Two Photos

[Vic Dale]

On the anniversary of the Battle of Denmark Strait I believe I have found a possible explanation for the difference in definition between the two photos shown here;

Combined Shot from Hood.JPG

(56.02 KiB) Downloaded 189 times

They were taken just seconds apart and must have been taken by the same camera yet the definition in the first shot is very poor compared to that of the second shot. I doubt that this is due to poor reproduction, as the publication from which this photo was extracted is known for it's clear presentation of images wherever possible.

I believe the explanation lies with the likelihood that the first photo was taken through residual discharge from PG's forward guns which has blown over the ship, but which has disssipated or passed astern by the time the second shot was taken.

The ship was heading 220 degrees at 27 knots at the time and the wind at force 3, was coming from the east (090 degrees) at ten knots, which would cause smoke discharged from the forward guns to blow diagonally across the ship's centreline at about 20 degrees. The after Flak would be intermittently smothered by smoke each time the guns fired.

Further; as this appears to be Hood's third salvo falling and with the likelihood that Hood's salvoes matched those of PoW in the opening stages of the battle, though with Hood opening fire 40 seconds earlier than PoW, this would be about 0555 and it is possible that it is smoke from PG's first salvo which has smoked out the first photo.

The possibility that the first photo was thought to be doubtful due to the smoke, may have caused the camera operator to fast wind the film ready to get another shot of the splash and has caught the second shell falling.

Vic Dale

[Vic Dale]

I am pretty certain that the two photos in question do not originate in the Denmark Strait, but in the Baltic. They have all the appearance of a throw-off shoot which was probably during the big exercise prior to sailing for the Atlantic.

For those who don't know, a throw-off shoot is conducted by the firing ship's directors being off-set by five or six degrees and the gunnery computers fire direct at the target ship. This gives the gunnery department an opportunity to exercise open-fire procedures on a moving target.

I know that Antonio Bonomi and others value these photos like religious icons, and even photographic experts have questioned the reason anybody would wish to misrepresent, either by doctoring photos or wrongly captioning them - as if - but I think the example shown below speaks for itself; Bismarck and Tirpitz viewed from precisely the same spot on Prinz Eugen and the cruiser still carrying depth charges?

If our modern day self-appointed historians are going to produce convincing work, they are going to have to be a little more discerning regarding what is genuine and what is not.

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Vic and all,

of course you are wrong, as the photos are original and not taken into the Baltic, here the explanation.

You are now exactly on the top of the matter : incompetency, or limited knowledge as you may want to call it.

It does not have anything to do with Dr. Goebbels and its propaganda activities as you thought erroneously.

It is a much less historically important event, in reality it is not at all historically important, just a normal mistake by incompetent that are used with those type of errors and many more too I can easily document to you.

Just a recent work done by incompetent book writer with such a poor Kriegsmarine warships overall knowledge to cut and paste 2 original Kriegsmarine photos ( one of Bismarck-Prinz Eugen and the other of Tirpitz entering Kaafjord in Norway ) and try to invent a new colourized Tirpitz photo that in theory I suppose was intended to show Tirpitz viewed from Admiral Hipper stern in Norway into Kaafjord.

It is a modern digital technology error, a monster created intentionally with very limited knowledge.
Someone took the stern of Prinz Eugen April 1941 from the Nh 69721 photo and put it into a Tirpitz summer 1943 original photo and than colourized it on year 2005 if I recall correctly.

I have of course both the originals on B/W format; I know who did it, when and why.

Were the errors are? Very easy for me my friend to tell you.

1 - The Admiral Hipper never ever on his life had those triple depth charge launchers on her stern, she had for a limited time during her Atlantic cruise on 1940/41 only 3 single depth charge launchers each side of the stern.
So Admiral Hipper was different than Prinz Eugen there on those weapons, it is fully proved.

2 – The Prinz Eugen stern appearance is of April 17-18 of 1941 ( as photo Nh 69721 shows with Bismarck on Baltic sea training exercises confirmed by the Prinz Eugen original KTB of april 1941 ), because after those 2 triple depth charge launchers were moved more toward the stern during May 1941 Prinz Eugen works done in Deutsche Werke at Kiel, so you cannot associate by cutting and pasting an April 1941 Prinz Eugen original photo with a Tirpitz summer 1943 original taken photo in Norway into Kaafjord.

3 – Here were the real enormous error done by who did it is, as neither Prinz Eugen nor Admiral Hipper were in Norway with Tirpitz on the summer of 1943.
Tirpitz camouflage evolutions are unique and you know well I have studied and made public them years ago for the first time ever as she is my favourite ship.
So the error will be there no matter what you were trying to show.



But you may want to find the names of the authors of the book from were you took that colourized photo and directly ask them why they did it.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/book_purch ... order.html

You will find that what I wrote above is the truth and Dr. Goebbels propaganda activities does not have anything to do with it.

By the way thanks for the Einstein association with me, as you may know that I use one of his phrases on a German KM Marinearchiv forum as a personal signature, so you were right on the money with it.

Here the phrase I use :

'' ... Ich habe keine besondere begabung, sondern bin leidenschaftlich neugierig ''.
A. Einstein

Which translated means :

“ ... I have no special talent, but I am passionately curious.”
A. Einstein

And here a link with Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper drawings in there for you to verify what I have told you about them including the depth charges positioning on both ships stern :

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 305.0.html


http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=468


http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=470

So now you know the truth and were to find your confirmations and more accurate information.

No need to disturb Einstein for the moment, it took much less, …. just me.

Do not mix current digital works done by incompetent with historical material please.

The call stand as the mystery is resolved for you my friend,……

…….. of course those are still original Denmark Strait photos.

Bye Antonio

[Vic Dale]

To Antonio.

Your point here eludes me, but any documentary purporting to show the KM in action with the good Herr Doktor doing the voice-over is going to be suspect.

I don't doubt that PG carried depth charges, the question hangs on whether or not the racks would be filled for a surface action. High explosives on the open decks in NH69722 inviting even the lightest explosive strike to take the stern off, is what sinks that photo's pedigree. You do realise what would happen if one of those charges was struck I suppose.

The illustration I presented was to show that photos can be tampered with and presumably for gain as well as propaganda purposes.

It makes no difference who uses the photo to show what. If they are convinced of it's pedigree as you are then they will make the same mistake. Bill Jurens told us where the photos came from, so who was there to authenticate them, who was not involved in propaganda work? It is almost impossible to time-mark a photo unless it can be matched to a stream of data such as the live cine footage.

Details in NH69723;

1. The light source is too high. At 0555 - dawn - it would have been low.

2. The sky is very light, when the authentic photos which match the cine footage show a very dark sky.

3. There is nothing in the sky which nearly matches the state of the sky in the cine footage and associated photos.

4. The sea state as shown would not cause the vessels to ship water over their fo'clses.

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Vic and all,

OK, lets forget about the incompetent that intentionally modified the photos showing very limited knowledge about KM warships.

Lets forget about Dr. Goebbels as I think KM for him was just not so important to do what your imagination tells you.

I see finally you realized that both Prinz Eugen and Bismarck were carrying depth charges racks FULLY loaded into Op. Rheinubung.

Why I do not know or tell you precisely, I can try to guess, but my guess is as valid as your one.

I would have never do that myself of course, but they did it and they must have had a good reason since they also were carrying addittional charges on the main deck too ready to reload the launchers, a very dangerous action I fully agree, but they did it.

There are dozens of high quality photos for both Prinz Eugen and Bismarck to demosntrate this, so please accept it as a fact.

The presence of the racsk fully loaded do not sinks anything, it is just PERFECT and CORRECT all the way thru Op. Rheinubung execution for both Prinz Eugen and Bismarck.

I can take any challenge on this and win hands down, like for the YELLOW top turrets Fliegersichtzeichen.

I am with you about the very poor quality of the photos taken by different photographer ( at least 3 on PG I have realized ) with different light and sun effects, but it does not have anything to do with propaganda activities, intentional modifications or censoring.

It is just the way it happened on DS for both Prinz Eugen and mostly Bismarck and just looking at the photos you easily see this difference on light and effects.

As you know I have worked since 6 years on those 36 photos and on the PG film, and trust me, I know my job here now.

You do not have to use the photos to make battle tracks, but the ships wake visible on the photos must match with the map and they do, all of them even the ones you do not have and you have never seen so far.

Every turn is documented after 06.03,..and also the famous wake crossing with Bismarck telling Prinz Eugen at 06.08 ... " do not fire over the flagship " is well documented ... when PG fired over her own stern with the aft turrets only,...... just like Jasper reported.

Bye Antonio

[Vic Dale]

When Dr Goebbels takes the time to do the voice-over for at least two "naval documentary newsreels" you can bet your life that he considered victory at sea against the powerful Royal Navy to be of extreme importance, especially when things were not going too well. Where he felt the action footage did not come up to snuff, he would not hesitate to delve into the archives and inject some excitement from various practice shoots and exercises.

The Glorious footage is largely from exercises as no helmets or respirators are visible. Even some of the cine footage of the Channel Dash has been interwoven with scenes from exercises and test firings. It is actually very difficult to find genuine battle footage of the KM due to the fact that they did not like to mix-it with the RN.

Big guns firing and heavy ships forging though stormy seas are exciting, but are no guarantee of authentic battle scenes. The only real gauge as to what is going is to look for clues as to authenticity or otherwise, and as I see it; if men are on the upper deck in forage caps when the big guns go off, it is a practice shoot and a relatively safe scene.

Vic Dale

[Bgile]

I don't doubt that PG carried depth charges, the question hangs on whether or not the racks would be filled for a surface action. High explosives on the open decks in NH69722 inviting even the lightest explosive strike to take the stern off, is what sinks that photo's pedigree. You do realise what would happen if one of those charges was struck I suppose.

What is the likelyhood of one of those little things getting hit?

And I can't believe it would "take the stern off". It might cause serious damage, but so would other things, especially torpedoes.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bgile, Vic and all,

@ Bgile,

you are correct, as this was also Adm Lutjens opinion as he asked both Prinz Eugen and Bismarck to have the launching racks loaded and many spare charges stored into the main deck ready to reload them immediately.

It is just enough to look at Hitler and Lutjens review of Bismarck (May 5, 1941) and Prinz Eugen (May 18, 1941) to see them on the main deck aside the upperworks.

@ Vic,

as you may have realized now, it was not during war time that some censoring activity on the film and photos made the biggest damage.

PG film is simply cut and paste for timing sequence to show a better Bismarck performance, nothing more than this by Dr. Goebbels.
Only one photo censored for 2 refuelling rings, so you see a minimum impact overall.

It was recently that the "monsters" got created by some people that strongly wanted to make scoop's with Bismarck.

So reversing photos and film sequences, adding other ships pieces of film showing invented explosions for Hood or firing performances for Bismarck, artficial creation of digital photos never taken and so on, all works done recently with very limited knowledge and competence.

You can find a large selection of those mistakes on recent documentaries done by famous people supported by pseudo experts.

So now I think you should realize you have to move very careful with your initiatives on this battle tracks/ map not to run the risk to get into the long list of the innovators/inventors of scoop that at the end become only absolutely ridicolous.

Ciao Antonio

[Vic Dale]

An impact on one charge would not limit it's effects to just one charge but would take all three and being on one side of the ship would shatter the strength on that side. It would have the same effect on this unarmoured structure of a mine, but without the damping effects of the sea.

I believe the charges in question to be designated as W.B -"D" which had had a charge of 120 Kg. This compares well with the 8.3 Kg bursting charge in the 20.3 cm HE shell fired by Prinz Eugen or the 21.8 kg charge in the HE shells fired by Gneisenau. HMS Worcester was hit by a shell from either of these ships and in the photo you can see the damage done by the blast alone. The shell passed through starboard to port and exploded outside the shell plating, blowing a hole inwards.

Worcester.jpg (63.31 KiB) Viewed 2595 times

Now imagine a depth charge with a 120 kg charge - nearly 6 times the power of a 28 cm HE shell. Then multiply 120 by 3, because one hit would detonate all three charges. About 15 times the power of the shell which hit Worcester and from a charge designed to wreck structure as opposed to scattering splinters. PG's stern would definitely be severed and likely as not the bridge widows on the flagship would be blown out. That alone would rule out the appearance of the charges.

I have yet to see the documentation regarding Lutjens' preferences for use of the charges. So if Antonio would care to share what documentation he has we can look at it again.

Btw depth charges cannot be used to any good effect at speed. A/S work requires very moderate speed, so as to match the attack with the submerged target. We used 15 knots in the 1960s, so I doubt that a passage through the Denmark Strait made at speeds above 24 knots, would provide the best attack conditions.

Those charges were a Fleet modification installed to counter the biggest danger when stopping merchantmen - submarines. The danger of a submarine attack when boarding enemy vessels is documented in PG's war diary in the Summary of Fleet Battle Instructions and also in Bismarck's reconstructed war diary.

There is one clearly doctored photo and another photo showing PG's stern with a gun covered - in the Denmark Strait with enemy ships and possibly aircraft around??? That is not an Atlantic photo either. Also you will see safety lines still rigged on the quarterdeck of PG in a hostile situation. They would not be there and considering that the alarm which went off on sighting Suffolk and Norfolk on the 23rd, never came off until after Bismarck and PG had separated and contact was lost, all shots showing safety lines have to be removed from the picture.

The reason for such safety lines is so that men can easily traverse the deck in safety when the guard rails are down or in heavy weather. In action, men must make their way as well as they can and there really is nothing back there to tempt anyone to go to the stern in action - except of course the depth charges, but they cannot be of use except at moderate speed, which was not possible with the British on their tails.

Btw for those with an eye for detail the stern shot below shows a line indicated by the yellow arrow. I believe this is a temporary phone line rigged so that a watched on the outer limit of the gun sponson can see where the hose is and give directions to the officer in charge of oiling operations, who might not be able to see the hose end as it is brought inboard. That phone line would be no use in the Denmark Strait and would have been removed after the oiling exercise.

Telephone line.JPG (25.1 KiB) Viewed 3111 times

So far we have two false stern shots and an "action" photo where men are goofing without their anti flash gear or their respirators and their helmets are nowhere to be seen.

With the exception of those photos which can be associated directly with the battle film, I can see nothing to convince me that they were taken during that time. The lighting is all wrong for a start, coming from directly overhead when it should have come from low in the east. The bright sky conflicts with the overcast dawn and if Schmitz Westerholt's work has any merit it is in showing the light and dark conditions under which the battle was fought. I personally doubt the artist's ability to realistically depict naval battles, but one thing he should be good for is representing light and dark, tones and shades and his sketch which I never thought to have a practical use for is good to show just how dark it was that early morning.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1968-015-18,_Schlachtschiff_Bismarck_(Gemälde).jpg (24.93 KiB) Viewed 3110 times

I for one cannot reconcile the darkness shown in the Schmitz Westerholt sketch with the light mid-day/mid-afternoon appearance of nh69722 and nh69723. In nh69722 the shadow beneath the RF hood on turret Caesar falls vertically - it clearly isn't dawn.

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Vic and all,

OK, I see you do not want to quit those useless trails to de-qualify historical material and admit all the photos do belong to Op. Rheinubug and Denmark Strait battle.

You need confirmation about Adm Lutjens order to fit Bismarck and Prinz Eugen with depth charges racks and additional WBS ( Wasserbombs ) on board ?

OK Vic, just look Hitler photo review on board Bismack on May 5th, 1941 and you have plenty of WBS all over and your 2 triple depth charge launchers on Bismarck stern too.

Prinz Eugen ones are too famous now to demonstrate you again what you know very well.
But if you look at Adm Lutjens review on Prinz Eugen on May 18th, 1941 in Gotenhafen, the day before Op. Rheinubung started you will find them up there fully loaded and Prinz Eugen is still with the Baltic camouflage scheme on her.
Than you have them on the way to Norway if you have this photo material available, and into GrimstadFjord during re-paint as I have already showed you and all over on Rheinubung photos.

This said lets move ahead so hopefullly you will be able to understand that what you are trying to say is with no fundament at all, due to limited Prinz Eugen historical data availability on your hands.

Do you mind to tell us how many times and for how long between January 1st, 1941 until May 18th, 1941 Prinz Eugen was with Bismarck and how many exercises were conducted between the 2 ships.

Than do you mind to associate with those dates existing Prinz Eugen and Bismarck photos so we can all see which training exercise according to your competence and knowledge was used to do all the photo tricks you think were done by the propaganda guys.

I am really sorry for you Vic, but you are going to be upset big times doing that job.
Because you will find that every occasion is perfectly recorded and documented.
They are not many and we have photos available on every occasion.

Since I have done the job myself and I know the results of it, I invite you to do it and come back to us with your results.
Than either demonstrate your statements with real evidences or quit writing useless fantasy generic statements that are only your imagination inventions.
We all know those are needed from your side to keep alive your map/tracks that is as wrong as your trial to de-qualify this material.
But of course both have same destiny and are going to see the same sad end.

They are not at all supported and the truth can be demonstrated easily to the ones that want to see it.

You can always transfer all those hyphotesis into the " What if section of the forums " into the imaginary war scenario people like so much.

So, this said, do you want to still take your chances and demosnstrate your words with evidences ..... or just trust who as more historical material, knowledge and competences about all this and has already done this job ?

Usually a British clever gentleman knows when is the time to quit, ...... with elegance and class.

It is your prerogative, ..... of course, .... my friend .

Ciao Antonio

[Bgile]

US Destroyers were involved in a number of very intense surface gunnery engagements with the Japanese in WWII. They usually had a large number of depth charges; many more than PE. Some of them were hit many times by Japanese shells, and some were sunk by them. I've read a lot of these battle histories, and I don't recall reading about any of these depth charges exploding due to this gunfire. Not even one. Does anyone else?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Bgile, Vic and all,

@ Bgile,

I was not aware of that but I trust you.
But here no matter what the danger was there or not is with no importance at all.
Adm Lutjens decided to do it and they did it, as simple as that because it is well documented.
Bismarck had 6 Wasserbombs loaded into the 2 triple launchers plus other 10 stored on main deck and there are photos proving it also into GrimstadFjord.

Prinz Eugen had the triple launchers fully loaded and I do not know precisely how many more stored on main deck, but she did have them too.
Same as above, in Gotenhafen, in GrimstadFjord and on the Atlantic ocean after.

So Vic is cornered to real evidences no matter what.

@ Vic,

we wait here your evidences about training conducted in the Baltic sea to create false photo evidences between Bismarck and Prinz Eugen for propaganda purpose.

I have the real photo evidences and the date plus data of the real training occurred, what about you ?

Ciao Antonio

[Vic Dale]

US Destroyers were involved in a number of very intense surface gunnery engagements with the Japanese in WWII. They usually had a large number of depth charges; many more than PE. Some of them were hit many times by Japanese shells, and some were sunk by them. I've read a lot of these battle histories, and I don't recall reading about any of these depth charges exploding due to this gunfire. Not even one. Does anyone else?

The reason the charges did not go off during surface engagements is the charges were dropped quickly. Read the Battle of the River Plate and you'll see that the charges were jettisoned even before battle ensigns were hoisted. This is standard practice when entering a surface engagement, if the charges cannot be struck down to their stowage in time.

The charges are cheap in relation to the risk to the ship. Ever wondered why only a limited number were kept on the upper deck? If they were so safe, why stow them below? Really this is beyond belief.

Vic Dale

[Bill Jurens]

I do not believe that it was standard U.S. practice to jettison depth charges before entering action. The tactical situation both before and after surface action might still require their employment, and -- at least during the first part of the war -- and particularly in the Pacific theatre -- replacements were often hard to come by. I cannot, off the top of my head, recall any incidents where depth charges were set off from incoming gunfire. (Torpedoes, incidentally, proved equally impervious.) The main danger with depth charges seems to have taken place after the ship carrying them was sunk, whereupon they subsequently exploded killing men in the water.

In most cases the reason depth charges were not moved below was because unless the ship had already engaged in an anti-submarine engagement, the lower magazines, i.e. those holding the 'spare' depth charges were already full. In other words, as I understand it, in wartime ships usually departed with magazines full and a full deck load as well.

Bill Jurens

[Bill Jurens]

This topic seems to have heated up again, accompanied by some additonal commentary on the HMS Hood website.

I will allow myself a few brief observations and comments.

It is difficult to assess the quality of the retouching that has been done to remove the refueling apparatus aboard Prinz Eugen as the quality of the photos -- at least as presented on the internet -- is so poor. Once these photos have been 'through the mill' of being screened and digitized, a good deal of the evidence surrounding even poor retouching is in effect automatically removed by processes which tend to smear data together and obscure even rather significant discrepancies on the original photos. Retouching was rather rarely done on the original negative, and even more rarely attempted on a small format (35mm) negative because it was too difficult to do on small negatives and errors were difficult or sometimes impossible to repair. The usual procedure was to make a larger format (4"x5" or so) copy negative and retouch that -- maintaining the original negative as a 'backup' -- or to make an paper enlargement which could then be airbrushed and rephotographed to recreate a second negative for reproduction. This could be done several times if the first attempt proved less than entirely satisfying. Either of these processes left sublte traces which are usually fairly evident to the practiced eye if the negatives or prints are seen in their original condition, but are more difficult to detect if the photo has been screened, greatly reduced in size, or digitized. In many cases, at least on websites, it appears we are now looking at photos which have suffered all three.

I must admit that I can, on the surface of it, see little reason why the Germans would retouch the photographs to disguise or misrepresent the location at which they were taken. If that was the goal, they would probably have retouched in different ways, e.g. re-worked the sky areas instead. For photos released for general public circulation there would seem little if any reason to remove the refueling apparatus on Prinz Eugen insofar as the real center of visual interest would probably have been Bismarck in any case, and I would bet that not one German in 1000 would even know what the items were there for in the first place. Even fewer would know that it was there (or not there) in the Baltic or not there (or there) at Denmark Strait. There would be no need to take efforts to somehow mislead the Germans because they would have had no direct knowlege of these sorts of issues in the first place. In that regard, my best guess is that the Germans removed the refueling apparatus because they wanted to keep details -- or perhaps even the existence of -- refueling apparatus from the eyes of sharp Allied photo analysts. Bismarck's ability (or inability) to fuel at sea from friendly German ships would have been of some tactical and strategic interest.

I personally have relatively little difficulty with the presence of open depth charges on the stern. Depth charges may LOOK dangerous, but war damage experience shows that in practical terms most of these sorts of items prove themselves to be remarkably inert even when subjected to fire, various sorts of splinters, and perhaps even direct hits from incoming projectiles, certainly smaller ones. There is almost no chance that a single charge detonating more than a foot or so from an adjacent charge would cause propagation to that second charge.

I have a vague recollection that Graf Spee may have dropped depth charges to confuse Allied gunfire off Montevideo, and if such were done, it's quite possible the Germans felt that it might be beneficial to repeat that tactic at Denmark Strait. Prinz Eugen didn't drop any, it appears, but this may simply derive from the tactical situation which seems to have put Bismarck quite close astern through much of the action where it might have been seen to be potentially hazardous -- or at least somewhat inconsiderate -- to drop charges into the track of a following ship, especially one carrying an admiral.

Comments, as always, welcome...

Bill Jurens