WI U Boat does not spot Lusitania

How much of a difference does ths make to US German relations? Does Germany run a less restricted submarine war?

OR Is US public opinion still outraged by Germany's behaviour in Belgium?

How likely some other high seas incident with lots of dead Amereicans?
 
I would say that it delays the US entry into WWI. As long as Germany continues unrestricted submarine warfare a Lusitania-like situation is almost inevitable. However any delay in the US entry could tip the war in Germany's favor. Its not likely but it could happen.
 
I would say that it delays the US entry into WWI. As long as Germany continues unrestricted submarine warfare a Lusitania-like situation is almost inevitable. However any delay in the US entry could tip the war in Germany's favor. Its not likely but it could happen.


But would an alt-Lusitania be on the same scale as OTL's?

The Lusitania's death toll was exceptionally high, probably due to a coal dust explosion. If that hadn't happened, would a Lusitania in which only two or three Americans die make the same furore as one in which over a hundred died?
 
But would an alt-Lusitania be on the same scale as OTL's?

The Lusitania's death toll was exceptionally high, probably due to a coal dust explosion. If that hadn't happened, would a Lusitania in which only two or three Americans die make the same furore as one in which over a hundred died?

It came out recently that the Lusitania was carrying arms, so maybe a magazine exploded?
 
The OTL Lusitania was a fluke, the U-Boat was slower and had to start in the right position. Any small change could prevent it.

On the other hand, the British were systematicaly fudging the cargo manifest. So if not Lusitania, then maybe they get more desparate / bold and realy start to carry amunition on liners. If that sould happen and something happens to the ship. Either torpedoe or accident, then it would be a even bigger clusterfuck for them.

I will see if I could find the book, but the Admiraility also played a fast one in the legal proceedings afterwards.

PS: found it.
"The Sinking of the Lusitania Unrevaling the Mystery" by Partick O'Sullivan
 
Last edited:
The OTL Lusitania was a fluke, the U-Boat was slower and had to start in the right position. Any small change could prevent it.

On the other hand, the British were systematicaly fudging the cargo manifest. So if not Lusitania, then maybe they get more desparate / bold and realy start to carry amunition on liners. If that sould happen and something happens to the ship. Either torpedoe or accident, then it would be a even bigger clusterfuck for them.

I will see if I could find the book, but the Admiraility also played a fast one in the legal proceedings afterwards.

PS: found it.
"The Sinking of the Lusitania Unrevaling the Mystery" by Partick O'Sullivan

What do you mean with recently?
I learned in school that the Lusitania was carrying arms and ammunition for the entente.
The torpedo hit the ship right there where the ammunition was stored which caused an explosion.
My teacher told me that in 2008. And I've seen history books (German,Italian and Russian ) from the 90s which say the same.
Besides that the German SKL put outa warning in the NYT and the WP that ships sailing under British flag will be attacked.
So the US was a hypocritic asshole for their reaction towards the Lusitania incident.
 
What do you mean with recently?
I learned in school that the Lusitania was carrying arms and ammunition for the entente.
The torpedo hit the ship right there where the ammunition was stored which caused an explosion.
My teacher told me that in 2008. And I've seen history books (German,Italian and Russian ) from the 90s which say the same.
Besides that the German SKL put outa warning in the NYT and the WP that ships sailing under British flag will be attacked.
So the US was a hypocritic asshole for their reaction towards the Lusitania incident.

I don't know about hypocritical asshole. It was definitely a good PR move since US public opinion started to shift towards war after that.
 
what would the result be, if the u-boat does not spot the lusitania, but when it start entering the UK port it gets touched by a tug, and the impact sets off a detonation with the same result?
(or just a crate falling due a movement & detonating it all while no other ship near)

or scenario 2 - this happens while it is still leaving a US port.
 
As I understand it the Lusitania was carrying arms but the actual fatal explosion was caused by a fluke concentration of air and coal dust. I saw a documentary following a diving expedition
 
As I understand it the Lusitania was carrying arms but the actual fatal explosion was caused by a fluke concentration of air and coal dust. I saw a documentary following a diving expedition

i think i saw the same documentary.

but since explosives are tricky to handle, an incident could happen where the cargo handlers drop a crate or something.
 
The book I mentioned seems to indicate some tons of fine aluminium powder were stored near the impact side and after forming a dust air component were ignited...
 
What do you mean with recently?
I learned in school that the Lusitania was carrying arms and ammunition for the entente.
The torpedo hit the ship right there where the ammunition was stored which caused an explosion.
My teacher told me that in 2008. And I've seen history books (German,Italian and Russian ) from the 90s which say the same.
Besides that the German SKL put outa warning in the NYT and the WP that ships sailing under British flag will be attacked.
So the US was a hypocritic asshole for their reaction towards the Lusitania incident.

I agree with the rest but I'm fairly sure nations do not have a right to unilaterally attack neutral shipping because they have declared an area a war zone.

teg
 
I agree with the rest but I'm fairly sure nations do not have a right to unilaterally attack neutral shipping because they have declared an area a war zone.

teg

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

When Lusitania was built, her construction and operating expenses were subsidised by the British government, with the proviso that she could be converted to an Armed Merchant Cruiser if need be. A secret compartment was designed in for the purpose of carrying arms and ammunition.[39] When war was declared the Lusitania was requisitioned by the British Admiralty as an armed merchant cruiser, and she was put on the official list of AMCs. Lusitania remained on the official AMC list and was listed as an auxiliary cruiser in the 1914 edition of Jane's All the World's Fighting Ships, along with Mauretania.[4][40][41][42]
The Declaration of Paris codified the rules for naval engagements involving civilian vessels. The so-called Cruiser Rules required that the crew and passengers of civilian ships be safeguarded in the event that the ship is to be confiscated or sunk. These rules also placed some onus on the ship itself, in that the merchant ship had to be flying its own flag, and not pretending to be of a different nationality. Also, it had to stop when confronted and allow itself to be boarded and searched, and it was not allowed to be armed or to take any hostile or evasive actions.[43] However when war was declared, British merchant ships were given orders to ram submarines that surfaced to implement warnings as per the Cruiser Rules.[4][5][6][7][8]

and

Undeclared war munitions

Lusitania was officially carrying among her cargo rifle/machine-gun ammunition, shrapnel artillery shells without powder charges and artillery fuses.[8][42][82][83] Beesly has stated that the cargo also included 46 tons of aluminium powder, which was used in the manufacture of explosives and which was being shipped to the Woolwich Arsenal.[78][79] Author Steven Danver states that the Lusitania was also secretly carrying a large quantity of nitrocellulose (gun cotton), although this was not listed as such on the cargo manifest either.[84]
Furthermore there was a large consignment of "fur", sent from Dupont de Nemours, an explosives manufacturer, and some 90 tons butter and lard destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex. Although it was May, this lard and butter was not refrigerated; it was insured by the special government rate but the insurance was never claimed.[85]
In September 2008, bullets known to be used by the British military were uncovered from the wreck by diver Eoin McGarry. They were found in an area of the ship not previously known to have been carrying cargo.[86]

So if she was a AMC (Armed Merchant Cruiser) she would not be neutral and be a "warship" of the British RN. Or what would she be?
 
I agree with the rest but I'm fairly sure nations do not have a right to unilaterally attack neutral shipping because they have declared an area a war zone.

teg

It was not a neutral ship so was a legitimate target. It's a bit stupid to think the US should not be upset though. Heap of their citizens died, after all. Plus unrestricted submarune warfare was new and seen to be "not that sporting".
 
I would say that it delays the US entry into WWI. As long as Germany continues unrestricted submarine warfare a Lusitania-like situation is almost inevitable. However any delay in the US entry could tip the war in Germany's favor. Its not likely but it could happen.

If the Germans start unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917 and send the Zimmermsn Telegram in Febuary 1917, the U.S. enters the war on schedule.
 
As I understand it the Lusitania was carrying arms but the actual fatal explosion was caused by a fluke concentration of air and coal dust. I saw a documentary following a diving expedition

Residual coal dust would have been not much of a fluke under the circumstances. The torpedo detonation breaking through the hull into the empty coal bunker could have created a compression wave sufficient to turn the coal powder into a explosive. The secondary explosion could have ruptured enough internal compartments to partially account for the rapid flooding. Two or three hundred kg of coal dust/chips would have been suffcient.

The diagrams I've seen show the torpedo hit at the coal bunker


The book I mentioned seems to indicate some tons of fine aluminium powder were stored near the impact side and after forming a dust air component were ignited...

Tons could have blown the ship in half. The diagrams I've seen did not show where the aluminum was stored. Ditto for the gun cotton. The quantity identified would have broken the ship if it detonated in a single compartment.

The 'ammunition' is problematic. The cannon projectiles are fairly stable & resistant to sympathetic explosion. They are fired from cannons without that occuring. (usually :( )

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

So if she was a AMC (Armed Merchant Cruiser) she would not be neutral and be a "warship" of the British RN. Or what would she be?

Since cannon were not installed & it was carrying regular cargo & passengers on a regular commercial route the AMC thing is a legality. AMC were originally conceived as light cruisers for intercepting merchant ships & installing prize crews. Since the German merchant fleet vanished from the seas in the first thirty days of war the AMC were nearly redundant. Some were armed and used to intercept/inspect nuetral shipping enroute to Europe, but others were released for use by their owners. The Q ships were a sort of AMC as well. We'd have to check if the Lusitania was released from RN service, or loaned back to the owners, to know the precise legal status.

The Captains decision to turn towards shore and continue at speed contributed to the rapid sinking. Halting a ship is the usual step when it is expected to abandon ship. That requires several minutes. But continuing at speed the time available to lower life boats was decreased. The forward motion also would increase the inrush of water, and increased the pressure on the internal structure. I'm unsure if the turn would have aggravated this. In any case the decision to not stop reduced the window for lowering the life boats to ten minutes or less. From torpedo hit to sunk was between 18 & 19 minutes. Very little time to save the passengers. Best guess is the captain hoped to run the ship aground on the shoals a few miles to the north.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the rest but I'm fairly sure nations do not have a right to unilaterally attack neutral shipping because they have declared an area a war zone.

teg

Not under the treaty the Germans & British had signed. Cruiser Rules therof required nuetral cargo ships be stopped and searched. Hostile cargo ships were to be given the opportunity to abandon ship & save crews and passengers.
 
What do you mean with recently?
I learned in school that the Lusitania was carrying arms and ammunition for the entente.
The torpedo hit the ship right there where the ammunition was stored which caused an explosion.
My teacher told me that in 2008. And I've seen history books (German,Italian and Russian ) from the 90s which say the same.
Besides that the German SKL put outa warning in the NYT and the WP that ships sailing under British flag will be attacked.
So the US was a hypocritic asshole for their reaction towards the Lusitania incident.
Actually no that's not true. Well OK yeah it was carrying ammo but it was a,) rifle ammo which wouldn't cause an explosion like what the second explosion was and b,) the second blast was too far aft to be the cargo blowing up. Personally I believe that the second blast was a couple steam bursting.
 

Perkeo

Banned
The RMS Lusitania was sunk on may 7th 1915, the US declared war on Germany on April 6th, 1917. A rather weak correlation.

Additionally, Germany messed up A LOT of things between those two dates and even before the Lusitania (rape of Belgium). Therefore I don't really see that changing this single incident makes a difference.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How much of a difference does ths make to US German relations? Does Germany run a less restricted submarine war?

OR Is US public opinion still outraged by Germany's behaviour in Belgium?

How likely some other high seas incident with lots of dead Amereicans?

Germany keeps doing USW until the USA get upset over something else which is likely. Big help to Germany, and huge butterflies over the war.

US was upset over the Lusitania, Belgium was mostly an issue after the USA became upset.
 
Top