José M. Rico wrote:Thomas is correct, only the centre anchor was removed (before Rheinübung). The other two were present to the end.
Excerpt from Müllenheim-Rechberg's book:
"Marinebaurat Heinrich Schlüter suggested that we jettison the forward anchors and anchor chains. His idea was to lighten the forward section so as to adjust the forward trim that we had had since the flooding that began during the battle off Iceland. The ship's command rejected the suggestion, presumably because it foresaw that the anchors would be essential for mooring in St. Nazaire."
Page 30:
Kr 15543 May 1941 [It looks like this British Admiralty copy is probably a 1942 revision of the draft].
Draft : „
Atlantik-Unternehmung der Kampfgruppe Bismarck-Prinz Eugen“ OKM. It states:
"25.5. Zur besseren Trimmlage wird Öl von vorn nach achtern gepumpt, zur Erleichterung des Vorschiffs werden ausserdem beide Buganker geschlippt.
25 May. In order to improve the trim attitude, oil was pumped from forward aft, to ease the weight in the bow sections, both bow anchors were slipped [that means chains and all to me. UR]. .
Müllenheim-Rechberg:
"The ship's command rejected the suggestion, presumably because it foresaw that the anchors would be essential for mooring in St. Nazaire." That is simply von Rechberg's opinion, not a factual statement. Easing the bow was of crucial importance after the second flooding.
It seems that it would have been a very poor decision to keep the anchors. At that point even beaching the Bismarck anywhere on the coast of France would have been better than nothing. Müllenheim-Rechberg had access only to documents the British would let him see and whatever he and his friends had. The Bundesarchiv was not in full operation then. He did not have full knowledge of the ship or what was going on. None of the survivors did or would be expected to. For example, it is said that he did not know about the various 10.5 cm armaments onboard.
I should have the entire 100+ pages of KR 15543 translated in a few weeks.