Help support TMP


"Dropping anchor. A feasible tactic?" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ironclads (1862-1889) Message Board


Areas of Interest

American Civil War
19th Century

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

One-Hour Skirmish Wargames


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

War of the Worlds Martian Tripod

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian reveals a long-lost Martian tripod.


Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints Some Parroom Adventurers

These models gave Adam the perfect opportunity to experiment with Citadel's new Foundation paints.


Featured Profile Article

Classic Ian Weekley Alamo

A classic Ian Weekley model of the Alamo is currently up for auction.


Featured Book Review


1,182 hits since 18 Mar 2022
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Blackhorse MP18 Mar 2022 4:03 p.m. PST

A while back, while playing an ACW river battle with some simple home-brewed rules, my opponent, who was attempting to run his Union fleet past my Confederate shore batteries had one of his ship's engines disabled, leaving the ship dead in the water. I figured the ship would then just float back downstream with the current, eventually ending up out of range and out of play. My opponent however decided he was going to drop anchor, thereby keeping his ship in it's current location and thus able to assist his other ships in the fight.

I must say that that hadn't occurred to me and there was no rule to cover that, but as it did seem to be a reasonable action under the circumstances we created a quick rule on the fly to cover it and got on with the game.

So my question is, was that a tactic that was used occasionally or even regularly? It certainly seems reasonable but I can't recall seeing it mentioned in my admittedly limited ACW naval reading. Do I just need to do some more reading?

Thoughts?

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP18 Mar 2022 6:04 p.m. PST

The simple answer is "yes." The more complicated answer is that wind and current are factors, the position of the anchor/s is a factor (is it in an anchor well or on deck?), and the captain's situational awareness is a factor. Once he finds out his engines are gone, he is going to want an accurate damage report before he anchors in the middle of the river. Is his engine out because he has been holed below the waterline? If you want to keep it simple, the vessel has to drift for 1 turn before it drops anchor, or roll a die to see if it drifts 1 or 2 turns.

William Warner18 Mar 2022 6:05 p.m. PST

If your ship is headed downstream the current would cause the ship to pivot on its anchor chain until the bow was facing upstream. As it swing around its guns would be masked most of the time and it could possibly by a hazard to navigation for ships following it. It could only work if the ship had a stern anchor, but none did as far as I know.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP18 Mar 2022 7:07 p.m. PST

I read it that the ship was heading upstream bow first when it lost its engines, causing it to go downstream stern first. Assuming the current did not swing the bow around, the anchor would keep the vessel facing upstream.

Dn Jackson Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2022 3:23 a.m. PST

While it might be technically possible to do this, its highly unlikely it would happen. As gamers we want that firepower to stay with the fleet. However, no capitan would do this as a stationary ship is far easier to hit than a moving one. Anchoring in front of the battery that just crippled you would be a death sentence. If you are going to allow such a tactic I would require a morale check with some heavy negatives.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2022 7:04 a.m. PST

The key question is what sort of vessel was it ?

A turreted Monitor class, presuming power to the
turret, need not worry about the facing.

A casemated ironclad would.

In any case, an anchored ship would, it seems, quickly
become a target, Monitor or not.

And in either case, prudence and crew survival should
indicate drifting out of range/sight. Damaged engines
can maybe be repaired. Crew…

advocate19 Mar 2022 1:52 p.m. PST

How many more ships are there? If the ship in question is a key member of the flotilla, the attack has probably failed. If it is one of a number of support vessels, the question is how much a drifting ship – or on setting anchor – would get in the way of the rest of the flotilla. And the resolve of the captain.

Murvihill19 Mar 2022 7:05 p.m. PST

I can only speak to (relatively) modern ships, but if a captain ordered drop anchor in the middle of a battle first the anchor team would have to come from their combat posts to the bow, then they'd have to unbolt the anchor from the ship (anchors have a fairly strong attachment to the ship to prevent them from falling by accident or damage due to their location on the bow in high seas). Then they can drop anchor but would need enough men at the windlass. And all this done under fire.
OTOH it is possible the captain would have the anchor prepared if he's more worried about running aground than the enemy.

Blackhorse MP19 Mar 2022 9:10 p.m. PST

The ship in question was one of "Pook's Turtles" and it was in the middle of a column of about six ships attempting to run the batteries, against the current. We allowed for it to come to a stop and then it could drop anchor. The following ships had to roll to avoid running in to her, and if successful, steer around her. All managed to avoid her and anchored, she continued to engage the shore batteries. Several turns later her crew managed to repair the engine and get her underway again, now bringing up the rear by several moves. She ultimately managed to limp off the board after taking a bit of a beating.

I hadn't thought of the time delay(a turn or two) needed to deploy the anchor or the psychological aspect of anchoring and becoming stationary right in front of the guns that just disabled you. I think that would indeed require passing a morale test. Those are things I think I will add to the rules.

Thanks guys. Good stuff, I knew I'd get some solid input.thumbs up

David Manley20 Mar 2022 9:17 p.m. PST

It's a valid tactic, ships could and did do it. Anchoring would take time so a delay is appropriate. In my "Dahlgren and Columbjad" rules for example anchoring is announced at the start of a turn but only comes into effect at the end, so the ship drifts for a while before stopping. Iwxlect the "morale effect" would kick in naturally as a disabled, stopped – and quite attractive – target gets hit repeatedly and the CO decided to drift off to somewhere a bit safer in later turns :)

Dn Jackson Supporting Member of TMP21 Mar 2022 10:27 p.m. PST

David, can you give any examples of a crippled ship anchoring under fire? I know the Federal fleet at Drewry's Bluff did it and were badly shot up and the fleet at Fort Fisher did it, but can't think of any others off the top of my head.

Dave Woodchuck24 Mar 2022 7:02 p.m. PST

I think it happened a few times during duels with batteries on the Mississippi above and around Vicksburg, mostly with rough results for the stationary vessels.

Pyrate Captain20 Apr 2022 2:57 p.m. PST

Just thinking through the circumstances and there are a lot of variables:

Open water or riverine.
Anchor rigging of the vessel.
Strength of opponent, shore batteries, mines, bottom composition, current,…. it goes on.

And then, at some point, you have to raise it or cut it loose.

Also, the normal length of road to hold the ship fast is seven to one, depth to road length, and this too is a variable depending on current and wind. One might drop anchor, and end up on shore.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.