Sea/Air development if Germany wins the 'Race to the Sea' 1914.

[Rule of cool]

Inspired by this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...nt-holds-1940-consequences-for-the-raf.44388/

In WW1 the Sea war and associated air and coastal aspects were pretty stale, at best the Germans could 'assault their jailer, but remained in jail'.

What If the Germans 'won' the so-called Race to the Sea; hit the coast at Etaples-Le Tourque and the front line of trenches was established along the Canche river and stretched inland to about where the front lines were in our history?

What impact would this have on Naval, Air and Coastal forces development?

 

[Rule of cool]

Rather than let this die I'll add a few bits of info that might stimulate discussion.

This report on Belgian and French ports was compiled in October 1914 as the Siege of Antwerp ended and the Race to the Sea was in progress. The lines in purple were the ones that the Germans actually held.

• Antwerp: major port and shipbuilding facilities, Scheldt pass through (neutral?) Dutch waters, linked by inland canal to Bruges:
• Zebrugge: shallow approaches and drifting sand requiring dredging, undefended apart from sea mole requiring major defensive gun emplacement, canal big enough for small cruisers inland to Bruges, minimal repair facilities: in general not considered a desirable base
• Bruges: linked by canal to Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ostend, no repair facilities: useful as safe harbour and supply station
• Ostend: defenceless without guns, linked by small canal to Bruges, some repair facilities including 2 small drydocks
• Dunkirk: shallow and navigational hazards on approach meant bad for Uboats but easily defended, good repair facilities: Good base for Torpedo boats
• Calais: Deep approaches mean uboats could dive as soon as leaving port, well equipped with repair facilities, very vulnerable to attack and would need major defensive gun emplacements: useable by uboats but overall worse than Dunkirk.
• Boulogne: approaches and defensibility similar to Calais but with added disadvantage that the supporting rail line ran along the coast and was vulnerable to naval gunfire leaving the port isolated, limited repair facilities: barely passable for Uboats and Torpedo boats
• Le Havre: navigation hazards so bad as to require French pilots, excellent defensive works with artillery, exceptional repair facilities, canal access from port to inland, Seine navigable deep inland for shelter against naval gunfire: very promising.
• Cherbourg: deep approaches, excellent defences, very well equipped repair facilities, very well placed for a commerce war against Britain: First class, more promising that Le Havre.

In the event the Germans stationed 1/4 of their u-boat fleet in the little Belgian ports and sank 1/4 of the total tonnage sank during the war. They also emplaced a huge number of coastal guns, making the coast a 'dead-zone' for the RN for much of the war. I found the attached diagram of German guns on the internet years ago, I don't know who owns it, and it shows the coverage of the German guns emplaced on the 50km of Belgian coast the Germans did occupy. I imagine such guns emplaced at Cap Griz Nez near Calaias would have a significant impact on the war.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth there's a similar thread in progress on alternatehistory.com. Here is a link to it.

WWI: Channel ports in German hands in 1914

All, Not being particular strong in WWI, had look up something in Liddel Hart’s ‘History of the First World War’. The channel ports were obviously of high importance to BEF. According to Hart, the British command neglected to guard against this although Churchill had been jumping up and down...

www.alternatehistory.com

Is that thread the inspiration for this thread?

 

[Rule of cool]

For what it's worth there's a similar thread in progress on alternatehistory.com. Here is a link to it.

WWI: Channel ports in German hands in 1914

All, Not being particular strong in WWI, had look up something in Liddel Hart’s ‘History of the First World War’. The channel ports were obviously of high importance to BEF. According to Hart, the British command neglected to guard against this although Churchill had been jumping up and down...

www.alternatehistory.com

Is that thread the inspiration for this thread?

I don't look at AH.com these days, but this is a topic that has interested me for a long time. My main thing is that the German navy achieved so little with the resources at its disposal.

 

[ArtosStark]

I imagine such guns emplaced at Cap Griz Nez near Calaias would have a significant impact on the war.

We aren’t going to have the discussion about “whether WW1 Coastal guns could shut down Dover or starve out London when those in WW2 didn’t” again, are we?

 

[Rule of cool]

We aren’t going to have the discussion about “whether WW1 Coastal guns could shut down Dover or starve out London when those in WW2 didn’t” again, are we?

I'd hope to not go down any particular rabbit hole as THE war winner. While I think Harassment and Interdiction fire into Dover port from railway guns when they become available would make life difficult I think the real value of coastal guns at Cap Griz Nez are the dozens of smaller guns that squeeze through-Channel merchant traffic into a very small shipping lane where German uboats can attack and mine them easily. The other great value is that these coastal guns means the RN has to fight to approach the German held coast, rather than approach at will to conduct missions.

I'd also point out that just as the Germans could conduct H&I against Dover and Folkestone the British could conduct H&I against Calais, likely in a similar timeframe.

The attachment below of from Admiral Bacon 'The Dover Patrol 1915 - 1917', note the huge number of uboat-laid minefields between Dunkirk and Calais. In a scenario where the Germans control not only this bit of coast but also all the way down to Bolougne (which has its own fair share of minefields) these minefields could be laid elsewhere, likely in the British side of the Channel outside the range of the German coastal guns.

 

[Hood]

Would make transit of aircraft to and from France more hazardous I guess in the sense that they would have to cross the Channel at a wider point with all the implications that has for limited navigational skills and engine reliability.

 

[Rule of cool]

Would make transit of aircraft to and from France more hazardous I guess in the sense that they would have to cross the Channel at a wider point with all the implications that has for limited navigational skills and engine reliability.

That's something I've not thought about before, but is a prime example of how the Germans holding this piece of real estate mkaes the British war effort that much harder. The Dover-Cap Griz Nez distance is the famous 21 miles and often you can see all the way across unaided. The distances from about Eastbourne to the coastal area near Abbeville is about 70 miles and the distance from the Ilse of Wight to Cherbourg peninsula is a touch closer at 65 miles.

I think that in the event the Germans did capture the French coast down to Etaples-Le Tourquet the British would set up their blockade line between the Ilse of Wight and Cherbourg peninsula, as opposed the the Dover Narrows in our history. This would be patrolled by the Channel Fleet, which wouldn't be able to be disbanded and sent to the Med in early 1915. This blackade line would be able to give assistance to aircraft ferrying across the Channel to France.

The attached map is from Admiral Bacon The Dover Patrol, it should the efforts the British put in to contain the 50km of Belgian coast the Germans did occupy, and that only got its first 3 'fleet' destroyers in early 1916. From mid 1916 (post Jutland) the number of 'fleet' destroyers went up to 13 then 23 until early 1917 when the 2 flotillas of fleet destroyers went back to the High Seas Fleet, leaving the number at 3. They also had 2 flotillas of coastal uboats, one 'attack' and one minelaying.