The netherlands in ww1

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#16

Post by glenn239 » 09 Jun 2011, 19:33

Right - no mention of force structure, since I did not assume either a small or large portion of the HSF when making the statement the HSF could use the base.

Switching this around - what is your objection? Are you saying that it was impossible for German ships to use Antwerp as a fleet base if the Netherlands is an ally? If this is your point you're wrong. Are you saying that the whole German fleet wouldn't base at Antwerp? Yes, I imagine that would be true.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#17

Post by ljadw » 09 Jun 2011, 19:40

It would be very unlikely that German ships would use Antwerp :the port being unfit for big war ships,the distance from the port to the channel being 80 km,the mouth of the Scheldt could easily be blocked .


User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#18

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Jun 2011, 01:01

Are you saying that it was impossible for German ships to use Antwerp as a fleet base if the Netherlands is an ally? If this is your point you're wrong.
Im saying it wouldnt happen. The port is not really of any use to the Germans, and their use of other bases in the war show they would be less than keen on putting anything at Antwerp - as Dave has pointed out.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#19

Post by glenn239 » 10 Jun 2011, 19:42

It may be possible that a base in the Netherlands might be seen as more suitable than Antwerp, but the option to use a forward base existed for the German navy either way. Tactically, the advantage would be proximity to the Channel.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#20

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Jun 2011, 21:35

They had Zeebrugge in reality and never wanted to make much use of it for anything but subs. Why is Antwerp going to be any different?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#21

Post by glenn239 » 11 Jun 2011, 15:48

Because the historical bases were tiny, did not have the best rail communications, and couldn't be used by large warships. In order to avoid attack from the sea, ships on the coast had to retreat inland beyond gunfire range, and the canals to do that were only big enough for destroyers.

OTOH, the approaches to Antwerp could hold the entire High Seas Fleet, and Antwerp itself had the excellent rail communications necessary to allow it serve as a supply base.

Assuming a major presence at Antwerp, the Grand Fleet at Scapa becomes a spectator to the Channel war, because the primary deterent Jellicoe held against HSF raids into the Channel was that the whole British navy would be waiting at Dover when the Germans tried to return to base. But if raiding from Belgium, that threat evaporates, and the British are down to either relocating the Grand Fleet to a base where they don't want the Grand Fleet to be, or relying on mine/light surface defences to try and deter the Germans.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#22

Post by ljadw » 11 Jun 2011, 16:00

OTOH,the approaches to Antwerp easily could be blocked .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#23

Post by ljadw » 11 Jun 2011, 16:31

If you had read my posts,you would know that the average tonnage of the ships that were entering Antwerp in 1913,was 2000 tonnes,this would it make very unlikely that the big ships of the Hochseeflotte could use Antwerp .
An other point :did the Hochseeflotte use Antwerp in WWII? The Tirpitz,Gneisenau,etc were,if I am not wrong,always very remote from Antwerp .Thus,why should the Germans use Antwerp in WWI ? Antwerp was not suitable as a naval base.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#24

Post by ljadw » 11 Jun 2011, 16:36

About the Channell war :if one would look on a map :idea: ,one would see that Antwerp is no part of the Channell. :P

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#25

Post by Terry Duncan » 13 Jun 2011, 01:29

Because the historical bases were tiny, did not have the best rail communications, and couldn't be used by large warships.
The actual German reason was that there was no secure harbour, and nothing offered the same security as the Jade estuary and Wilhelmshaven.
OTOH, the approaches to Antwerp could hold the entire High Seas Fleet,
Here we are back at 'the entire HSF' which Antwerp cannot cope with without major adaptation to cope with the 20+ major warships this entails at a minimum, not the 100+ total warships at one time.
Assuming a major presence at Antwerp, the Grand Fleet at Scapa becomes a spectator to the Channel war
And so does the HSF when it gets mined into its new anchorage. Maybe the French could get a cavalry regiment to capture a second fleet if the water froze up again too?
But if raiding from Belgium, that threat evaporates, and the British are down to either relocating the Grand Fleet to a base where they don't want the Grand Fleet to be, or relying on mine/light surface defences to try and deter the Germans.
Rosyth will do. By the time the Germans have negotiated the path to the sea and conducted an operation, the GF will be able to intercept as they all try to file into the estuary again, or far more likely, find themselves mined out of their new home and facing a nice trip through the Broad Fouteens, Dogger Bank, and Heligoland Bight areas in the company of the British fleet.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#26

Post by maltesefalcon » 13 Jun 2011, 20:40

There was little for Holland to gain by joining either side. No matter who won, she would still be a small nation sandwiched between 2 stronger bitter enemies.
It would be in their best interest to sit out the war and wait for the dust to settle. Plenty of time to choose sides once they knew who would prevail.
Germany on its part did not need Holland to complete its plan in 1914. In fact it was just more ground to cover. Belgium itself was only invaded because she was on the best route into northern France.
(In 1940 Holland was taken to prevent use of Dutch airfields against the Reich for one reason. Also it lent credence to the plot to lure the Allies north to be trapped.)

I wonder how Antony Fokker would have reacted to Holland joining in with her German neighbours though. Interesting premise.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#27

Post by glenn239 » 13 Jun 2011, 20:43

OTOH,the approaches to Antwerp easily could be blocked .
The entrance from the sea to the approaches to Antwerp (at Breskens, about 30 miles from the city) is about 3 miles wide, so nothing is to be accomplished there. Nor could a blockship get past the entrance, then sail 30 miles up to the docks.
If you had read my posts,you would know that the average tonnage of the ships that were entering Antwerp in 1913,was 2000 tonnes,this would it make very unlikely that the big ships of the Hochseeflotte could use Antwerp...
Yes, we know. That’s the actual docks. We are talking the approaches to Antwerp, which is a body of water 3-5 miles wide and 30+ miles long.
Rosyth will do....
If Rosyth would do, then the Grand Fleet would have based there in 1914.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#28

Post by ljadw » 13 Jun 2011, 21:11

glenn239 wrote:
OTOH,the approaches to Antwerp easily could be blocked .
The entrance from the sea to the approaches to Antwerp (at Breskens, about 30 miles from the city) is about 3 miles wide, so nothing is to be accomplished there. Nor could a blockship get past the entrance, then sail 30 miles up to the docks.
If you had read my posts,you would know that the average tonnage of the ships that were entering Antwerp in 1913,was 2000 tonnes,this would it make very unlikely that the big ships of the Hochseeflotte could use Antwerp...
Yes, we know. That’s the actual docks. We are talking the approaches to Antwerp, which is a body of water 3-5 miles wide and 30+ miles long.
Rosyth will do....[/qu
If Rosyth would do, then the Grand Fleet would have based there in 1914.
Who was posting that the High Seas Fleet could base at Antwerp,and is now contradicting himself ? :lol:
Whatever,using the approaches to Antwerp,without communications,without repair facilities,without electricity,without access to coal,without protection against the weather etc...would be very unwise :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#29

Post by ljadw » 13 Jun 2011, 21:22

And,why do you think that the ships entering-leaving the port of Antwerp are using pilots ?
Some actual figures of the main fairway :(I suspect the figures of 1913 being much worse,because,today,the Scheldt continuously is dredged.)
length :95 km
breadth:300 -530 m
depth :13 -51 m
And,there are the sand-banks....
How much breadth and depth would need the "biggies" of the HSF ?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: The netherlands in ww1

#30

Post by Terry Duncan » 14 Jun 2011, 00:47

If Rosyth would do, then the Grand Fleet would have based there in 1914.
This shows an ignorance of why Scapa Flow was chosen in the first place. A German fleet based near the channel is certainly not going to try exiting the North Sea by going around Scotland.
How much breadth and depth would need the "biggies" of the HSF ?
For the later ships, Kaiser class and Motlke class onwards they would all draw near 8-10m, though it was usual in naval practice to want at least 2m clear under the ship where possible. Alexandria was always considered very shallow, though it did work to advantage in WWII, but from memory even that was 3-4m under the ships. The problem in a waterway is the unfortunate issue of banks and silt needing to be dredged.

The Germans were not about to send their fleet into such a position, it would be very vulnerable to British subs, and somewhat prone to being mined in every time the British wanted a laugh about what the Germans had done with their valuable fleet.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”