WI: Scuttled ships in Suez in WW1

[BlondieBC]

WI: Scuttled ships in Suez in WW1

At the outbreak of the WW1, there were several German merchant ships in the Suez Canal. What if 4 of these ocean going merchant ships had scuttled the ships in the main shipping channel of the Canal? What would be the impact on the first part of the war? And would it have any butterflies that might be decisive?

Effects I can easily identify are the following:

1) The Indian Corps arrive late in France.
2) One third of all ANZAC merchant trade to Europe has to be rerouted and almost all trade from India or Asia.
3) It does not look like the UK runs out of food since this is near the harvest time, but if the blockade is not removed until winter, the UK could run out of food.
4) Likely tin, rubber, wool shortage.

 

[Cockroach]

Four Merchantmen scuttled in shallow waters, presumably by opening various valves and sea-cocks (no explosives on hand)? TBH, I don't see that being a bother for long... you've got just about an ideal salvage situation there. Perhaps three months, maybe less to get those ships afloat and out of the way?

As for that inducing starvation in Britain... I'd doubt it. It does make shipping of Australian produce more difficult but the poms can fall back on either US or Argentine exports instead.

 

[BlondieBC]

Four Merchantmen scuttled in shallow waters, presumably by opening various valves and sea-cocks (no explosives on hand)? TBH, I don't see that being a bother for long... you've got just about an ideal salvage situation there. Perhaps three months, maybe less to get those ships afloat and out of the way?

As for that inducing starvation in Britain... I'd doubt it. It does make shipping of Australian produce more difficult but the poms can fall back on either US or Argentine exports instead.

I figured a bit faster on salvage since it would be the number one priority of the entire empire. I read different numbers on how much food was on had, but one of the British senior admirals claimed only a few days of extra food on hand by April/May. Starvation is probably too strong a word, but heavy rationing with extremely high food prices is closer to the situation.

 

[Alratan]

I figured a bit faster on salvage since it would be the number one priority of the entire empire. I read different numbers on how much food was on had, but one of the British senior admirals claimed only a few days of extra food on hand by April/May. Starvation is probably too strong a word, but heavy rationing with extremely high food prices is closer to the situation.

They can just import more from other sources, you know?

 

[BlondieBC]

They can just import more from other sources, you know?

No. Normally world demand is balance with world output, i.e. no one invests builds automobile plants to stand idle, or plants fields of wheat each year to burn, at least on the large scale.

This also applies to merchant shipping. With the exception of severe recessions, there are not fleets of merchant ships sitting idle with trained crews being paid. The Suez would be more a logistical issue (not enough shipping) compared to an absolute shortage world wide of goods. For broadly comparable impacts, let me phrase the question.

Compared to OTL, twenty percent fewer ships arrive in France and England for the first 3 months of WW1. In the first 45 days, it is an across the board cut in all items of goods, and in the last 45 days, it is a cut in the less needed goods (non-combat essential). Also the Indian troops do not arrive in France until April 1915. What impact does that have on the war?

So lets take food. I have seen multiple source that there is about 3 weeks extra food in warehouses. This excludes inventory in retailers and homes and food in transit. England imported a majority of the food, lets say 60% for discussion purposes. Before taking into the account rationing and corrective actions, Britain loses 5.4 days of food in the first 45 days, and probably several additional days of food in the second 45. The British have probably used up 1/3 of the food reserve. If this had happened in winter, there may have been a few days with no food available at the retail level.

Take oil. In the first 90 days, it is probably a 9-18 day reduction in inventory, which means that fleet mobility is massively reduced. For example, the British may have to have most of the warships return to port for most of the three month period.

I can see lots of little effects, that do decisively change the war, but i am curious what how others think it would impact the war? The Suez was more important to the UK and world trade then than the Straights of Hormuz are to the world today.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

As a matter of national security international law regarding interned merchant ships is thrown out by every nation and all German ships boarded and confiscated in any port they might be lest further scuttlings follow...

 

[David S Poepoe]

Wouldn't they just dock and send any troops and bulk goods via railway from the Red Sea to Cairo? Really think these things out.

 

[Geredis]

David,b ut the issue is - is there enough shipping in Alexandria in order to match the flow of goods coming up from the Red Sea through this proposed overland route? And perhaps more importantly, what is Egypt's rail infrastructure like? Does it have enough rolling stock to support such a massive (I assume) rise in load, even in the short-term of those 3 months we're working off of?

 

[PMN1]

David,b ut the issue is - is there enough shipping in Alexandria in order to match the flow of goods coming up from the Red Sea through this proposed overland route? And perhaps more importantly, what is Egypt's rail infrastructure like? Does it have enough rolling stock to support such a massive (I assume) rise in load, even in the short-term of those 3 months we're working off of?

Agreed, since it hasn't been needed in the past, I can't see ships and roling stock being held in reserve just in case.

Also the chaos at the Red Sea ports in WW2 does not bode well for a similar attempt to offload and ship by land in WW1.

 

[BlondieBC]

As a matter of national security international law regarding interned merchant ships is thrown out by every nation and all German ships boarded and confiscated in any port they might be lest further scuttlings follow...

It makes sense that there would be a reason it was not tried, it is such an obvious target. This explanation sounds about right.

Wouldn't they just dock and send any troops and bulk goods via railway from the Red Sea to Cairo? Really think these things out.

Maybe, but to handle the volume of goods would require major upgrades to the rail and port facilities on both ends. Since we are likely taking a short period of time (45-90 days), the canal is probably operation before the logistical upgrades begin.

The issue is not a war winner, but it is not trivially solved. The largest loss to the Entente that I can see is the two Indian corps in France. The were clearly second rate troops, but all troops help. The Entente does not run out of food or oil, but food shortages in at least some items will be noticeable, for example no tea for a few months, meatless MWF, wearing last year wool clothing in the 1914/1915 winter, etc. The only thing I found that look irreplaceable is tin. It comes from near Singapore. And with presumably surging industrial work, does the UK have enough tin stockpiles to handle say a 20-30 day wartime (45-75 peacetime) delivery gap?

Was tin used for any absolutely essential war items that there are no existing stocks for? Something like artillery shells, ship construction, etc?

 

[PMN1]

This is for 1941 but I don't see the situation being any better in 1914.




Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War – C B A Behrens

Page 210/211

The principle ports concerned – Alexandria and Port Said at the Northern end of the Suez Canal, and Suez at its southern entrance – were not only the terminal points of the convoy routes that converged on the Middle East, and the sources of supply of the battle area; they also had to handle the civilian imports and exports of Egypt, and much of the imports of Syria, Cyprus, Turkey and Palestine which were delivered to Port Said for transhipment. Alexandria, much the largest and bets equipped of the three, handled in peace, a volume of dry-cargo tonnage that must it seems, have been considerably smaller than that handled by Glasgow, and it was now the base of the Mediterranean Fleet and its use by merchant ships restricted.. Port Said was less than half its size, while in Suez, it was estimated in the Spring of 1941. even with efficient management, only about 40 ships could be discharged a month. None of these ports were equipped to deal with the kind of military cargoes that now began to arrive, and all of them for this and other reasons, contracted much more serious forms of the war-time diseases from which the UK ports had suffered a little while before. For the cargoes were awkward cargoes, weighing up to seventy tonnes and despatched before the days when it became established principle that the ships destined for outlandish parts must be provided with derricks capable of getting the contents out of the holds or else service by crane-ship on arrival. The cargoes were stowed un inconvenient ways, or in ways that did not suit the needs of the military authorities, who had often experienced many unforeseen vicissitudes between the dates of despatch and arrival and wanted in a hurry things which were at the bottom of the holds. The battle areas were a long way off and the roads and railways connecting them with the ports inadequate, so that here as elsewhere the most intractable of the difficulties was inland clearance.

 

[El Pip]

IThe only thing I found that look irreplaceable is tin. It comes from near Singapore. And with presumably surging industrial work, does the UK have enough tin stockpiles to handle say a 20-30 day wartime (45-75 peacetime) delivery gap?

Was tin used for any absolutely essential war items that there are no existing stocks for? Something like artillery shells, ship construction, etc?

Tin would not be a problem due to the fact the UK had a large tin mining industry in the South West, production of something like 5,000 tonnes a year pre-WW1 which was about 5% of world production.

In any event I can't think of any large uses for tin beyond cans (tin plated metal) and solder, and frankly there wasn't much soldering going on in 1914.

So absolute worst case the British government has to start a recycling push to reuse old tin cans so people can make more tin cans, but even that is probably pushing it.

 

[Alex1guy]

If the need was really dire, I can see the British simply blowing the offending ships up or something, they aren't going to let a few sunken ships delay the entire war effort of the empire surely. I see this setting them back a few weeks at the most.

 

[Beedok]

So how long does it take to go around African? Is that less than the three months it takes for the canal to open?

 

[BlondieBC]

So how long does it take to go around African? Is that less than the three months it takes for the canal to open?

Depends on where you detour from, but 5000 nm seems like a fair number. So at 10 knots, call it 500 hours or 3 weeks, extra each way. So say if shut down for 90 days, it probably means 1 or 2 missed round trips, depending upon speed of ship and where it comes from.