Suez Canal

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Suez Canal

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Suez Canal

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Suez Canal - 3/6/2008 9:09:39 PM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

If CP units are adjacent to the Suez Canal does that effect the ability of TE transports to ship troops between the Eastern Med. and India? Although losing control of the canal would not completely prohibit transit to India (via the Cape of Good Hope. Shouldn't there be some negative effect on the TE for losing control of the Suez canal?

< Message edited by Lascar -- 3/6/2008 9:30:03 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Suez Canal - 3/6/2008 11:29:22 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

I felt that the British presence in India was already capable of supplying a force in Mesopotamia and the fact that troops could be transported around the Cape worked against a heavy penalty for losing Cairo. However, I would be open to invoking a penalty to make the Suez at least as valuable as it was regarded.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 2

RE: Suez Canal - 3/7/2008 12:23:35 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Something like a 2 Tr penalty might be apporpriate - ie temporarily take 2 Tr out of service to reflect the extra shipping needed to go around the cape?

Plus no resources from Tr in the Eastern Med?

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 3

RE: Suez Canal - 3/7/2008 12:44:56 AM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Something like a 2 Tr penalty might be apporpriate - ie temporarily take 2 Tr out of service to reflect the extra shipping needed to go around the cape?

Plus no resources from Tr in the Eastern Med?

That sounds like a pretty good idea. Apparently the resources coming through the Eastern Med are mainly coming from Asia and East Africa up through the Red Sea and through the Suez canal. This penalty also gives the Turks a chance to have a strategic impact on the British by interdicting the Suez canal at least for awhile. The Turks have little opportunity to have much of a direct strategic impact as it stands now.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 4

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 1:37:13 AM

Joel Rauber

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline

I can see the removal of two transport units, but still allow resources for transports in E. Med. as the transport penalty would presumably account for the extra effort to get resources from the south and east asia to Britain.

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 5

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 8:03:42 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Chances of OE cutting this supply line with those poor OE troops is minimal. Though you could transport in AH or German troops to do the job instead... 1 British corps is = to about 3 OE troops and with an entrenchment the OE will never free up the Suez.

Strategically it would give the British a SMALL leak of resources, though it's only adding history that's all. There are other facets I'd focus on first, then I'd move to this

Ideally cutting the Suez perhaps should cost 1 or 2 British Resources gained from Eastern Med. Trading per turn, randomely between the two figures. This way it would force the British to post a garrison there

and as I recall in history, the "Charge of the Light Brigade?" Wasn't that Aussies pushing back the OE in the Sinai? I may be mistaken but though I saw it in a movie many years back and the strategic or tactical goal the movie was based on was the defense and attack around the Suez/Jugular of the British Empire.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 6

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 9:18:55 AM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Charge of the Light Brigade - that was during the Crimean war 1866.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 7

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 1:34:02 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

oopsies it was this reference, I guess the charge of the light brigade made me think of the mobile horsemen from the movie Aussies and such... But anyway heroic and epic was the movie was does play a part in History here:

Unlike their counterparts in France and Belgium, the Australians in the Middle East fought a mobile war against the Ottoman Empire in conditions completely different from the mud and stagnation of the Western Front. The light horsemen and their mounts had to survive extreme heat, harsh terrain, and water shortages. Nevertheless, casualties were comparatively light, with 1,394 Australians killed or wounded in three years of war. This campaign began in 1916 with Australian troops participating in the defence of the Suez Canal and the allied reconquest of the Sinai peninsular. In the following year Australian and other allied troops advanced into Palestine and captured Gaza and Jerusalem; by 1918 they had occupied Lebanon and Syria. On 30 October 1918 Turkey sued for peace.

reference: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1.htm

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 8

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 6:16:33 PM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

Chances of OE cutting this supply line with those poor OE troops is minimal. Though you could transport in AH or German troops to do the job instead... 1 British corps is = to about 3 OE troops and with an entrenchment the OE will never free up the Suez.

Strategically it would give the British a SMALL leak of resources, though it's only adding history that's all. There are other facets I'd focus on first, then I'd move to this

Ideally cutting the Suez perhaps should cost 1 or 2 British Resources gained from Eastern Med. Trading per turn, randomely between the two figures. This way it would force the British to post a garrison there

and as I recall in history, the "Charge of the Light Brigade?" Wasn't that Aussies pushing back the OE in the Sinai? I may be mistaken but though I saw it in a movie many years back and the strategic or tactical goal the movie was based on was the defense and attack around the Suez/Jugular of the British Empire.

I have seen many games where not only are the Turks adjacent to the Suez Canal (which would effectively close the canal to shipping) but also have crossed the canal and occasionally even take Cairo. This would be a significant strategic set back for the British Empire.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 9

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 8:28:42 PM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

If I notice that my oppenent is not paying attention to Egypt I usually attack it with the Ottomans. Quite often with success.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 10

RE: Suez Canal - 3/12/2008 9:44:41 PM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogada

If I notice that my oppenent is not paying attention to Egypt I usually attack it with the Ottomans. Quite often with success.

And of course historically the British paid a great deal of attention to Egypt, they could not afford not too. When I play the TE I commit significant forces there not to defend the canal per se, because the game currently does not attach much strategic significance to Egypt except for the point values of Alexandria and Cairo, but rather because it is a good jumping off point for launching an offensive against one of the weaker CP powers early in the war.

This is why the game needs to simulate somehow the strategic value of the canal to the British Empire and even to the French to a lessor extent.

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 11

RE: Suez Canal - 3/13/2008 6:49:25 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

I have seen many games where not only are the Turks adjacent to the Suez Canal (which would effectively close the canal to shipping) but also have crossed the canal and occasionally even take Cairo. This would be a significant strategic set back for the British Empire.

Remember the scale of things tho - the British defences at the canal were within a few miles it in 1915-16, and ships in the canal could use their guns against the first attack at the end of January 1915, and in places hte Turks actually launced boats into the canal to try to cross it!

In fact the British were going to use the canal itself as a defence - ie let the Turks hold the Eastern bank and defend the western one, but after the attack of Jan-Feb they decided it was a bit too risky (eg see http://www.1914-1918.net/palestine/suez.htm)

So the Brits were not too worried about losing it as a waterway!

See http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Turks/Turks_Suez_01.htm for a contemporary account of the 2nd attack

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 12

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 2:43:46 AM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

In fact the British were going to use the canal itself as a defence - ie let the Turks hold the Eastern bank and defend the western one, but after the attack of Jan-Feb they decided it was a bit too risky (eg see http://www.1914-1918.net/palestine/suez.htm)

So the Brits were not too worried about losing it as a waterway!

Interesting articles, but what I garnered from the articles was that initially the British didn't have the resources to go on the offensive against the Turks early on because of priority given to Western front and also Gallipoli. Once more divisions became available they did push back the Turks to keep at least their heavy artillery out of range of the canal. It doesn't seem the Turks were able to effectively interdict ship traffic passing through the canal because they simply didn't have the wear with all to do it with. However, if the Germans had sent a couple corps and some heavy artillery to support the Turks then the long term loss of the use of the canal would have been a real threat forcing the British to commit many more divisions to protect it.

Losing the canal wouldn't have cost the British the war but it would have been more than just a minor inconvenience. The British committed extensive forces in WWII to defend Egypt and also intervened with troops in 1956 during the Suez crisis because they perceived the canal as vital to British interests.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 13

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 9:48:36 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

It wasn't a matter of going on the offensive - given that there were only 3 ways through the Siniai at that time they could have set up defences forward of hte canal - instead they chose to let the Turks come right up to it - they didn't need heavy artillery to close it when they were lining one side and the brits were lining the other!! lol

Had it been considered absolutely vital then they could have shipped out the units that became teh 29th division - these were various bbattalions not returning to England from garrison posts considered unnecessary. IMO if the defence of the canal was considered vital they would have shipped them straight to Egypt.

Then htere were the Indian troops that landed at Basra and in German East Africa and elsewhere...again there was no recall of them for the defence of hte canal, although other Indian units were used in the Palestine theatre.

they also, AFAIK, didn't ask hte French for any colonial troops such as those that formed the Corps Expeditione d'Orient that landed at Gallipolli - this was another recently cobbled together unit consisting of a few French regulars plus mainly colonial troops so wasn't somethign that had to be diverted from france.

All in all the Brits were quite laid back about losing control of the canal IMO - they prefered to have control, but they could forego it without too much bother.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 14

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 10:00:47 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

If British shipping could be diverted and the Brits saw no real loss in Egypt, then you're wrong at least about the latter. the Sultan called for Holy War. Liberation of Egypt would've been playing right into his pocket. Instead the Turks were bled dry against the Russians and having limited success against the British in Iraq... Ultimately Egypt would've been a "morale booster" and the loss would've not perhaps crippled but made things that much more messy. Allies did land in Greece they would need close Bases, Egypt is ideal

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 15

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 10:50:53 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Who's wrong, and what's "the latter"??!!

The egyptians of course completely failed to respond to the Turkish declaration of a holy war, as did the Arabs...indeed the later did hte opposite and revolted against the Turks.

Certainly Egypt wasa useful base for later ops in hte Med and Palestine....but I don't think the Brits were thinking of those in Jan-Feb 1915 yet.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 16

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 12:44:10 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

The point was that the British highly regarded Egypt, India, etc.. They would've never let it go without a fight. Seems that most here were downplaying how England would react to a loss of Egypt. Not that I feel the Turks could've taken it, they certainly showed no skill in any other offensive during the past decade or so of conflict in the Balkans! And then again in the Caucasus, marching in circles freezing/starving to death.

All it seems the Turks could do is react and defend home territory. From what I've heard. Gallipoli was a nightmare and had the Allies done it right that may have been a success

When I speak of Holy War, perhaps that was never going to happen. Certainly all Majors of Europe were asking for the Colonies-Imperial Empire Territory to revolt. In some cases with success but not really. However a victory in Egypt for the Turks may have made others more bold in the matter of resisting the British Empire, not a smart move to let it go, no matter what... Like I said though, the Turks shouldn't possess the capability to take Egypt and they don't if even 1 British Corps is station there

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Who's wrong, and what's "the latter"??!!

The egyptians of course completely failed to respond to the Turkish declaration of a holy war, as did the Arabs...indeed the later did hte opposite and revolted against the Turks.

Certainly Egypt wasa useful base for later ops in hte Med and Palestine....but I don't think the Brits were thinking of those in Jan-Feb 1915 yet.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 17

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 12:52:02 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

They were certainly going to fight - but htey initially thought to do that by defending hte west bank of the Suez canal itself - so I'm pointing out that they were not TOO fussed about losing navigation of hte canal.

They eventually figured that defending the bank was too risky - presumably because there were no defences behind it?), so they then did shift the defence into the Siniai desert blocking the access routes to the canal.

But they didn't shift the defence forward in response to losing navigation of hte canal (as I read it) - my point has nothing at all to do with whether they were prepared to defend Egypt - clearly they were - it is solely how important the Brits felt that continued navigation of the canal was.

And IMO if we can get a feel for that then we can set an appropriate penalty for losing navigation by having CP units adjacent to or on both sides of it.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 18

RE: Suez Canal - 3/14/2008 1:07:52 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Yes as I mentioned, the Brits would've worked something out. A random penalty as I originally suggested of perhaps -1 Resource per turn reflecting the need of Empire to sail around Africa. Maybe 25%-35% chance it takes effect. Maybe worse

There may have be other issues though SMK, there may have been no use for the Canal at that particular time, the Brits may have wanted to see what the Turks would/could do, there were bigger fish in France and other places. Though assuming Gallipoli was to knock out the OE they must've assumed that the Siniai was small patotoes and the Canal wouldn't matter... So in strategic thinking, it may have been wise to keep the Canal Open.

Hard to say whichever, though considering all the Game Factors now in play.. Might make it worth fighting for since it is on the map. Though not really fair to transport in 500,000 CP troops there! That's not quite historically possible :)

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 3/14/2008 1:09:15 PM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 19

RE: Suez Canal - 3/29/2008 3:10:40 PM

JCP

Posts: 6
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
and as I recall in history, the "Charge of the Light Brigade?" Wasn't that Aussies pushing back the OE in the Sinai? I may be mistaken but though I saw it in a movie many years back and the strategic or tactical goal the movie was based on was the defense and attack around the Suez/Jugular of the British Empire.

As an Aussie, joining the forum today (thus my late reply) you're very nearly right, at least in name. The Australian Light Horse Regiments were perhaps our most famous and celebrated units in WW1, serving in the Sinai, Mesapotamia and the Levant. Even at Gallipoli, without the horses. You might even be thinking of a famous Aussie film, called in fact "Gallipoli", which ends with troops a light horse regiment charging (on foot) the Turkish positions with much the same results as the Charge of the Light Brigade ...

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 20

RE: Suez Canal - 3/30/2008 2:58:00 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

More likely the movie "The Light Horsemen", which has the famous charge of hte Ausie Light Horse (actually mounted infantry) at Bersheeba in 1917 - with bayonets in hand.

The wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Light_Horse is a good read with lots of links.

(in reply to JCP)

Post #: 21

RE: Suez Canal - 4/6/2008 7:20:19 PM

SlickWilhelm

Posts: 1854
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogada

Charge of the Light Brigade - that was during the Crimean war 1866.

Not that is has anything to do with this thread, but just for historical accuracy, the "Charge of the Light Brigade" occurred on October 25, 1854 at Balaclava during the Crimean War.

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 22