The Luftwaffe even working at the it's top rate was unable to supply sufficient food supplies for the troops that ended up encircled. Now consider doing that but also needing to put a dent in a sizable fleet, act as flying artillary, bomb british industry etc. all in the vital days.1. In Stalingrad, you had longer distances and 600.000 people too feed and arm, plus half a panzer army to fuel (4th panzer was not completely encircled). So why would airsupply be a problem ?
Well, any immediate Paratrooper landing (yes, with NO AT guns) is breakfast for those hundered tanks (even assuining your numbers are correct which I doubt) and if you wait the two to four months to get the transport orgnised for a major attack then the poms will have had the time to make good most of their losses.How many tanks did Britain have after Dunkirk ? From what I hear, exactly after, there were no more than 100. Not a thousand, not ten thousand, but a hundret. Now that has to be a problem, don't u think ?
If you take "to dig in" as to scratch out a few shallow foxhole then maybe. But it is not long enought for any serious effort.Also, the ideea was not only to take the beaches, but also a cuple of airfields where to lad troops. Even if those airfields fell to a british counterattack, they would stilll delay them long enough for the troops on the beach to dig in.
Looks like you base your understanding of WW2 on a single episode of Dad's Army.And what "heavily fortified" B.S. are you talking about ? MG positions in houses or the traditional single trench, occupied by 3 old men and one of their grandsons ?
The British had 400,000 frontline troops avalible in OTL plus assorted Home Guards, Territorials, half-train Regualars, etc.
That number of men with rifles and LMGs alone would be dangerous. But of cause by the time the Jerries are orginised to cross the channel much of the lost equipment has been replace.
BTW: Could you consider trying to spell one in ten words correctly rather than your current one in fifty-million.