ljadw says Bayerlein lies. What a surprise!!!
Why is it that they only evidence that is not a lie is that which fits your fantasy narrative perfectly?
You showed the year 1941. It is interesting to see the selection for April 1943.ljadw wrote: ↑22 May 2019 11:51Bayerlein is totally wrong : he said that the monthly Axis needs were 30000 tons of which only 20 % (6000 ) arrived . If this was so, why did the Axis send 500000 ton in 5 month ( June-October 1941 ) of which 133000 ton in June ?jesk wrote: ↑22 May 2019 09:24Fighting was conducted until May 1943. The source speaks about sinking of 3/4 transport ships.ljadw wrote: ↑22 May 2019 08:44From June to October 1941,the Axis sent some 500000 tons of supplies to NA of which 82000 tons were lost by Malta Forces = some 16,4 % .
For the whole of 1941 1015000 tons were sent,of which 165000 tons were lost by Malta forces = some 16 % .
Source :Malta and British Strategic Policy 1925-1943 by Douglas Austin .
In 1935 the Mediterranean Fleet left Malta for Alexandria .( Same source ) .
Lieutenant-General Fritz Bayerlane wrote:
“Delivery of supplies through the Mediterranean to Rommel’s army was reduced to an average of 6,000 tons per month, meeting only about one-fifth of our usual needs.
Three-quarters of our transports, which transferred supplies from Italy to North Africa, were sunk by British aircraft or the navy. Since we could not create the necessary supplies for the future, any possibility of a decisive battle fell away.
If you need 30000 ton monthly, why sending 133000 ton ?
Besides, if only 20 % of the needed Axis supplies arrived, why could they fight during 3 years in NA ?
Of course he was disingenuous,as he tried to make the Italians responsible for his failure .Something the Germans were very good in .
Did I write that I agree with Bayerlein? No, I didn't.ljadw wrote: ↑22 May 2019 15:00Of course he was disingenuous,as he tried to make the Italians responsible for his failure .Something the Germans were very good in .
I am not at all surprised that you agree with Bayerlein .
I guess this is an excellent example of how you create falsehoods which you then twist illogically to create a fantasy narrative where the QED only works in your head.ljadw wrote: ↑23 May 2019 06:14I said that the Germans were very good in blaming the Italians for their failures .You said that this is a fantasy .
Thus , you agree with Bayerlein .
Or Bayerlein was right, or he was wrong : you said that it is a fantasy to say that he was wrong, that means that for you he was right .
Do you understand what you wrote? 42% loss "by Malta forces". To 1942 the number of group grew. In response to the introduction in war of the USA. The ships are few, the supply is not enough.
Wrong answer : % of losses are irrelevant : It is even more than possible that 42 % means lower losses than 20% .jesk wrote: ↑24 May 2019 07:58Do you understand what you wrote? 42% loss "by Malta forces". To 1942 the number of group grew. In response to the introduction in war of the USA. The ships are few, the supply is not enough.
It is logic on the basis of limited information. Supply in Africa trubut more detailed analysis.ljadw wrote: ↑24 May 2019 14:02The supplies arriving in NA were sufficient, otherwise the Axis could not invade Egypt and could not fight in NA during 3 years .
Other point, there is no proof that the amount of supplies that arrived in NA had an influence on the fighting :
June 1942 : Tobruk big Axis victory : 32000 tons of supplies arrived
November 1942 : Alamein : big British victory : 63000 ton arrived .
If supplies are that important, why did the Axis lose at Alamein when the double of supplies arrived than in June when the Axis won at Tobruk ?