days. To say that it was the naval guns that saved them is simplistic. It contributed but it was not the main factor. Infantry and aircraft were more important.What about Anzio? The Allies at Anzio were constantly supplied and supported by air and sea.
Starved after two days? Elite forces mean nothing if they don't have support? You're getting desperate in your arguments.Elite forces mean nothing when they don't have the heavy weaponary and support. Your forces would be contained and starved out, as you foolishly abandon them in the hope of destroying the Royal Navy.
Are you saying 5 missions a day is impossible?
No, that's still not the reason why the Germans shot down twice as many fighters as the British did. What's the difference in dogfighting over Britain or dogfighting over France? I see three differences: fighting time, AA ground fire and pilots being captured when shot down.
But as I said, the bulk of the Luftwaffe would have been called back from the Ostfront and have confronted the RAF. As the Germans shot down twice as many as they lost,
and they only had 250 fighters in France,
I'm not going to state that the British would have lost 5 times more fighters but I don't see how one can disagree that British losses would have been much higher.
Now you make it sound as if 3,000 aircraft were trying to sink ships over a month. Their primary mission was not to sink ships and how many of those aircraft were bombers capable of sinking ships?
And again, they weren't trained in anti-shipping.
It seems you make the BoB the standard for all Luftwaffe operations. The BoB was going to last for a longer period.If the Germans were planning on keeping up the offensive, they couldn't fly too many sorties.
German bombers could fly up to 5 short-range missions a day. That's perhaps not your reality but unfortunately it's historical reality. I suggest you read up on Luftwaffe operations on the Eastern Front.
I see Rommel winning in El Alamein and taking Alexandria and the Suez Channel.
Given that the Wehrmacht was only partly motorized and unsupported by a really strong motor industry; that the political situation necessitated the carrying of much useless Italian ballast; that the capacity of the Libyan ports was so small, the distances to be mastered so vast; it seems clear that, for all Rommel's tactical brilliance, the problem of supplying an Axis force for an advance into the Middle East was insoluble. Under these circumstances, Hitler's original decision to send a force to defend a limited area in North Africa was correct. Rommel's repeated defiance of his orders and attempts to advance beyond a reasonable distance from his bases, however, was mistaken and should never have been tolerated.
You don't get it. The Germans had fighter aircraft in Greece. As the British didn't have fighters, these fighters were unopposed. If the British did have fighters, it wouldn't mean things would have been different: the Germans could have protected their bombers.
And yet I'm only saying the Germans would have to hold out for two-three days. To say that it was the naval guns that saved them is simplistic. It contributed but it was not the main factor. Infantry and aircraft were more important.
Kris
Why would number of aircraft matter? Most German aircraft flew several missions a day near Kursk. For a short period and very short missions, which I have in mind for Sealion '42.For very small numbers of aircraft, for very short period, on very short missions, it's possible. For large numbers, no.
3 fighters were climbed to engage the German fighters, the other 6 climbed to engage the bombers.[/quoted]Finnish fighter training was the first to stress how a small number of fighters can hold the initiative against a much larger force. They did this by a loose finger-two formation. This was later adopted by the Germans.
Same thing goes for the British over France. Yet they lost twice as many as they shot down. The Germans showed what the British had shown them a year earlier: you don't need to have numerical superiority to win an air battle.In France in 1941 and 1942, the Germans didn't have to defend. If they couldn't attack with advantage, they didn't attack at all.
Is Western Europe the same as France?They didn't. Hooton in Eagle in Flames gives the German day fighter force in Western Europe as a low of 430 in Sept 41, rising steadily to 636 by the end of 1942. There were 564 in mid 1942.
As I said before, having more fighters doesn't result in winning air battles. In the end, the Bf 109 shot down more British fighters than lost, especially considering that the Bf 109 could not make emergency landings like the British fighters. If damaged, the Bf 109s often didn't make it back to base.Only they had that many fighters in July 1940, and still lost.
I believe the first part is the essential one. Once they have secured the Channel, they can fall back to their normal amount of missions.If the Germans were planning on keeping up the offensive, they couldn't fly too many sorties.
I don't know where you got that from but I have accounts of Luftwaffe units flying up to 5 missions a day on the Eastern Front.Now if you want to argue a couple of units might manage several missions a day, you'd be correct, but that's not the case for large numbers of units.
If you take those figures and apply they to the BoB in 1942, the Germans with a force of 1500 bombers and dive bombers could make about 900 sorties a day, but that doesn't take into account the availability of escorts.
Van Creveld is interesting. I read his work back in '03. It really opened my eyes as I had never really considered logistics to be important. Since then I have adopted some other views and have noticed that Van Creveld is an expert on logistics but is not really accurate when it comes to German doctrine and capabilities. For all the criticism he puts down on them, the Germans still managed to advance at a speed unmatched in WW2. They weren't fully motorized and lacked pretty much everything, yet they arrived near Moscow and Leningrad in a matter of weeks. Rommel moved 644 km in 36 days. His troops were exhausted and out of fuel but he got there and held the initiative.Van Creveld goes into this in some detail in Supplying War. His conclusion is that a German advance into Egypt was an impossibility because of the North African infrastructure
You say he had to be supplied from Tripoli yet I wonder why you leave out Benghazi and Tobruk. Don't worry, I'm not going to accuse you of deliberately giving false information again. That leads to nothing.
Von Creveld states that Tripoli had a "comfortable" capacity of 50,000 tons per month, Benghazi had a theoretical capacity of 81,000 tons per month, and Tobruk's capacity is put at 20,000 tons per month, out of a
theoretical capacity of 45,000 tons per month when the Italians
were using it. As you know these capacities were never met as the Italians didn't use enough ships. I don't recall Von Creveld mentioning that this was because the Italians chose to use their ships to supply the forces in Albania and Greece which could also be supplied by road (though it would take longer). What's really strange is that they stopped doing this when it was already too late: after the Allies landed in Algeria. Suddenly they moved and supplied 300,000 men to Tunisia only to get their ships sunk by the new warships and aircraft and the ones from Malta.
But Rommel did manage to get to El Alamein and get his troops supplied. But by then he was defeated because the British had received more aircraft and American Shermans and guns. Given that in early 1942 Rommel would have gotten more resources and two extra divisions (practically doubling his force!) he would have taken Tobruk much earlier and could have advanced towards El Alamein when the British were unprepared and weakened.
Look at the record of Stuka operations against Britain, which were well escorted, but still suffered horrendous losses.Horrendous losses? How many did they lose? 40? 50?
What do you base this on? Does this also apply to the American 8th AF?And with air cover, bombing accuracy tends to go down, because the bombers are more worried about protecting themselves than hitting the target.
Kris
It's wrong because you know divisions that were resting? I'm saying German divisions were usually given no R&R when they were ordered to move from one front to another. This is a bit typical of German forces: pulling units back for R&R unless they're decimated and needed to be rebuild. British and Americans managed their units better, especially the air units.Wrong. 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were in Holland in September 1944 because they were resting for the up and coming December Ardennes Offensive. German forces rested, just like anyone else.
They were interfering but IIRC 80% of all supplies went through unharmed. This would even be less with Malta being cut off.The Allies were cutting Rommel supply all through the N.African campaign and keeping Malta supplied.
I simply disagree with the outcome being different. The odds in Crete would be 1:10 fighters which is worse than Britain 1:2. And contradict me if I'm wrong but I don't remember the British building a radar network in Crete.The RAF went up against similar odds in the Battle of Britain, why assume they'd mean nothing over Crete?
But how did we start this? You said he wouldn't sacrifice those men in an invasion of Britain although my plan suggests heavy losses. Clearly that won't be the case.I'm glad you've actually realised he cared about losses. Hitler actually believed he could win Stalingrad, hence the reason he threw people in there.
I never said that. I would leave them without reinforcements for two days.Your plan doesn't have any sense of victory for the troops on the beach, you said yourself that you're abandoning them.
Everyone can be duped. You overestimate Britain.There's no evidence from the real world that suggests Britain could be so easily duped.
Well, you're treating Ultra as being the wonderweapon it wasn't. And I'm not implying that the Germans magically know about it.I never said Britain would know everything about Sealion '42, I'm saying that Great Britain would know the invasion was going to happen and at generally what date. You might say you'd be deceptive, and you probably would be given you know that ULTRA has your codes cracked.
And didn't know of other German offensives. Yet you're absolutely sure the British would know of Sealion 42. That's where I disagree. I say it's possible but not certain. That's the difference.I never said that Germany didn't attempt to deceive the enemy. But the fact remains that ULTRA, even in its infancy, knew about the German invasion of France. ULTRA knew about the invasion of Russia, and knew about the Kursk offensive in 1943.
But what if the Germans send out false information? Germany never planned anything like Sealion 42. Let's compare it to other offensives where Germany did manage to deceive the enemy. Barbarossa is one. The British may have found out but the Russians with their extensive intelligence did not manage to find out about the biggest invasion of WW2. I didn't know the British found out about it by Ultra, I thought it was a spy (or the Lucy Ring?) who told them. But I can imagine that the secrecy was not the same towards Britain as towards Russia. The only case where I can remember the Germans doing their best to deceive the western allies was the Ardennes. Oh yeah, and ULTRA couldn't save Market Garden from defeat because it didn't know of that SS division that moved there just days before.Great Britain knew about every invasion attempt made by the Germans, what makes you think we wouldn't know about yours?
I don't have artillery? A German division without artillery? I don't think so. The German plan talked about full German divisions, so with its AD, AT and Arty.You haven't got artillery ashore, there's not enough room.
Oooh... that's what you meant. (Let me delete a long reply about German rations and Stalingrad....You have to maintain your troops through supply, you cannot drop them ashore and abandon them. Or they will be starved into surrender, not literally starve to death ...if that's what you thought I meant.
Well, that's rather contrary to Hitler's orders to immediately transfer units from Russia to Italy or to France in 1943 and 1944. Until then there was only one front (North Africa not really being a real frontline). So for 1942 I can only think of the transfers along the Eastern Front. As things were getting desperate near Stalingrad, Hitler ordered divisions from other parts to get in the fight. And let me tell you, he didn't allow even half a day rest. This is from the top of my head but I can look up specific divisions if you want me to.All German units received R R when redeploying, especially in 1942. Even this suicidal German Command knew that resting your troops was vital to success.
That seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Smashed, trashed? I think I have figures of the losses somewhere. If I forget to post them tomorrow, please remind me of it.Rommel's supply was being sunk in the Med, smashed in the ports and trashed on the roads. From Germany to the front-line, a lot less than 80% arrived. Most of the aerial assaults on Rommels supply were coming from Eygpt and Palestine, not Malta.
They would have to fly CAPs as they wouldn't have radar early warning as in Britain. That means that even less would take it up against 200 German fighters.Even 24 aircraft providing air cover for the Royal Navy would have made a difference.
And it wouldn't be the first time that Hitler believed in an impossible situation. He let the 6th army be surrounded believing they would hold out. I honestly don't think that's taking a bigger chance than my invasion plan.Hitler wouldn't throw troops onto British beaches in the hope of destroying the Royal Navy. At Stalingrad there was a large chance of success, your proposed invasion depends on so many British blunders and blind luck ...it'd be a considered a complete waste of manpower. But this is a waste of time, since you're going to do it in this hypothetical situation.
This I find interesting: I see a certain weakness in ULTRA. Even though ULTRA said one thing, the allies didn't follow it all the time. This confirms my suspicion that the allies could be fooled. If ULTRA says one thing, but other intelligence another, it apparently causes confusion... I didn't know this until just now.ULTRA knew about Operation Barbarossa, the information was handed to Stalin but believing that Britain was trying to drive a wedge between Russia and Germany; ignored it.
Fragments of the Ardennes Offensive were known about by ULTRA, SHAEF ignored the information because they didn't believe the Germans had any fight left.
You've stated a common myth about Market Garden; it seems easy to mention bad intelligence alongside Market Garden. However, documents released in 2002 actually showed that ULTRA knew all about the presence of 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions in Holland, this was on top of the pictures taken of the SS armour in the area.
But does artillery need to be heavy? What about the sIGs and the 12cm mortars?The infantry make the gains; spread out and then capture the space to set up your heavy weapons.