This was a tough poll. I really wasn’t sure which really applied, I agree with those who say supply was the key. Rommel could have all the tanks in the world but without fuel and ammo who cares?
The Italian Navy was really the key. The British navy established that it was going to do battle in the Med and not back down no matter what, the Italian’s tried to counter them but after a few painful defeats, and particually after Tarranto and the air attack forced the Italians to move the fleet farther north and away from the action, the Axis in N. Africa were for all practical purposes cut off from the amount of supplies they would need.
The British were willing to risk capital ships to win, the Axis navies seemed adverse to losing ships, but that was the difference in experience.
I agree that the lack of coordination between the Germans and Italians, particually the German Luftwaffe and the Italian navy was unacceptable. When they wanted to get a convoy through, they did. But that dedication was not always present.
An Italian AC would have been a big target that the Brits would have made every effort to take out. You can’t just invent Naval aviation you have to know what you are doing.
Simply put the Italian Navy tried, sort of, to control the Central Med and when it did not come easy they seemed to lose stomach for the fight.
A modern example is the Falklands War of 82. When the Argentinian Navy lost the Belgrano, its big cruiser, to the sub stike, the Navy which had a key part in the plan to defend the Falklands, lost heart and retreated to their home waters. Giving the Brits free run of the battle zone. The Argentinian Air Force did what it could and fought bravely but given the flying distances it had to operate and the lack of coordination between the services they had to deal with, it was not enough.