A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Mr Virtuani has enthusiastically repeated:
"if... it would suit courses of 270° for PG and 220° for BS".
Without realising Herr Nilsson has not been able to repost an extended version of his drawing (as requested) in which a line drawn from the parallel muzzles to Bismarck at 30 degrees from her bows shows her course to be at 90 degrees to that of PG"
Still Herr Nilsson has posted a good drawing (download/file.php?id=3622) showing that courses 270° and 220° are well possible (and supported by all existing reconstructions: download/file.php?id=3593), he doesn't need to post a 90° courses scenario that cannot be supported by any realistic reconstruction....
His assumption is that the mount is 50° oriented to the right, but, as I said, there are several other geometrical possible orientation of the same mount, depending on the photographer exact POV on PG decks and fully confirming Antonio's 2005 original reconstruction.

Who is "not able to post" his own reconstruction is apparently someone else....


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

This very drawing (download/file.php?id=3622) exactly shows
courses 270° and 220° are well possible
are impossible, which is probably why he chose not to resubmit it with Bismarck added and correctly aligned. Extending the line through the muzzles and putting Bismarck at a bow angle of c 30 degrees gives almost exactly 90 degrees course difference on his own drawing.

Courses 270° and 220°are therefore ruled out by this very drawing. If the turret is rotated any more to the right the photographer flies out over the sea. Herr Nilsson had attempted to find a situation where the photographer could "remain" on board the ship, but had forgot to include Bismarck in the equation even for this unlikely situation, where unengaged weapons are pointlessly aimed out over the sea. If the weapons remain stowed fore and aft the difference in courses is greater than 90 degrees.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "This very drawing (download/file.php?id=3622) exactly shows courses 270° and 220° .....are impossible, which is probably why he chose not to resubmit it with Bismarck added and correctly aligned..."
So sorry, they are absolutely possible: a Bismarck on 220° would be seen from the position showed by Herr Nilsson (with the mount trained 50°) as seen from 25°- 30° from the bow (as established and as verifiable in the only available good reconstruction: download/file.php?id=3593).


In Mr.Wadinga "solution..." (with BS coming down on course 180°to have a course 90° from PG one...) however, the Bismarck would be seen 65° from her bow (that is clearly not the case)....
Please see here (using Herr Nilsson original drawing) the graphical demonstration why the 90° between BS and PG courses are "geometrically" simply impossible in such a situation (as the sum of the angles of the triangle is 180°...):

NH69730 mount training (Herr Nilsson+Bismarck_180°).jpg
NH69730 mount training (Herr Nilsson+Bismarck_180°).jpg (98.73 KiB) Viewed 1477 times

Possibly Mr.Nilsson did not resubmit the drawing to be very, very kind with Mr.Wadinga...not surely for the reason insinuated in the above quote...

Finally clear now ? An acknowledgement would be very welcome at this point in time.


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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Trained+BS.jpg
Trained+BS.jpg (52.78 KiB) Viewed 1456 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

thanks to Herr Nilsson for posting the correct inclination of Bismarck on course 220° (I don't have a graphic tool on this computer to rotate objects...), completing the "demonstration" for Mr.Wadinga, from whom we all wait for a final acknowledgement...


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

Unfortunately both these drawings make the same fundamental error:

Assuming Bismarck is aligned with the line of sight from the photographer through the muzzle of the nearest gun. However the most cursory look at the actual image shows this is not true. Once again Mr Bonomi's methodology has been used, draw the solution you want, then try and bend the facts to suit.
Bismarck does not line up with either gun muzzle. It is to the left of both.

The alignment should be of the plane drawn through both the gun muzzles which does intersection Bismarck in the photograph, which is what I asked.
2/ Plane drawn through muzzle ends aligns directly towards Bismarck?
Even Mr Virtuani accepted this earlier today.
2) Very Approximately.
Perhaps Herr Nilsson will kindly draw this for us,

An important question was asked
Can someone post a better image of Bismarck taken during the battle ?

Of course they can, but choose to withhold them from study for reasons that are unclear.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens »

The previous dozen posts have remained fairly reasonable in tone, but I can see that we are beginning to slip back into personal commentary again. I'd once again ask that participants stick to the issues at hand rather than alluding that the motivations of others are in some way driven by deliberate subterfuge, etc.

I also think it would be a good idea not to 'over-post', i.e. to allow some time, perhaps overnight, to allow:

a) immediate tempers to cool.
b) permit a bit of time to contemplate writing a coherent commentary in reply.
c) prevent' cross-posting'.
and
d) focus the discussion on only one issue at a time.

If everyone takes their turn and remains patient we can, one hopes, keep a debate from turning back into a shouting match.

Though I won't formally impose this now, I'd ask participants to, if possible, voluntarily restrict themselves to one well-thought-out posting per day, to a total of about 500 words or less, and omit emojis. Emotions and personal feelings are what we want to weed OUT of this.

And, as one member wrote to me in a private message, agree to disagree without being disagreeable...

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Once again Mr Bonomi's methodology has been used, draw the solution you want, then try and bend the facts to suit."
Curious, I never noticed that "also" Herr Nilsson (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=150#p85354) uses the same methodology of Antonio (download/file.php?id=3593)... If Mr.Wadinga says that, I bow to such judgement.

&: "Perhaps Herr Nilsson will kindly draw this for us"
Possibly.
I wouldn't loose any time to prepare a very similar drawing, just putting the gun muzzles slightly to the right of Bismarck as seen by the photographer. The result will not change and I suspect someone would not admit his error anyway....




The demonstrated fact is that in no way Mr.Wadinga theory (BS and PG courses crossing at 90°) can be proven by the photo, that instead well matches Antonio's original 2005 reconstruction, in case the mount is not stowed fore and aft.

As simple as that. A fair admission of the above fact would be very welcome.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "I'd ask participants to, if possible, voluntarily restrict themselves to one well-thought-out posting per day, to a total of about 500 words or less, and omit emojis. Emotions and personal feelings are what we want to weed OUT of this."
I respectfully totally disagree, because these limitations damage the effectiveness of a forum discussion.
What makes this forum interesting is the possibility to answer questions in real time.
Limiting the number of words just takes to a cold and unpolite way of discussing.
Emojis are a feature of the forum and should not be banned as they make the discussion more "real".
Personal feelings are human and very important in a relation with other people: a machine has no feelings, but it's not much interesting to discuss with.


On the other hand, the task of a moderator should be preventing someone from posting again and again, just to repeat his errors, denying at any cost the demonstrations provided to him (using geometry and drawings) and unable to admit his errors: this denial attitude is what made discussions hot here since the beginning....


&: "....agree to disagree without being disagreeable"
I guess that, in your opinion, I should behave "agreeably" with someone who, just two days ago, while posting his wrong "theory", was able to write:

"before the looming Age of Ragnarok descends on us again" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=135#p85338)

without being even cautioned by a"moderator", who, despite being sensitive to emojis, apparently has found amusing this free provocation.....


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: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens »

Mr. Virtuani is cautioned.

Although I can sympathize with your feelings that some individuals may be attacking you personally, you will have to trust in my judgement to determine at which point these sorts of comments, which I almost always find unnecessary and unproductive, cross the line into an area where they can be considered unacceptable. In that regard, I am not interested in adjudicating over extensive and endless arguments about 'who started it'. Further, note that personal offense cannot justify the posting of even more fervent retaliatory attacks, which in most (one might say nearly all) cases amount to merely ad-hominem arguments anyway, which generally serve only to escalate animosity.

Wadinga is cautioned as well insofar as Mr. Virtuani's comments are, at least to some degree, valid. Comments which have the potential to sow the seeds of discord are usually not a very good idea. I would suggest that in many cases, when arguments begin to get heated, correspondents attempt to resolve issues (and trade insults and insinuations 'off-line' via private message.

Although Mr. Virtuani has expressed the feeling that rapid posting may allow the resolution of disagreements in 'real time', I don't think that in these sorts of discussions a once-per-day posting limit with a restriction on the length of postings will really have any significant detrimental effect regarding arguments that have now, in reality, been going on for years. It's a bit like driving in heavy snow. Sometimes one makes much more progress by slowly inching ahead than by flooring the accelerator and simply spinning one's wheels.

I hope that the previous missive will assist in holding things together for at least the next few days, and -- one can only hope -- permanently.

If no progress is seen, I will again resort to banning individual posters, using the old rule of thumb that one begins with the most blatantly aggressive poster first, in effect 'shooting the wolf closest to the sleigh...'. So play nice, and don't put yourself in the gunsight...

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson »

wadinga wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:58 pm Fellow Contributors,

Unfortunately both these drawings make the same fundamental error:

Assuming Bismarck is aligned with the line of sight from the photographer through the muzzle of the nearest gun. However the most cursory look at the actual image shows this is not true. Once again Mr Bonomi's methodology has been used, draw the solution you want, then try and bend the facts to suit.
Bismarck does not line up with either gun muzzle. It is to the left of both.
Yes, you are right. That error was caused, because I had just 2 minutes to draw it before I had to leave.
wadinga wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:58 pm
The alignment should be of the plane drawn through both the gun muzzles which does intersection Bismarck in the photograph, which is what I asked.
2/ Plane drawn through muzzle ends aligns directly towards Bismarck?
Even Mr Virtuani accepted this earlier today.
2) Very Approximately.
Perhaps Herr Nilsson will kindly draw this for us,
I don't understand your problem, it's still just a projection of the plane. However...
Trained+BS adjusted c.jpg
Trained+BS adjusted c.jpg (28.96 KiB) Viewed 1379 times
Caution: This picture isn't accurate! It's just for illustration purposes!

In my opinion a PG=270° and BS=220°combination isn't impossible and I think it is fair to take it into account. Certainly it doesn't eliminate other solutions.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

I was indeed unwise in attributing any motive to the unwitting error in both drawings, for which I apologise and am suitably contrite Mr Moderator. For both submitters to make the same fundamental error shows it to be purely accidental, and shows how lucky we are to have someone skilled in photogrammetry with us, who might be able assist in spotting and avoiding such errors.

Unfortunately the revised version which Herr Nilsson has kindly devoted the time to preparing, does not show Bismarck aligned correctly with the muzzle barrel plane. In addition, due to scale distortion between the distance to Bismarck and distances on the deck plan, the aspect ratio (not the direction) of Bismarck from the photographer's position and from the muzzle plane will be essentially identical, so Bismarck's outline should be moved to the upper red line and rotated anticlockwise to give the correct orientation. Whereupon she will be seen at nearly 90 degrees to PG's course.

This presented case is of course an extreme scenario. The 105mm mount is assumed for argument's sake, to be rotated clockwise as far as it is possible and yet keep the photographer on deck. In cases of lesser rotation, (IMHO no rotation is more likely) the difference in vessel courses is greater.

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/201 ... inz-eugen/ is an interesting site with photos of Prinz Eugen in US custody. The detailed picture of a 105mm mount is the starboard forward unit abreast the bridge structure. It is zoomed in from a larger picture. Yeoman 1st class Fritz Dungert might take a picture out through that porthole, assuming it was open and the deadlight down, and include the muzzles in the edge of his picture. Of course he might just be standing outside instead.

As an aside the picture of the torpedo reloading mechanism is extremely interesting. I was not aware this magazine was open to the elements on the upper deck and not buried below the waterline like the shell magazines. Kapt Brinkmann must have been acutely aware he had 12 loaded warheads in launch tubes on his upper deck plus this equally-poorly protected magazine, whilst under heavy calibre shellfire.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

thanks again to Herr Nilsson for posting his drawings.
Herr Nilsson wrote (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=150#p85365), my underlined: "In my opinion a PG=270° and BS=220°combination isn't impossible and I think it is fair to take it into account. Certainly it doesn't eliminate other solutions.
I had written (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=150#p85351): "His assumption is that the mount is 50° oriented to the right, but, as I said, there are several other geometrical possible orientation of the same mount, depending on the photographer exact POV on PG decks"
Exactly. No definitive conclusion can be drawn from the photo itself re the courses of the ships, but a complete reconstruction must be built around in case someone wants to claim that BS and PG courses are at 90°...

A complete reconstruction is however already available since 2005, accepted and published by everybody in the world, perfectly matching and timing the "flash effect photo" just after 06:08 (download/file.php?id=3593, download/file.php?id=3603), immediately after PG has passed to the BS starboard side.


Wadinga wrote: "Unfortunately the revised version which Herr Nilsson has kindly devoted the time to preparing, does not show Bismarck aligned correctly with the muzzle barrel plane"
Just because they are not exactly aligned, but only "very approximately" aligned, as already said (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=135#p85343), in this specific "solution" from Herr Nilsson. Wanting to exactly align them to BS (I don't see why...), it is enough to change very slightly the training of the mount (clockwise) and to move the photographer slightly to the left....

As said, other solutions are possible, changing the photographer position, the mount training, the PG exact course and the exact distance of BS from the photographer (the fantasy "Dungert attribution" has already been discussed... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=135#p85343) at that time....


Summarizing, in no way a 90° angle between BS and PG can be definitely proven by the photo, while 220° and 270° courses are well possible, thanks to Herr Nilsson patient explanations/drawings...


Bye, Alberto



P.S.
Wadinga wrote: "I was not aware this magazine was open to the elements on the upper deck and not buried below the waterline like the shell magazines. Kapt Brinkmann must have been acutely aware he had 12 loaded warheads in launch tubes on his upper deck plus this equally-poorly protected magazine, whilst under heavy calibre shellfire. "
Being target of 15" and 14" shells, without any immunity in any case, IMO it was much, much better to have torpedoes stowed in an open space on deck, where the (anyway quite unlikely) detonation of a warhead can vent itself in the air, than to have them on a bridge under the weather deck or (even worse), under the waterline...
"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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel »

Was the subject image enlarged in printing?
Was the subject image cropped?
Was the subject both enlarged and cropped?

Without resorting to arbitrary assumptions about (a) which secondary mount appears in the print and (b) the mount's angle of train , how is it possible to draw any firm conclusions about Prinze Eugen's heading and position relative to Bismarck? The only legitimate information that might be derived from the photo image is a crude estimate of the heading of Bismarck relative to the photographer's line of sight.

B
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

Byron has raised several points, but I believe that no matter how the image is enlarged and cropped in printing the relationship of the foreground element and Bismarck beyond remain the same.

It would be nice to have a definite identity for the muzzles etc but we can only work with what we have. I do not consider there is anything arbitrary about observing that horizontal barrels indicate unengaged weapons rather than those which must have been elevated to 45 degrees for maximum range.

Otherwise:
Just because they are not exactly aligned, but only "very approximately" aligned,
Because of the parallax effect between the photographer and the muzzles, resulting from this very short distance and the considerably longer distance to Bismarck, "approximate" alignment is not enough, which is why in Herr Nilsson's last drawing, Bismarck needs to be moved to the correct location and rotated correctly.
it is enough to change very slightly the training of the mount (clockwise) and to move the photographer slightly to the left....
aaaarrrggghhh kersplash!

There is no necessity to repeatedly describe the attribution of the photo as a "fantasy", the provenance through the AP site and the Denver Post is surely quite reliable, especially in an environment where other 80 year old photos are kept hidden as a result of promises extracted by original crew members. As the evidence ascribes origin to a Yeoman 1st class, that, given his action station, suggests a location close to the forward superstructure.

All the best

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