Photo Nh 69729 Evaluation

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

as promised here another photo for everybody to evaluate.

This time it is Nh 69729 and it shows Bismarck firing to port side while the photo shows a piece of Prinz Eugen railing.

Question : were was the photographer Lagemann when this photo was taken ?

You can clearly see that the railing is a foldable one, I mean one of the railing were the post can be taken down to the deck and the chain passes thru the holes on the post.

Prinz Eugen had 2 main types of railings, those foldable ones and on some area there were fixed structured ones not foldable, like for example on the 105 mm A/A gun platforms.

Another input is that Prinz Eugen during the Denmark Strait battle and Op. Rheinubung in general had most of the main deck and upper deck foldable railings closed down.

So they were placed down on the deck and consequently they cannot be taken into a photo obviously.

The one showed in this photo is on the opened up position.

Many inputs on other photos showing Prinz Eugen stern area with all the railings folded down are available on the Nh 69722 post.

viewtopic.php?t=273

On that post you can also find a very important reference to Prinz Eugen drawings as well ( large files but very detailed ).

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans ... ugen_1940/

Here the photo :



Again,... were was Lagemann with his 35 mm photo camera ?

... and which direction was Prinz Eugen sailing ?

This photo is part of a sequence of many similar photos, and of course this is only a part of the entire photo that is much larger been taken with a 35 mm film and 50 mm lens.

Let me take the occasion to thank again my friend Wadinga ( Sean ) for having explained at first the logic of this photo's to me .
Now I am only trying to have you realizing same things he explained me by yourself .

Ciao Antonio

[marty1]

NH 69729

I used the same method for NH69729 as I just did for NH69730. The Bismarck is now a bit further away. Is this the salvo right before, or right after the salvo seen in NH 69730? Does the photo numbering tell us that NH69729 was taken before NH69730? What is the typical timing one might expect between salvos for Bismarck gunnery? What is speed of Bismarck during the photo sequence of NH69729 and NH69730?

I again used the main tower and main masts as my points of reference. The height of each of these tow features was taken in reference to where I perceive the deck to be.

Distance estimates based upon either of these two features is again reasonable close.

Range estimate based upon main tower is 635m
Range estimate based upon main mast is 620m
Average is about 627m

So distance estimate -- assuming no cropping -- is about 600m to 650m.

Sensitivity to Croppping:

If I assume the photo width was cropped by 10% of its original width, than the distance becomes about 700m – or an estimated range of about 675m to 725mm.

If I assume the photo width was cropped by 20% of its original width, than the distance becomes about 790m – or an estimate range of about 665m to 815m.

If I assume the photo width was cropped by 30% of its original width, than the distance becomes about 900m – or an estimate range of about 875m to 925m.

Just a side note on cropping – assuming the full photo was developed and had a width of say 380mm, cropping 30% off of the width would mean that whomever cut about 113mm off of the width of the photo. Seems unlikely to me that someone would hack this much off of a photo, but I suppose weirder things can happen.

Best Regards
Marty

[marty1]

Sorry -- just one more note about cropping.

The negative is supposed to be 24mmx36mm -- see Antonio's post:
http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=273&start=75

So the height to width ratio of the negetive is 24/36 = 0.6667

Both the NH 69729 & NH 69730 photos posted by Antonio have height to width ratios of about 0.5715.

When you develop a photo does the height to width ratio remain the same for the photo as it was for the negative -- assuming you dont crop the photo? If the answer is yes than it would seem that both versions of the photos posted by Antonio were cropped -- at least their height seems to have been cut down. If only the height were cropped, this wouldnt affect the previous distance estimates. However if the width were cropped as well as the height, than there will be some error induced based upon %cropping -- see my estimates for 10%, 20% and/or 30% width cropping.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Marty and all,

it is a salvo before Nh 69730.

Consequently Bismarck is correctly more distant from the photographer and Prinz Eugen.

On PG Rheinubung film the elapsed time between Bismarck main gun salvoes was 20-30 seconds.

I will send you a NON cropped version too, this as been cropped like all the Nh 697xx photos are.

But we are lucky and those photo are available as well on Bundesarchiv-Koblenz and on Imperial War Museum-London too.

Than there is another one taken immediately before this one ...

... the Nh 69729 is number 18 on my map, ... the other one is number 17 and does not have any Nh697xx reference number.



Ciao Antonio

[marty1]

Thanks Antonio. I would like to see the uncropped versions so I can make a better range estimate. By the way your battle plot is an excellent way to convey information. I like the way you have put it together.

I took a few measurements of the small photos shown on your Denmark Straights battle map. These look uncropped -- i.e. the height of the photos relative to the width of the photos fit closely with the height and width ratios of the negatives.

Negative ratio = 24/36 = 0.6667

Most of the small photos on your battle plot have a ratio of about 0.65 to 0.66. However they are obviously too small to make reasonable range estimates.

Best Regards
Marty

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Marty and all,

many thanks for the very nice compliments

YES, you are right, on the battle map I have attached most of the ' uncropped ' photos.

I think I should have them all 'uncropped ' at this point.

Many of the photos are taken from the PG film, so it is easy in case to have them ' uncropped ' as the PG film was taken on a 35 mm film tape as well.

The photos I have of this battle are many more than the ones showed on the map.
For obvious reasons we selected the better ones to be printed.
Some are out of private archives and I cannot use or post them too.

PG film and in case we find the full battle film would provide hundreds of photos to be used for analysis.

I sent you the 'uncropped' photos of Nh 69729 and Nr 17 photo too.

Remember that not only the distances on those photos is important, but also the Prinz Eugen sailing direction that can be uniquely determined by the foldable side railing clearly showed on the photos.

The elimination of the railings folded down during the battle ( it is possible to see those on many other photos showing the stern of Prinz Eugen ) and the correct knowledge of Prinz Eugen center ship railings do provide good evaluation elements.

Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi all,

We appear to be in the same ball park again as with NH69730. Using my glossy print of NH69729 and adjusting the height to correspond with the 2 x 3 format, i calculated the distance to the Bismarck as being 647 yards. When rounded off, the distance is 650 yards.

I am happy to see that Antonio is actually using NH69729. There is another photograph, Bundesarchiv 90/61/27, which is almost identical to NH69729 and was used in my book "The Bismarck Chase."

Bob

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bob and all,

YES, but exactly like for Nh 69730, not only the evaluated distance si important on the photo.

On teh foreground, you can clearly see a piece of Prinz Eugen side moveable/foldable railing.

Do you know were this railing was or can only have been on Prinz Eugen ??

That detail will determine uniquely Prinz Eugen sailing direction on that moment .

Same thing do apply to the previous photo I Numbered 17 on my map, and on that one the reailing foldable post is even more evident.

Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi all,

In my last post, I mentioned Bundesarchiv (BA) Photo 90/61/27 as a look-alike to NH69729. A couple of years ago, John Asmussen alerted us to the existence of the Bundesarchiv photo, and it was then that I realized that Chatham had used that picture instead of NH69729 in my book “The Bismarck Chase.” If not seen side-by-side, it would be very easy to assume that these two pictures were one in the same.

There are three significant features that differentiate the two pictures:

a. The guns of turrets Anton and Bruno are more prominent in BA 90/61/27 than they are in NH69729.

b. There is a gap between the lower edge of the smoke cloud generated by the Bismarck firing her guns and the level of the sea in NH69729 but not in BA 90/61/27.

c. While the railing of the Prinz Eugen can be seen at the bottom of both photographs, the upright supports for the railing are in different locations in each photograph.

Since both photographs were apparently taken around the same time frame, it is appropriate that both be discussed under this topic. Using my methodology fro determining distances in photographs, I determined that the distance to the Bismarck in BA 90/61/27 was about 750 yards, which is 100 yards further away than in NH69729. That represents 100 yards of travel between the two shots and a time frame of 60 seconds at a speed of 30 knots.

This seems to be entirely reasonable considering the similarity between the two photographs. Another source for BA 90/61/27 is the Baron’s book, while Elfrath & Herzog used the equivalent of NH69729 in their book, both entitled “Battleship Bismarck.”

Bob

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi Antonio,

Thanks for sending me the side and top views of the Prinz Eugen, They were a lot more detailed than the views I had, but mine were adequate to determine the location of Lagemann when he took the photographs of the Bismarck in action. The top view was the most important for making that determination and it was relatively easy in the case of NH69722 and NH69730.

In both cases, Lagemann stood on the aft portion of the second deck at the narrowest part just to the rear of the aft twin 105mm AA gun mount. In the case of NH69722, Lagemann was on the starboard side shooting toward the rear with the right side of the picture just encompassing the entire rangefinder housing on turret Caesar. The side view of the Prinz Eugen was helpful in establishing the vertical limits of the photograph.

In the case of NH69730, Lagemann was in the same position, but this time on the port side, shooting toward the Bismarck off the port quarter of the Prinz Eugen. The right edge of the picture just captured the muzzles of the aft twin AA guns as shown in NH69730. My diagram, which I hope Jose will post for the benefit of the entire forum, shows exactly the scope of Lagemann’s camera and lens used in taking NH69730.

After taking NH69722, Lagemann saw that the Bismarck was beginning to come up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen on a course of 212 degrees, 8 degrees to port of the Prinz Eugen’s course of 220 degrees, so he walked over to the port side of the Prinz Eugen to then take BA 90/61/27, NH69729, and NH69730. When the twin 105mm AA gun mount obstructed his view, he moved a bit forward to take the uncataloged broadside view of the Bismarck as she passed the Prinz Eugen off the port beam of the cruiser as shown in my diagram.

I am sure that when you see my diagram, the whole matter will become clear to you. I must confess that looking at the railings does not give me any real clue as to the direction that the Prinz Eugen was traveling. Since the Bismarck was far astern of the Prinz Eugen at 0556 and was coming up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen, I can only conclude that the Prinz Eugen was traveling in the same general direction as the Bismarck, but 8 degrees to starboard, as supported by the other documentary and photographic evidence.

Bob

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bob and all,

I am glad you got my first part of Prinz Eugen drawing, I will send you also the other part soon, so you have it all .

I think we now all know from were Lagemann took the Nh 69722 photo and there are no doubts anymore about the position he was as well as the average distance between Prinz Eugen and Bismarck showed in that photo.
Lately you agreed about the 2500 meters average.
I am sure you noticed the absence of foldable railings on the photo.

Now lets move on those other ones to make the evaluations we need to analyze as said everything each photo shows.

Long time ago I also had your same way to look at those photo and try to put them in sequence.

A lot of time is passed since than and many good analysis have been conducted by several people.

Now on Nh 69730, do you see the Prinz Eugen wake ?

On Nh 69729 and previous photo are you able to recognize the foldable railings.
Did you realize well on Prinz Eugen were those railings can be on the ship and consequently which angle the photo could have been taken.

Only after you do this correctly, than we can try together to place the photos were they belong.

Were is according to you the railing showed by those 2 photos on the Prinz Eugen ?

Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi Antonio,

I have not seen sufficient other evidence to indicate whether the railings on the Prinz Eugen were up or down. I know exactly from where NH69730 was taken as shown in my diagram which Jose has not yet posted. I can only assume that Lagemann went over to the port side and began taking pictures toward the rear as the Bismarck came up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen.

The first one he took was of Bundesarchiv 90/61/27 and this was followed by NH69729 before taking NH69730. You haven't addressed BA 90/61/27. Do you know the one that I am talking about? The distance of the Bismarck in BA 90/61/27 fits in perfectly with NH69729 so we have to consider this as well before we move on.

Bob

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bob and all,

forget about distances, courses and were you think Lagemann was.

You have to get read of any preconceived notion .

Than take my Prinz Eugen drawing ( or the other very good Prinz Eugen drawing available on dreadnought.com I provided the link for ) and looking at other available photos of the battle eliminate with a red pencil the railings that on other photos are showed been down, closed, on the decks.

Doing this exercise you will realize with no possible doubts that any railing toward the stern after the 105 mm flak gun from were Lagamnn took his fisrt salvo photo ( nh 69722 ) were down.
Confirmed and reinforced by all avialable photos taken soon after the battle.

Similarly you will realize from an available photo that same thing apply for all foldable railings from the fore 105 mm Flak toward the bow.

This is valid on main deck and on the upper deck as well.

Consequently, those 2 photos ( Nh 69729 and the previous one ) could have been taken only from midship.
From an area with foldable railings between the first and the last 105 mm flak each side of the Prinz Eugen.

Bismarck is coming at almost 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen midship as the photos shows.

Now only doubt to be resolved is if it was port or starboard side.

Can you do this verification and confirm me back ?

About Nh 69730, before any other analysis what needs to be confirmed from your side is that you are able to see the wake on the horizon line.
Than there is a dedicated post for that photo analysis.


Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi Antonio,

Thanks for sending me the additional drawings of the Prinz Eugen. They were very helpful in clarifying your position in the matter. I have studied the railings issue, as you had requested, but I still have a couple of questions, which I hope you can answer to help solidify my own position in the matter. I fully agree with you that the railings along the sides of the main and upper deck in the fore and aft sections of the Prinz Eugen were folded down, but I question your conclusion that they remained upright amidships.

It was standard procedure in the Kriegsmarine to fold down the railings along the edges of the deck of a ship in a tactical situation, presumably to minimize flying debris in the event of a hit in that area. I would assume that this practice applied to the railings amidships as well as those in the fore and aft sections of the ship. What is the basis for your assumption that the railings were kept upright along the edges of the decks all the way between the forward and aft twin 105mm AA gun positions on both sides of the Prinz Eugen?

In your e-mail message accompanying your colored drawing of the Prinz Eugen, you stated that there were only fixed tubular railings around the twin 105mm AA gun positions on the Prinz Eugen. This is absolutely untrue. PG Fig. 63.jpg in the book “Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht” shows the gun crew standing around the rear of a twin 105mm AA gun mount, and the foldable type railing still in the upright position is clearly seen in the background around the gun mount.

Your interpretation of NH69729 is truly remarkable. You state that it shows the Bismarck coming at almost 90 degrees toward Prinz Eugen amidships. I assume that the Prinz Eugen is traveling from left to right because the Bismarck was off the port beam of the Prinz Eugen just a couple of minutes later, according to your own reconstruction. It would not make any sense for the Prinz Eugen to be traveling in the opposite direction and then have to turn around to meet up with the Bismarck again, all in two minutes.

We all agree that the Bismarck was 650 yards away from the Prinz Eugen when NH69729 was taken. With the Bismarck bearing down on the Prinz Eugen at an angle of almost 90 degrees, she was virtually on a collision course with the cruiser. Traveling at a speed of 30 knots (1000 yards per minute), the Bismarck would have closed the gap of 6500 yards in 40 seconds. With the Prinz Eugen moving from left to right, and the Bismarck angled toward the right, it would appear that a collision would have been inevitable.

Photo NH69730 taken a full minute later, however, shows the Bismarck still at a distance of 500 yards away from the Prinz Eugen and still off the cruiser’s port quarter. Perhaps you can explain how this could have been possible if the set of circumstances that you portrayed were true?

Bob

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bob,

very easy answers :

1) The 105 mm gun you are looking at on page 63 on F.O. Busch book is the one midship ( as you can realize easily by the fact that it is on the main deck and not on the upper deck, the sea is just down below very close ).
So it is OK to have the foldable railings there, it is the only 105 mm gun with the foldable railings around.
Do not get confused by the small platfom going outboard were the railings are as well, that was there and does confirm midship 105 mm gun too.
Original drawings do confirm.
The other 2 flak 105 mm guns do had only fixed railings as it is visible on may other photos even on the same book ( were I painted with BLUE colour on the drawing I sent you ).
Lagemann was on the upper deck and not on the main deck.
Do you want me to send some other photos to confirm this detail to you ?

2) I understand the procedures.
But I look at evidences, and both on photos as well as on the PG Rheinubung film you can clearly see were the foldable railings were UP.
Just do yourself the exercise I sent you and make up your evaluation.

I am glad you are working on those evidences, any help you need fell free to ask me.

Once you are done and have clear the railings situation and the angle course showed of Bismarck on the photos compared to Prinz Eugen side, than we will move the discussion on the Prinz Eugen sailing direction.

For the Nh 69730, as said there is the other deicated post, were the Prinz Eugen wake is still to be realized by you.

At the end we will put all the logic together, it will be easy.

Ciao Antonio