NH69722 - Battle? Or exercise in the Baltic?

[Vic Dale]

On the Hood website a battle of words has raged for many months regarding the authenticity of this photo;

Copy (2) of NH69722 Scanned form Efrath & Herzog.jpg (17.06 KiB) Viewed 3091 times

I have insisted that there are far too many inconsistencies for it to be authentic Denmark Strait and that it probably comes from a combined exercise with Bismarck. The list of faults with this photo as an action shot runs to a dozen individual and clearly identifiable items which identify this shot as having nothing at all to do with a surface action, not least is the sight of depthcharges on the open decks making a heavy cruiser vulnerable to light fire. The combined force of three 120 kg charges exploding with the disruptive power equal to 18 times the power of a 28 cm HE shell would definitely take the stern off.

The photos below show Prinz Eugen in her Baltic camouflage and as can be seen the after most white stripe highlights what appear to be "Ready Use Ammunition" lockers.

Copy (5) of BS PG May 13th 1941.JPG (3.88 KiB) Viewed 3090 times

The white stripe can be clearly seen on the superstructure above the hull.

In the enlarged version we can see how the stripe has picked out the lockers

Copy of Copy of PG Camo.jpg (4.52 KiB) Viewed 3090 times

This is what I believe explains the very light appearance of the lockers as seen in the first photo.

This means that the ship was exercising in the Baltic with Bismarck at a time when the Baltic large disruptive-stripes were still carried, but without the dazzle-stripes on the turrets.

Clearly the photo has been wrongly captioned, if not by accident, then as a dishonest attempt to make false representation for gain, either financial or political.

This photo can no longer be used to "show" Bismarck and Prinz Eugen at 0555 on the 24th of May 1941, though it is a guide as to how things "may" have looked.

I can give a list of flaws in this photo, but in my view it has been done to death on the Hood website;

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/forum/phpBB3/ ... hp?f=9&t=7.

Just read through the posts and you will find the list of flaws.

Incidentally, I had occasion to speak recently with an ex-destroyer Captain and asked him what he thought about depthcharges on deck in a surface action. He seemed to think they would present a considerable danger and he made the telling point that you would never deploy any weapon until such time as it was needed.

Vic Dale

[José M. Rico]

Vic, I could try to explain a few things to you, but considering the history of your posts I don't think it is worth my time anymore. Nothing personal, it's just that I'm busy with other things. But in short, and to make things clear to other readers, that photo was NOT taken during an excersice in the Baltic.

[Bgile]

As more than one of us has pointed out before, destroyers routinely carried depth charges exposed in their racks at the stern and in K-gun launchers, and of the many surface battles they engaged in in the Pacific war, I can find not even one instance where they exploded as a result of enemy shell hits, in spite of these ships getting hit many times by enemy shells. It was not a factor in these gunnery exchanges, and they carried many more depth charges than Prinz Eugen did.

[tommy303]

If you look at the blueprints for the Prinz Eugen, the that area shown should have been covered by the black strap and not the white one, if it were indeed a training picture. I think the light coloured locker and area is a simple trick of the light and not unlike that on the after turret.

http://www.prinzeugen.com/PGplans.htm

[Vic Dale]

As more than one of us has pointed out before, destroyers routinely carried depth charges exposed in their racks at the stern and in K-gun launchers, and of the many surface battles they engaged in in the Pacific war, I can find not even one instance where they exploded as a result of enemy shell hits, in spite of these ships getting hit many times by enemy shells. It was not a factor in these gunnery exchanges, and they carried many more depth charges than Prinz Eugen did.

What you have seen is destroyers carrying depthcharges to attack U-Boats. They do not engage in surface actions with them on the deck. If they cannot be stowed away in time they just get ditched, as at the Plate action in Ajax.

Why do you think the squid mounting had a lift and flash shutters for loading. The weight and equipment saving would have been enormous if we could have carried them on the upper deck. Also the loading mechanism for the Limbo would have been greatly simplifed if we had not had to lift them up from deep withing the ship. They were kept in magazines below water so as to reduce the chance of blowing the stern off in a surface action.

You may argue with me but are you going to say that a destroyer captain does not know how and when he deployed depthcharges? I spoke to Captain Oswald Cecil about this very matter four days ago.

Vic Dale

[Vic Dale]

If you look at the blueprints for the Prinz Eugen, the that area shown should have been covered by the black strap and not the white one, if it were indeed a training picture. I think the light coloured locker and area is a simple trick of the light and not unlike that on the after turret.

http://www.prinzeugen.com/PGplans.htm

Anyone who has knowledge of drawings of warships can tell you that the "as fitted" drawing rarely matches what was actually carried in the ship.

The white stripe has highlighted lockers in precisley the correct place on the port side and that can be the only explanation for the white lockers on the starboard side.

I have spent a good deal of time altering brightness, contrast and even hue to try and reconcile the light painted lockers with the grey of the rest of the ship and it just will not work.

The contrast is stark and precisely what could be expected when viewing white painted structures against grey.

There are plenty of surface features on the turrets themselves to show where light grey would match the light paint of the lockers if they were coated in grey, but nothing matches.

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

J. Rico wrote :

Vic, I could try to explain a few things to you, but considering the history of your posts I don't think it is worth my time anymore.

Nothing personal, it's just that I'm busy with other things.

But in short, and to make things clear to other readers, that photo was NOT taken during an excersice in the Baltic.

Thanks Jose' for having made a very clear statement about it, as the KTB's are enough clear references about it.

That battle photo is an important Denmark Strait battle reference for all of us and I am glad you took the chance and the time to make it clear forever to everybody.

I am with you also in another particular very simpe concept, as those never ending useless discussions ...... are not worth my time anymore.

Ciao Antonio

[Vic Dale]

Vic, I could try to explain a few things to you, but considering the history of your posts I don't think it is worth my time anymore. Nothing personal, it's just that I'm busy with other things. But in short, and to make things clear to other readers, that photo was NOT taken during an excersice in the Baltic.

And neither was it taken at Denmark Strait.

The speed of the ship is moderrate at best.

The wake does not have nearly enough energy for 27 kknots.

That sea would never come over the bow, see the battle film and note how the sea impacts on Bismarck, her fo'csle is rarely clear.

The light is from the worng direction and too high. There is too much light for 0555 in the Denmark Strait.

Bismarck at 27 knots made plenty of smoke. There is none visible in this shot.

PG can be seen to be making a turn to starboard, yet none is shown on her chart.

Captain Leach and Lt Cdr Mc Mullen in PoW describe very difficult conditions in a battleship with water coming over the bow at a rate which the window washers could not cope with. That was just 8 miles away and we can see something of the difficulty the gunners faced in Hood and PoW from what can be seen of Bismarck.

There is more but I won't bore you.

Vic Dale

[lwd]

...What you have seen is destroyers carrying depthcharges to attack U-Boats. They do not engage in surface actions with them on the deck. If they cannot be stowed away in time they just get ditched, ....

That does not seem consistent with what I've read of DD actions in the Pacific.

[Karl Heidenreich]

They were taken at DS, period.

[Vic Dale]

At the risk of becoming tiresome with attention to detail, I present the following;

The photos below include a starboard shot of PG which clearly shows that the forward of the two ammunition lockers fell into cover by the after white stripe.

I have presented this on a model which I think I have fairly represented as far as the stripes go and the position of the lockers is clear.

PG Stbd.jpg (14.02 KiB) Viewed 2938 times

Copy of 100_0210.JPG (31.62 KiB) Viewed 2938 times

I think also it might be as well to note that PG's camoflage varied during her time in the Baltic, as this shot of Lutjens' inspection shows. Note the lack of Baltic stripe on the superstructure above. It should be marked out in black to the left of the photographer.

So perhaps there is a little more to learn than some of our worthy scholars think

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

using average good photo material is very easy to demonstrate this new theory to be without any fundament Vic.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/forum/phpBB3/ ... 1370#p1370

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/forum/phpBB3/ ... 1369#p1369

Sorry, you never listen to me, and this is the reason why you keep on failing so easily now desperately trying to find what is NOT there and never will be.

Again no more words are necessary, the average good quality photos and KTB associated dates speack for themselves.

Please no more new theories, ..... I am tyred to show your mistakes, ......

Ciao Antonio

[Vic Dale]

This photo was supplied by Antonio a while ago and it clearly shows a white painted locker - the same one which is visible in Nh69722.

Copy (2) of Prinz Eugen stern.JPG (16.1 KiB) Viewed 2901 times

The position matches what I have shown on my model and it also matches what can be seen in other photos.

Another thing to consider its the complete absence of dazzle stripes on the superstructure when the Baltic Disruptive scheme was worn. Dazzle can only be seen on the turrets.

There are a number of inconsistencies between photos and their captions and some of them are only now being flushed out.

Vic Dale

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

@ Vic,

come on that photo only shows that when Prinz Eugen was painted with Baltic camo, she had Black and White stripes.

But you can see on the photo the aft main turrets, C and D with the Baltic camo stripes too, you can see them very clearly.

Now does Nh 69722 shows same camo stripes on them ?

Easy answer, ... NO, not at all !

Consequently,... and elementary .... the photo Nh 69722 is of the Prinz Eugen without the Baltic camo on teh main turret and on the ship because those were removed together while into Norway Fjords.

The photo was obviously taken after leaving Bergen area fjords, .. while into the Atlantic,.... while Prinz Eugen was firing at the enemy,.. so possible only at Denmark Strait.

Forget your white/light grey cabinet,..you have more clear irrefutabel evidences there,......

Ciao Antonio

[Vic Dale]

I think you have ducked the point here Antonio.

The photo showing Lutjens inspection should show a black Baltic Stripe on the superstructure above and to the left of the photographer and no explanation will account for it not being there except that the photo was not taken on 18th of May.

The photos below shows a rope or line standing out from the ship's side, yet there is no view outboard of the hull from even the outer end of the Flak-sponson, as can be seen in the drawing.

The only way a line can stand out from the hull of PG this way, is if a vessel has come alongside and a line has been passed between them. With Bismarck clearly visible astern, there must be a third vessel and the case has been made for a Baltic exercise.

We have then a Baltic exercise with PG's turrets in light grey and with no disruptive stripes. clearly your records do not properly account for what the ship was up to during her time in the Baltic.

If the photo shown here is identified as an exercise, then the inconsistencies to be seen in Nh69722 make it possible that that photo also is from an exercise. As a white Baltic stripe has now been identified in Nh69722, I think the case against it is very clear.

Vic Dale