german win race to sea in 1914 can German win great war without ottoman ?

I read the wiki, but I can't find anything to source it's claims. We have this article from the St. Louis Fed which shows it at over 27 million tons in 1913 and 9 million in 1920, so that directly contradicts the Wiki. Also another citation about the situation in general and backing up the Fed article:
The article you linked says:
Comparing the situation in 1920 with that in 1913, it is evident that a good deal of progress has been made in developing coalmines in the south of France, in order to compen-sate in some measure for the destruction of the mines in the Nord and Pas de Calais district. Production during 1920 was, however, 41 percent smaller than in 1913.
Which kinda backs up what I earlier quoted (because they say the production in coal in Pas de Nord (in which the Bethune mines are) dropped becaus of destruction of the mines):
Pendant la guerre, la production baissa beaucoup, descendant même jusqu’à 332 000 tonnes en 1915-1916 (2 423 000 tonnes en 1913). L’extraction moyenne journalière qui était de 8 000 tonnes en 1913 tombe à 1 300 en décembre 1914, puis 1 000 en 1916. Ce ne futqu’en 1924 que les 11 sièges d’extraction purent à nouveau fonctionner pleinement.
(principle source: http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/camt/fr/egf/donnees_efg/1994_026/2010_028_INV.pdf )
With Google translate:
During the war, production dropped considerably, even falling to 332,000 tons in 1915-1916 (2,423,000 tons in 1913). The average daily extraction of 8,000 tons in 1913 fell to 1,300 in December 1914 and 1,000 in 1916. It was not until 1924 that the 11 extraction seats were able to function fully again.

The first two lines of the image you posted state that coal production in France dropped from 40 millions tons in 1913 to 20 million tons in 1914. And then describes that was due to german destruction. So indeed all evidence points to a severe drop of production of the Bethune coal mines during the war. Which is not surprising at all.
 
Major food production is on the eastern side of the UK. East Anglia being the main grain basket and cattle. Further west is sheep country.
Export of coal out of Wales or via Liverpool would impact transport of foodstuffs to London in only a minor way if at all.

Speaking of minor and not so minor Portsmouth is the RN's port. Southampton is the civilian port.
I highly doubt that the KM can sally into the Solent or close it's eastern access.
As for threatening Portland. ...highly unlikely.
Back in this time the 'slow and dirty' between Poole and Bristol is a fully functional railway.
And Poole, Lym Regis, Exeter are available for smaller shipping.

Though strictly as with coal there is nothing to stop shipping from the western ports like Bristol to France.

But deeper thinking might suggest that the 'race to the sea', could run the risk of drawing RN support. This is possibly were the KM might risk an action.

As far as Im aware Great Brittain as a whole was reliant on imported food during WWI. At least that was the reasoning behind the U-boat champaign. The point raised - no by me - was that the imported food (and other stuff) reached London via ship and that in the case these cargo ships redirected to the western ports the rail capacity of Great Brittain at the time would be incapable to substitute the shipping.

IMO Brittain would cope with this difficulties if they arose which is under debate as well. My question was that the rediredtion of trains to this purpose at a time when Brittain would also possibly face a need to redirect coal to France would be too much. If Brittain would be unable to help France with a coal shortage - which is also under debate - the consequneces could be dire.

But the number of uncertainities in the whole of this seem to be far too great at the moment at least.

In regards of the fleet: the germans dont really need the Kriegsmarine in the channel. U-boats, mines, coastal guns and mostly a small number of ship could seriously impede the traffic there.
 

Zen9

Banned
As far as Im aware Great Brittain as a whole was reliant on imported food during WWI. At least that was the reasoning behind the U-boat champaign. The point raised - no by me - was that the imported food (and other stuff) reached London via ship and that in the case these cargo ships redirected to the western ports the rail capacity of Great Brittain at the time would be incapable to substitute the shipping.

IMO Brittain would cope with this difficulties if they arose which is under debate as well. My question was that the rediredtion of trains to this purpose at a time when Brittain would also possibly face a need to redirect coal to France would be too much. If Brittain would be unable to help France with a coal shortage - which is also under debate - the consequneces could be dire.

But the number of uncertainities in the whole of this seem to be far too great at the moment at least.

In regards of the fleet: the germans dont really need the Kriegsmarine in the channel. U-boats, mines, coastal guns and mostly a small number of ship could seriously impede the traffic there.
Thing is the older canal network was still functional then, as well as small coastal traffic.
So it's not a given transport infrastructure is unable to cope.
As I've alluded to, the export of coal out of Wales is almost completely unconnected to this.

As for the Channel, small craft are simply too vulnerable to coastal forces. This area is highly fortified and equipped with enough artillery to deter.
Plus the waters off Purbeck were a major submarine training area back then. My dad's old charts are quite clear on this.
 
12599218175_d5504163b7_b.jpg



WW1Book-Adm_Bacon-Dover_Patrol-1-093.jpg





 
As far as Im aware Great Brittain as a whole was reliant on imported food during WWI. At least that was the reasoning behind the U-boat champaign. The point raised - no by me - was that the imported food (and other stuff) reached London via ship and that in the case these cargo ships redirected to the western ports the rail capacity of Great Brittain at the time would be incapable to substitute the shipping.

IMO Brittain would cope with this difficulties if they arose which is under debate as well. My question was that the rediredtion of trains to this purpose at a time when Brittain would also possibly face a need to redirect coal to France would be too much. If Brittain would be unable to help France with a coal shortage - which is also under debate - the consequneces could be dire.

But the number of uncertainities in the whole of this seem to be far too great at the moment at least.

In regards of the fleet: the germans dont really need the Kriegsmarine in the channel. U-boats, mines, coastal guns and mostly a small number of ship could seriously impede the traffic there.

Britain imported about 2/3 of its food prior to both world wars, however this is because the farming industry concentrated on high value products like meat and fresh fruit/veggies. During the war they grew less high value products and more staples like grain and spuds and managed to feed 1/2 of the population with rationing. Not all of London had to be fed through the docks, IIRC maybe 1/3 of London would have to be evacuated if direct food imports ceased entirely, not that that would occur but even 1/5-1/4 of London being evacuated would be an enormous upheaval compared to OTL.

However the impact of this stuff isn't direct, but on its indirect impact on Army campaigns from 1916 onwards. The need to provide a 2nd force the size of the Harwich force, dozens of major calibre and hundreds of minor calibre coastal guns etc will slow the growth of the Army and Corps level artillery of the BEF as well as reduce its manpower pool, so that when Verdun is under the pump the British campaign on the Somme won't be able to draw the Germans off.
 
Top