anchors

[Fred Osborne]

If all three anchors for Titanic were to be discarded after the collision, would the added displacment have been enough to keep her afloat? If they had dropped both side anchors I'm sure the freefall would have been enough to rip the chains free from the chain locker when they reached their overall travel length. Removing the center anchor might have been more difficult , but I'm sure if the cargo booms had the capacity to lift it, it too could have been discarded.

[Tom McCluskie]

Unfortunately the removal of the anchor gear and cables would have made no appreciable difference to the outcome and in all probability the free fall of the port and starboard anchors would have caused considerable damage to the forward structure and cable locker resulting in even greater flooding. A decrease of approx 50 tons (anchors and cable) is negligible to the continuing increase in deadweight due to the uncontrolled flooding of the forward compartments.

[Jim Buchanan]

In fact, the weight of the anchor chains plus three anchors (250 tons?). located where they were, would have certainly caused the ship's water line and consequently the water line within the flooded compartments to change. If that weight had been taken from midship, the ship's mean draft would only have been decreased by about 1.75 inches.
However, getting rid of the anchors and chain? That would be easy!

First, the anchors outside the bows would be tied-off at the anchor windlass. The chain would be broken inboard of the anchors and then the lashings cut. The anchors would then free-fall out of the hawspipes.
Next, the remaining anchor chains would be walked out with the windlass antil sufficient length (weight) was hanging down into the water. Then the windlass brakes would be released and the chain would run out to the bitter end which was lashed to a bulkhead cleat in the chain locker. This would part with the weight and the lot would head for the sea bed.

James

[Bob Pendrey]

There is no reason that all three anchors and chain could not have been jettisoned in a controlled manner. Anchors are designed to be deployed! The ship still had steam power for the anchor winches.
In addition there was apparently a fresh water tank in the bow containing 190 tons of water which could possibly have been pumped out. The effect of removing this weight from so far forward in the vessel would alter the trim of the vessel. This would raise the bow. Removing this mass from the centre of the vessel my have had a limited effect but removing mass this far forward would alter the trim of the vessel. If the bow is trimmed up a little the pressure across the tear is diminished and the water flow decreased.

Regards Bob Pendrey

[Jim Buchanan]

Hello Bob,

The scenario you point out would only hold good if the ship was initially on an even keel or trimmed slightly by the head. Unfortunately, by the time anything could be done about loosing weight from the bow, the ship was well down by the head. Then, most of the steam had been vented and all available pumps were being used to try and control the flooding. If they had managed to raise the bow at all, it would still have left a considerable net trim by the head and the flooding was still gaining in the large volume compartments aft of WT Bulkhead 'B'.
In fact, according to Wilding, the H&W naval Architect, addition of weight (same as subtracting it) had very little effect. He was describing his calculations showing the effect on trim when the water flooded forward over the top of WT bulkhead 'A' into the void spaces above and forward of the chain locker. I think the effect on trim was about +/- 2 inches.

James.