A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:02 pm

Hi Marc,
I do not dispute the likelihood that Mr Rico's ~0609hrs 24 May timing of NH69730 is correct, especially after Mr Jurens' comment about the darkness of sky likely being a function of printing an over-exposed image. The most interesting aspect of the photo to me is the evident fore-&-aft train position of turret Anton at a time when Bismarck is engaging a target broad on the port bow.

BTW, what evidence do you see in NH69730 that points to the secondary battery firing?

B

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by northcape » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:06 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:13 am


Apart from multiple other criteria: The dawn engagement was at extreme range, but Bismarck fires her secondaries in this picture. It's very safe to say NH 69730 is from the Denmark Strait Battle.
How can you interpret this picture such that the secondary armament was fired? In my view, the only solid observation is that D,C,B are trained to port, A is not trained, and that there are some large flashes on the port side. Is the interpretation related to the brigthness of the flash?


*** EDIT: Sorry, I just saw that my question was posted above already ***

BuckBradley
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:29 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by BuckBradley » Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:34 pm

Forgive me for not going back and re-reading the entire thread but: are the "once per day" and 150 word limit rules board-wide or limited to this thread? If boardwide, I presume one could make one post in more than one thread, provided one did not make more than one post in a singe thread in one 24 hour period? FWIIW, a "once per thread per day" rule seems reasonable enough but a 150 word per post limit seems unduly restrictive--particularly in light of the "once per day" rule. Just my two cents.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:31 pm

The length and frequency limits are intended for this thread in order to assist in maintaining a civil tone amongst participants. Other threads do not seem to have this problem to nearly this degree.

Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:32 pm

The length and frequency limits are intended for this thread in order to assist in maintaining a civil tone amongst participants. Other threads do not seem to have this problem to nearly this degree, and remain unlimited.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:08 am

@Byron and northcape

A is trained in the same direction like B,C and D.
Bild2.jpg
Bild2.jpg (14.75 KiB) Viewed 429 times
In regard of the secondary armament firing:
Bild 1.jpg
Bild 1.jpg (39.06 KiB) Viewed 428 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:03 am

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "It's very safe to say NH 69730 is from the Denmark Strait Battle "
Agree. Enough with "Indeterminateness excuses"... :clap:

&: "For a true bearing one have to know the course, which is unknown. Therefore I have to use relative bearings, which was about 260° (I tend to 259°) in this case. That means about 10° (I tend to 11°) "aft of port beam"."
Course is clear from the ONLY widely accepted/published/adopted (Bonomi/Jurens/Toussaint) battlemap (download/file.php?id=3603). Not having any alternative, we can only speak referring to it.
I stand corrected however: based on "THE" reconstruction, BS turrets were trained fore of her beam and not 10°, matching PoW position and "last salvo" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... efecht.jpg). Peanuts, anyway.





Wadinga wrote: "Ignored? No, it's the clincher. Mr Bonomi identified the railing very precisely as the main deck side rail near the centre 4.1" mount ie parallel to the centreline "
Clincher? The railing is not the main deck one... It is not parallel to centerline... "Clinched?"
&: "PG's track is incorrect as is clear from these photos "
No, photos almost perfectly match the reconstructed track. PG plot cannot be challenged by any excuse (like blood...)b :stop: . Relative positions must be derived from PG range plot, according to Schmundt.
&:"Consensus equals probability. "
Consensus, in the naval community, is for "THE" reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593) widely "adopted". No alternative was proposed (only sterile criticism).
Generally, consensus equals "brute mass"....





Byron Angel wrote: "the evident fore-&-aft train position of turret Anton "
Northcape wrote: "the only solid observation is that D,C,B are trained to port, A is not trained"
Fore turrets are both trained almost to the beam (download/file.php?id=3611). Mr.Nilsson confirmed: (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=60#p85223, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=75#p85242)





BuckBradley wrote: "...limit seems unduly restrictive"
:clap:
All limits are.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:06 am

Fellow Contributors,

Assuming quotes don't count:

Clincher. As Mr Bonomi himself wrote in 2006, having studied in detail the handrails of PG
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.
The "previous one" is Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27 very similar to and taken within seconds of NH 69729 but showing more handrail detail which allowed Mr Bonomi to refine the POV of the photographer.
and
Lagemann was on the upper deck and not on the main deck.
My mistake, upper deck not main deck.

and
I can anticipate that according to my current researches the position is exactly below the ARADO 196 airplane catapult.

It is the only side area with foldable railing still up during the engagement and the overall mission were he could have taken those photos without taking into the photo the crane arm, or the 105mm center ship flak gun or the boat ahead.
Mr Bonomi was, at that time, gracious enough to accept that my interpretation was my own and concurred with his
@ Wadinga,

you know I agree with your evaluations.
However, straitjacketed by accepting the Gefechtskizze as gospel, he could not resolve the evidence in the photos and kept his conjectural tracks without modification.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by northcape » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:31 pm

Thank you Herr Nilsson, but I prefer to see this as one speculative interpretation, e.g. far from being strong evidence. There is nothing wrong with being in the realm of speculation (which might or might not be a correct guess of reality), one just has to be aware of the differences between evidence, fact, and speculation.
The same accounts for the assumption that both A and B are trained to port. The photos/sketches used to back up this assumption don't show anything like this.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:57 am

Given Marc's strong opinion as to what image NH93670 actually shows, I sought a different approach to interpreting it. Rather than peer through the over-exposure looking for imagery hints, I realized that the photo might be interpreted trigonometrically ... at least in a rough way. By measuring the ratio between the height of the mainmast and the overall length of the hull in the photo and comparing that to the ratio between mainmast height and overall length in a regular side elevation, it suggests that Bismarck's heading is ~30deg from the line of the photographer's view. Hence her image is horizontally fore-shortened by approx. one-half.

This, in turn makes the apparent length of the gun tubes of turret Anton too long in relation to the length of Bismarck's forecastle, unless turret Anton is trained to port - probably by about 30-45deg.

I therefore defer to Marc's analysis, although for a different reason (I find over-exposed part of the image far too indistinct to draw any useful conclusions).

Merry Xmas to all BTW.

Byron

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:27 am

Fellow Contributors,

But especially Byron. If you are in a trigonometric frame of mind what do you make of a line of perspective drawn through the two gun muzzles in the right hand corner (assuming equal length guns), to Bismarck, and equally of the POV of the camera in degrees relative to a plane drawn through those muzzles? Assuming the cameraman is standing on the PG's deck (starboard side) and not floating over the sea, would you care to make a conjecture on PG's heading based on Bismarck's estimated inclination?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:50 am

The presence of halation (and other effects) make measurements on low-quality photographs somewhat problematical at best. It takes judgement and experience, usually accompanied by information regarding development of the negative and emulsion thickness, etc., to determine how these effects might distort the image, but the effects can be considerable especially when interpreting small detail in high contrast images.

Halation and other effects can in effect 'insert' photographic detail which is really not there, or obscure detail which normally should be seen but is otherwise rendered invisible. Once the image has been digitized -- and we are almost certainly looking at digital images here -- one must also remember that the computer adds in a variety of artificial artifacts which render reliable analysis even more difficult.

It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you think is true but really is not...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:40 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:03 am
&: "For a true bearing one have to know the course, which is unknown. Therefore I have to use relative bearings, which was about 260° (I tend to 259°) in this case. That means about 10° (I tend to 11°) "aft of port beam"."
Course is clear from the ONLY widely accepted/published/adopted (Bonomi/Jurens/Toussaint) battlemap (download/file.php?id=3603). Not having any alternative, we can only speak referring to it.
Possibly the map is widely accepted, but nevertheless it's wrong. Therefore I will continue to use relative bearings, which won't cause subsequent errors.

@Byron and northcape

In regard of A turret:

Looking at the aft turret top slope of B and just copying the contour and place it on A, it fits perfectly. However I'm accepting that you consider my interpretation as speculation. Conversely, A turret pointing forward or trained 30-45°are also just interpretations, aren't they? Given these 3 different possible interpretations, which one is most likely, if you are fighting a battle?
Bild3.jpg
Bild3.jpg (30.17 KiB) Viewed 361 times
In regard of the flash:

May I ask what 's your opinion that caused the flash?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:26 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "My mistake, upper deck not main deck"
Therefore, no necessarily parallel railings to ship centerline and no 90°BS to PG course because:
Antonio Bonomi cautioned Mr.Wadinga: "YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. "
Definitely no clincher (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=45#p85218)

Gefechtskizze PG own track (logically adopted by everyone reconstructing the battle...) must be accepted, missing any alternative,
Wadinga wrote:"...he could not resolve the evidence in the photos and kept his conjectural tracks without modification...."
He dramatically changed NF and SF tracks (2017 download/file.php?id=2313) and will refine all tracks in 2022....
Photo timing refinement doesn’t need track change.

"Someone" instead "resolved frustration" invoking "indeterminateness" for very well-known reasons, instead of accepting this "evidently annoying" reconstruction adopted by everyone (download/file.php?id=3593).


Herr Nilsson wrote "Possibly the map is widely accepted, but nevertheless it's wrong "
If wrong, an alternative could be possible: apparently... it is not (download/file.php?id=3593)....
Your turrets training angle is just (slightly) wrong....


Northcape wrote: "I prefer to see this as one speculative interpretation..."
...like the Court Martial threat, the subsequent Cover-Up and the "Fairy-Tale" accounted by winners...
&: "...one just has to be aware of the differences between evidence, fact, and speculation. The same accounts for the assumption that both A and B are trained to port... "
Q.E.D.: even physical objects shapes cannot be accepted as a "fact"(download/file.php?id=3611, download/file.php?id=3612).... no surprise the "regrettable aftermath" of the Bismarck operation is indigestible for "someone".


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:16 pm

Participants are reminded that 'emojis' -- which in technical conversation add little or nothing to content -- are to be avoided.

Although this discussion remains interesting enough, I wonder if participants aren't submerging themselves in detail to no practical end. I am reminded of lengthy(and, admittedly in some cases mythical) Scholastic arguments revolving around how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

In other words, in practical terms, assuming we could eventually reconstruct the track charts with perfect accuracy, would the 'new' track charts reveal any information of actual historical value regarding the outcome of the action, etc.?

Bill Jurens

Post Reply