World War, 1914-1918 -- Naval operations -- Submarine; World War, 1914-1918 -- United States
which rage so frequently in the winter months in these northern waters.
If the British navy had not succeeded in constructing an effective mine
barrier across the English Channel, what was the likelihood that success
would crown an effort to build a much greater obstruction in the far
more difficult waters to the north?
The one point which few understood at that time was that the mere
building of the barrage would not in itself prevent the escape of
submarines from the North Sea. Besides building such a barrage, it would
be necessary to protect it with surface vessels. Otherwise German
mine-sweepers could visit the scene, and sweep up enough of the
obstruction to make a hole through which their submarines could pass. It
is evident that, in a barrage extending 250 miles, it would not be
difficult to find some place in which to conduct such sweeping
operations; it is also clear that it would take a considerable number of
patrolling vessels to watch such an extensive barrier and to interfere
with such operations. Moreover, we could not send our mine-layers into
the North Sea without destroyer escort; that is, it would be necessary
to detach a considerable part of our forces to protect these ships while
they were laying their mines. Those responsible for anti-submarine
operations believed that in the spring and summer of 1917 it would have
been unwise to detach these anti-submarine vessels from the area in
which they were performing such indispensable service. The overwhelming
fact was that we needed all the surface craft we could assemble for the
convoy system. The destroyers which we had available for this purpose
were entirely inadequate; to have diverted any of them for other duties
would at that time have meant destruction to the Allied cause. The
object of placing the barrage so far north was to increase the enemy's
difficulty in attempting to sweep a passage through it and facilitate
its defence by our forces. The impossibility of defending a mine barrier
placed too far south was shown by experience in that area of the North
Sea which was known as the "wet triangle." By April, 1917, the British
had laid more than 30,000 mines in the Bight of Heligoland, and were
then increasing these obstructions at the rate of 3,000 mines a month.
Yet this vast explosive field did not prevent the Germans from sending
their submarines to sea. The enemy sweepers were dragging out channels
through the mine-fields almost as rapidly as the British were putting
new fields down; we could not prevent this, because protecting vessels
could not remain so near the German bases without losses from submarine
attacks. Moreover, the Germans also laid mines in the same area in order
to trap the British mine-layers; and these operations resulted in very
considerable losses on each side. These impediments made the egress of a
submarine a difficult and nerve-racking process; it sometimes required
two or three days and the assistance of a dozen or so surface vessels to
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account