The Kriegsmarine was not a big navy. If they wanted to gain complete dominance over the med then they would have to ease off the pressure on the Atlantic convoys. If Britain could ferry planes then it might be possible to ferry soldiers across as well thus being able to better defend the airfield. And ultimately the N.African theatre of war was of low value to the Germans. Hitler's objective of capturing Suez would not of yielded much strategic value.
"The Kriegsmarine was not a big navy." Taxcutter says: Not talking about the Kriegsmarine. Talking about the Luftwaffe. Specifically geschwaders of Bf-109E and Bf-109F fighters to sweep the British naval air assets around Malta. Eliminate the Sea Hurris and the Stukas rule the waves - at least around Malta. "If Britain could ferry planes..." Taxcutter says: Once the fallschirmjaeger take the airfields, the only thing being ferried in are Axis troops and supplies.
I always heard that even big armored battleships were vulnerable to attack from directly above. Germany wouldn't have "whooped" England, nor really tried to. It would be enough for Hitler to just knock Britain out of the war. The problem is that even given this Germany must still attack Russia in 1941. Hitler had ruined his economy to rearm. He had to use his Army or its cost would not be sustainable And if he does that he still would have eventually lost to Russia. Stalin would no longer trust him enough to accept any peace, let alone one where he lost territory. Germany would have lost at Kursk in almost any case, and that was the beginning of the end in Russia
"Germany must still attack Russia in 1941." Taxcutter says: No they don't. After they take Malta, Alex falls with 3-4 months. Without Alex, Egypt and the Levant are indefensible. The British will have to stuff what they can through Basra and engage Rommel around Baghdad. Rommel has plenty of flanks to work. While the conquest of Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia is going on, Hitler can partially demobilize. The mech forces reduce Mesopotamia and take Abadan by early fall and Churchill is forced to the peace table. If Churchill has any sense he goes to the peace table soon as Egypt is lost. He'll probably have to give up the Kirkuk oil fields but he can offer peace if Britain can retain Abadan. Hitler re-mobilizes in March, 1942 and assaults Stalin first week of May (when the ground dries and firms up). Now he has six additional weeks to reach Moscow before the weather closes down. if Hitler can hold Moscow through the winter, Stalin is toast. Not only is Moscow the seat of government but also the nerve center of the Soviet rail system. If Moscow is in German hand Leningrad is isolated, as is Murmansk and Siberia.\ Look at a Russian rail map. Without Moscow their rail system is fragmented.
That would of been the only option left to them as the Hurricanes and Spitfires had a longer range. So if the carriers that ferried them were out of range of the Germans & Italians then they could land with only minor discomfort. BF109's were not the best bombers and could carry only three small bombs or one relatively large one. As a fighter it was almost equal to the Hurricanes and Spitfires. If they could. As I've just said better planes were being ferried in and I'm sure that during that time they could also bolster the AA around the three airfields of Malta. But like I said before it's rather pointless to take Malta just as long as the sealanes are clear. If they take the Levant there's still a major issue and that is the Afrika Korps will still have leave troops in the occupied territories which for an army of some 40 to 60,000 men is quite a strain. And driving tanks through the desert is not an easy task so naturally you'd have to use the railways. In Palestine the only realistic option is to use the line running into Syria. It would of been likely that the lines would of been sabotaged which would buy much needed time in order the reinforce Iraq.
The Luftwaffe need only hold air dominance over Malta for a few hours. Once the fallschirmjaeger take the airfields (and there's no doubt they will) there will be no more ferrying anything into Malta for the British. Nobody will be using Bf-109Fs as bombers. They are Hurricane-killers. Spitfires were not much used in the Med until early 1942. The railroads are mostly for supplies.
So? they were available to armed forces so why can't I use them? To move armour across hundreds of miles of desert where they are slow,draining fuel and susceptible to air attack is not the wisest move. And then of course if the AK wants to advance quickly it will have to deal with issue of water. I think we have gone ahead of ourselves here. What time frame are we looking at. E.g with your assault on Malta how long would it take to organise forces from the homefront then prepare and adequately supply them both before and after the invasion?
"...how long would it take to organise forces from the homefront then prepare and adequately supply them both before and after the invasion?" Taxcutter says: A couple of geschwaders of fighters and Stukas, and some Ju-52s, the Parachute division and the 22nd Airlanding division? They could be in place and strike by the first of September 1940, earliest. Anytime in the fall of 1940 or winter of 1940-41 would do nicely. The Royal Navy had barely landed a few supplies by the end of November with just Italian resistance. With ten times the shipping committed to support them at Crete the Commonwealth forces were overwhelmed by the fallschirmjaeger.
Hmm well those numbers are pretty good but I think if successful it would be much like Crete in terms of the expenditure of men on the side of the Germans but would ultimately be winnable. A naval landing might reduce those casualties provided that air superiority is unchallenged. Also the time would allow for a reinforcement of Malta provided we anticipated it correctly. I think we might be able to make Malta more trouble than it's worth. Also any Paratrooper assault is going to have the additional problem of finding their rifles when they land and if the airfields are shored up with machine gun nests then that could cause major problems. On the other hand what the British could do is neutralise the airfields by making them unusable with explosives.
I'm pretty sure that the Japanese were watching Hitler's forces destroy the USSR during the summer and fall of 1941, the time in which they must have been planning the Pearl Harbor attack. The Japanese made the decision that ended WWII by attacking the US. After this, there was no way for the Axis to win. The Japanese underestimated the USSR in the same way that the Germans did. They didn't attack the US until they thought that Germany had pretty much finished the USSR. It is only then, that the Japanese felt comfortable in drawing in the US. The Japanese should have waited through the winter before attacking. Then they would have seen that the USSR wasn't quite finished, and that the best course of action was to help Hitler finish them, before drawing the US in. The US was indecisive before Pearl Harbor, as its leaders were having a tough time convincing the public to go to war. The Japanese could have played on this indecisiveness, and forced the US to make the first move in the Pacific. I believe that it is possible that the US would have waited too long to decisively act against the Japanese without a Pearl Harbor, and that the Japanese would have had time to press the USSR from the east. I believe that with a committed Japanese attack, the Germans and Japanese could have finished the USSR in 1942, before the US had acted decisively. Once this happened, the Axis could actually win. Pearl Harbor was the point of no return for the Axis.
