Sigh...as of 7 September 1940, the entire Luftwaffe had on hand 3,979 combat aircraft, of which 2,719 were operational. The Luftwaffe in the the field opposing Britain had 2,804 combat aircraft on hand, of which 1,901 were operational. On 7 September 1940, the RAF Metropolitan Air Forces, i.e., those only in the UK, had on hand 2,308 operational aircraft, an immediately available aircraft reserve of 731, and a reserve available in more than 12 hours of another 2,218 aircraft.Counter wrote: ↑03 May 2022 15:45In the period Admiral Raeder presented his Strategy German numerical superiority against the British was not only on the ground but also in the air (and after the Axis closing the Gibraltar straits, the Royal Navy would have had very little to say in the Mediterranean). Balcans campaign showed it all. No further debate about it for HONEST and well-informed people. You choose your style of life, Richard...
How does the Axis close the Gibraltar straits if the Spanish are unwilling? More important, how do they close the Suez Canal?
What the Balkans Campaign showed was the ability of the Luftwaffe to use a central position to quickly establish temporary air superiority. What the long term Mediterranean Campaign showed was the inability of the Luftwaffe to convert that temporary air superiority to air supremacy anywhere.
No what is ridiculous is your inability to present any concrete evidence for what is basically you ill-informed opinion.Just ridiculous.
The Luftwaffe had huge problems to be effective in North Africa. As of 11 October 1941, Fliegerführer Afrika had just 200 aircraft on hand, of which 113 were operational, an operational rate of 56.5%. As of 1 November 1941, RAF Middle East had 863 aircraft on hand, of which 777 were operational, an operational rate of 90.0%.Luftwaffe had not many problems to be effective in North Africa in spite of coming hastily to save the italians (not to conquer Suez, indeed).
Can you imagine why the RAF operational rate was so much higher than the Luftwaffe? Could it be the RAF's 20+ years of experience in desert operations? Better air filters? Better maintenance infrastructure?
Stop expressing your opinions as if they are facts. On 5 April 1941, Fliegerführer Afrika had 432 aircraft, of which 284 were operational, a 65.7% operational rate, on 21 June it was a 74.4% operational rate, on 12 July 1941 it was a 65.6% operational rate. on 16 Auggust 1941 it was a 67.1% operational rate, on 17 January 1942 it was a 50.6% operational rate.Technical problems were minor problems and you know perfectly that they were solved.
Do you notice a pattern? The technical problems were major and they were never solved.
snip more unsubstantiated opinion.
You have not "refuted" anything, i.e, you have not met the definition of refuted, which is to prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disproved.Interesting for you? I don´t think so. Now you have it... It was very easy... But... you knew all this before, didn´t you?
Sorry, but you are still not learning anything or proving anything, you are just repeating unsupported opinion as if it was fact.That was the right strategy because, in hindsight, we know today that it was workable -you know it too, Richard- and the british could not have prevented it. But that was not so clear at that time. That strategy was dismissed in favor of "Barbarrosa" (and in favor of the "Blitz" over England, earlier). Why? That is what I wanted to learn...
Seriously? What was the Japanese supposed to be "landing in Ceylon and Madagascar in April 1942" with? Who has proven that was the "right" Japanese strategy? Yet again, your opinion that it was is not proof.The same way, we know today that, for the japanese, the right strategy was landing in Ceylon and Madagascar in April 1942... but the japanese did´t know what was expecting them in Midway two monts later... Obviously, Hitler didn´t care much at the end of 1940 -as "Barbarrosa" was decided- about what happened to Napoleon in Russia in 1812. More... I don´t know.
This is like talking to my cat and he has probably as much interest as you do of discussing strategy.Simply, you, Richard, are not interested in discussing strategy. So, what are you doing in this sub-forum on Strategy? Just for fun? Good, let´s have fun...
You have not "discussed strategy". You have expressed a woefully unsupported opinion about a particular strategy and then refused to provide any facts to support your argument or to refute the facts that have been presented to counter your opinion.