Destroying Suez Canal

[potski]

This gives an idea in one of the "narrow" sections:

There is no clear information about the width of Suez because there is no point where it really limits the size of ships, even the widest ships up to 77m in the world could just about pass, but the recommended limit is 50m. The limiting factor is their depth below the water - the canal was 18m deep until recently. This prevented some supertankers passing through if fully loaded. It was recently deepened to 20m. There is now a bridge which restricts height above the water to 68m, but there was no bridge in WW2. With no locks there is no restriction on length.

There are only a few modern ships which can't pass through Suez, and I believe every ship in the world that existed in 1945 could have passed through.

That wasn't the case with Panama and Kiel. The US had to slightly restrict the size of their BBs to fit through Panama, and IIRC the Japanese SHBBs wouldn't have gone through.

Many of the large capital ships wouldn't have gone through Kiel. I think the bridges would have prevented CVs and the width would have prevented some BBs, plus they would have to go through unloaded to avoid hitting the bottom. It's strategic importance had diminished by WW2.

Nevertheless, in HOI3 all three canals were treated equally, and allowed all ships to pass.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Yeah this oughta do the trick!

 

[Axe99]

Yeah this oughta do the trick!

The Germans regularly aerially mined the Thames Estuary (a far more important waterway for the UK than the Suez). It's definitely an inconvenience, and would likely claim a few ships (the RN lost a few ships, I think mainly DDs and smaller, from mines in the Thames), but it wouldn't shut it down for as long as it took minesweepers to clear it out again. The question would be whether the cost in bombers coming over dropping the mines was worth the hassle and occasional shipping loss it inflicted.

 

[CV10]

I think that the only conceivable way to block the canal would be to sink block-ships in it al a Zeebrugge or Ostend. However as both of those raids demonstrate, it is very hard to do, particularly since the canal would have been heavily guarded and any attempt would most likely have failed. Also, the Italians really did not have many ships to go throwing away in a highly unlikely to be successful attempt to scuttle them in the canal.

 

[keynes2.0]

After conquering Ethiopia by Great Britain, Italy wouldn't have anything to lose. Ships without Suez canal need to sail additional 7500 kliometers. It's a big distance which cost a lot of time to travel. It's big advantage for Japan which without Suez and Panama canal would have supremacy in pacific and Indian ocean.

Historically the vast majority of shipping did go around the cape. If they were going to go through the Mediterranean they would need to sail past Sicily where hundreds of Italian bombers and dozens of Italian subs would be able to attack them and where the Italian surface fleet could sail to intercept them. The British sent like half a dozen convoys through this gauntlet over a couple years. Such convoys had massive escorts, multiple battleships and maybe an aircraft carrier as well as various cruisers and destroyers. It wasn't something done lightly. It was like 1% compared to the convoys which took the long route.

So this entire question is Not Even Wrong. As soon as Italy entered the war, the Suez was essentially closed for business. There was still a little shipping going from the Red Sea to Alexandria but there was practically nothing going through the Med. You are saying "what if a non-existant thing stopped?" Well... nothing.

And if you are thinking about warships, most warships couldn't sail through the Suez during WWII. A destroyer could and a light cruiser maybe could. Cruisers, aircraft carriers and destroyers could not.

 

[EmperorBatman999]

Or they could just park the big guns at the mouths of the Suez and just open fire anytime an enemy ship merchant or military arrives to cross?

 

[keynes2.0]

There are only a few modern ships which can't pass through Suez, and I believe every ship in the world that existed in 1945 could have passed through.

It wasn't 18m in the 1940s. It was 7 meters deep and you obviously cant go exactly to the limit. Many ships were deeper then that in 1945.

 

[Wyrm]

You could always try to drop mines into the canal, but getting the aircraft there without having them mauled by allied fighters and AA is another thing...

 

[Harada.Taro]

As already said, there is no locks in the Suez canal, it's wide open so you can not destroy it but you can blockade it by sinking ships, concrete block all along this will make it impossible to navigate for quite a time.
On the opposite Panama canal has many locks which can be destroyed and the japanese have tried to do so by using bomber planes from giant submarines but they failed to reach the launch point and the one they sent from too far away never returned nor reached its target.

 

[Axe99]

And if you are thinking about warships, most warships couldn't sail through the Suez during WWII. A destroyer could and a light cruiser maybe could. Cruisers, aircraft carriers and destroyers could not.

You're not wrong about the limited traffic during the war - particularly prior to Italy surrendering - but it was used by warships, and could be used by most of them. Here's Howe (KGV class) going through in 1944:

Howe had a draft of 8-9 metres (depending on how heavily it was loaded) - I'm not an expert on the canal (I just recalled seeing pictures of WW2 battleships travelling through it) but are you sure about the 7 metres?

The only British ships (at the time) with deeper drafts than the KGVs were the Nelsons, but it should have been able to take all their other BBs and CVs, or the US Essex class carriers.

How does seem to be going through a fairly tight patch here, a good place to try and block it with sunk ships of one was going to have a crack at that. No idea where in the Canal this is though.

 

[Axe99]

You could always try to drop mines into the canal, but getting the aircraft there without having them mauled by allied fighters and AA is another thing...

Just had a look for more evidence of big ships in the Canal, and here's some text from Illustrious' Wikipedia page:

He transferred his flag to Formidable when she arrived at Alexandria on 10 March, just before Illustrious sailed for Port Said to begin her transit of the Suez Canal. The Germans had laid mines in the canal earlier. Clearing the mines and the ships sunk by them was a slow process and Illustrious did not reach Suez Bay until 20 March.

So it looks like they did historically .

 

[Harada.Taro]

It wasn't 18m in the 1940s. It was 7 meters deep and you obviously cant go exactly to the limit. Many ships were deeper then that in 1945.

True and false until 1956 its permitted depht was 8 meters but it got deepened several times after just follow the link and you will have a small table with everything on.

http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=12

Still suez canal was not important for BB or CV passage from europe to pacifiic it was important for the slow merchant ship and troop convoys.

 

[Grallak]

Will you be able to put out sea mines during the game? Also, would it be better for Italy to simply block near the Tadjoura Trough near Ethiophia rather than the canal? If 99% of all convoys went around through the cape, then wouldn't it be better for italy to invade the cape at the start of the game?

 

[Broe]

how wide was the canal doing the war. As far I can tell it was only 148m at some points and not the huge canal you see today.

To block this sould not be too difficult. But to get within range to do so....

 

[CHRIS3169]

I look forward to making an intricate warplan that involves landing commandos at a canal and seizing it, laying the way for a larger invasion on the other side of the canal. I can't wait to use the battle plan editor and all the new streamlined troop movement features...

 

[Raptor83]

how wide was the canal doing the war. As far I can tell it was only 148m at some points and not the huge canal you see today.

To block this sould not be too difficult. But to get within range to do so....

Most ships are relatively narrow - without taking control (or bringing) of several ships, you have no way of blocking 148m wide canal. Doing that without controlling whole area would be difficult at best.

 

[goliard20]

There are none. The Suez Canal is entirely at sea level and has no locks. Sea water flows freely in and out of the canal. There really is no infrastructure to destroy.

The southern entrance to the canal at Suez:

It's like saying you could destroy the River Nile.

It got shut down in the past with broken ships in the fairway. I think in the 6 day war it hnappens... nope wikipedia helps, it was during the suez crisis.

 

[Broe]

Most ships are relatively narrow - without taking control (or bringing) of several ships, you have no way of blocking 148m wide canal. Doing that without controlling whole area would be difficult at best.

problem is the canal is not a square. only full depth in the center. sloping sides under water. only center 60m have 11m depth. and you really dont want to move ships at speed in such a narrow canal past each other. they will collide

 

[atomicroman]

There's no gates at Suez Canal (I was sure, that Suez canal is above the sea, but it doesn't- my mistake)

but, Panama canal is 25.9 meters above the sea level (source - wiki)

So destroying suez is like destroying nile (possible by using nukes), but destroying panama canal infrastructe looks more possible.


EDIT: Look at this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station That dam was destroyed by NKVD. It killed thousands of people and 1000-2000 german soldiers. It propably slowed german offensive a bit. It's out of topic, but it shows effects of that kind of operation.

I want to say that HoI4 if played by people (not AI) gives us diffrent history. Just Imagine how big advantage would have Japan player at US player after hitting Panama canal.
Playing Hearts of Iron give us possibility of making alternative history to which we all know.

 

[Pandoricus]

Ahh yes it was the RAF, either way it was impressive.