Photo Nh 69729 Evaluation
Moderator: Bill Jurens
-
- -
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
- Contact:
Hi Wadinga,
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I sometimes feel that it is just Antonio and I who are talking to each other. When I look at photos and drawings of the Prinz Eugen, I see railings, both fixed and foldable, at all angles all over the place. Perhaps not at exactly 45 degrees (or 90), but nevertheless at different angles and in just about every location.
NH69722 shows the railing along the edge of the main deck folded down all the way to the bow, far away from any battle stations. Why are they folded down when there is no apparent need to do so? Why are the railings on the upper deck also folded down? Antonio made a specific point to prove that they were all folded down. I asked why they were not also folded down amidships where they would do seem more good than they would all the way up in the bow. I still don't know.
The timestamp on NH69730 is Antonio's own timestamp as shown in his reconstruction. He placed BA 90/61/27 at about 0607, NH69729 at about 0607-1/2, and NH69730 at about 0608-1/2. These times are fairly consistent with the separation distances between the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen agreed to in earlier discussions: BA 90/61/27 at 750 yards, NH69729 at 650 yards, and NH69730 at 500 yards. Just by looking at the photographs, you can tell that they were not taken just a half second apart.
How can you possibly believe that the Bismarck was steaming directly at the Prinz Eugen at a right angle to the cruiser when the sequence of these photographs shows a progression of only a couple of hundred yards and not more than the 1000 yards that the Bismarck could have covered in the same time frame with a head-on approach.
Incidentally, as an experienced user of a Contax II camera for over 25 years, I can tell you that it would take closer to five seconds after pressing the shutter release button to bring the camera down from the face, turn the rewind knob until it stopped (there were no rewind levers in those days), bring the camera up to the face again, reacquire the subject, and then press down the shutter release button again.
Regarding your last comment, wasn't the Bismarck traveling from left to right in NH69729? Was the Prinz Eugen traveling from left to right as well, or was she traveling in the opposite direction, from right to left? Anyway, I was merely pointing out an inconsistency between NH69729 and the placement of that photo on the time track of the Bismarck in Antonio's reconstruction map. All of the pieces of the puzzle have to fit together to form a complete and accurate picture of what happened.
Can you establish a point from where NH69729 was taken with any degree of certainty? I can't, and I don't believe that Antonio or you can either. That's why I feel that further discussion of this issue at the present time would not be fruitful. On the other hand, NH69726 is replete with clues that can positively establish the orientation of the Bismarck in that photograph as well as the direction in which she is firing and resolve the dispute once and for all.
Bob
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I sometimes feel that it is just Antonio and I who are talking to each other. When I look at photos and drawings of the Prinz Eugen, I see railings, both fixed and foldable, at all angles all over the place. Perhaps not at exactly 45 degrees (or 90), but nevertheless at different angles and in just about every location.
NH69722 shows the railing along the edge of the main deck folded down all the way to the bow, far away from any battle stations. Why are they folded down when there is no apparent need to do so? Why are the railings on the upper deck also folded down? Antonio made a specific point to prove that they were all folded down. I asked why they were not also folded down amidships where they would do seem more good than they would all the way up in the bow. I still don't know.
The timestamp on NH69730 is Antonio's own timestamp as shown in his reconstruction. He placed BA 90/61/27 at about 0607, NH69729 at about 0607-1/2, and NH69730 at about 0608-1/2. These times are fairly consistent with the separation distances between the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen agreed to in earlier discussions: BA 90/61/27 at 750 yards, NH69729 at 650 yards, and NH69730 at 500 yards. Just by looking at the photographs, you can tell that they were not taken just a half second apart.
How can you possibly believe that the Bismarck was steaming directly at the Prinz Eugen at a right angle to the cruiser when the sequence of these photographs shows a progression of only a couple of hundred yards and not more than the 1000 yards that the Bismarck could have covered in the same time frame with a head-on approach.
Incidentally, as an experienced user of a Contax II camera for over 25 years, I can tell you that it would take closer to five seconds after pressing the shutter release button to bring the camera down from the face, turn the rewind knob until it stopped (there were no rewind levers in those days), bring the camera up to the face again, reacquire the subject, and then press down the shutter release button again.
Regarding your last comment, wasn't the Bismarck traveling from left to right in NH69729? Was the Prinz Eugen traveling from left to right as well, or was she traveling in the opposite direction, from right to left? Anyway, I was merely pointing out an inconsistency between NH69729 and the placement of that photo on the time track of the Bismarck in Antonio's reconstruction map. All of the pieces of the puzzle have to fit together to form a complete and accurate picture of what happened.
Can you establish a point from where NH69729 was taken with any degree of certainty? I can't, and I don't believe that Antonio or you can either. That's why I feel that further discussion of this issue at the present time would not be fruitful. On the other hand, NH69726 is replete with clues that can positively establish the orientation of the Bismarck in that photograph as well as the direction in which she is firing and resolve the dispute once and for all.
Bob
To me, I believe I see PE's wake in the right of the photo. It's my impression that Bismarck is about to cross PE's wake, placing Bismarck closer to the British than PE if that is not already the case in the photo. We know Bismarck ended up closer to PoW than PE to the point that there was some question of PE having to fire over Bismarck (she was ordered not to) and this is consistent with that.
There is no dispute to be resolved. Bismarck is firing to port in all photos. That's pretty clear.Robert J. Winklareth wrote: NH69726 is replete with clues that can positively establish the orientation of the Bismarck in that photograph as well as the direction in which she is firing and resolve the dispute once and for all.
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Bob,
To answer some of your points
I don't really understand what
I don't accept
If it is of interest, I don't agree with Antonio at all about the dramatic "flash effect" NH69730. I think I agree with you, that the photographer has moved over to the Port upper deck, now that nobody is shooting at PG. But as an experienced Contax user, familar with its lens and assuming the uncropped version showing the 4.1" mount muzzles is the whole negative, I'm sure you will agree the flagship is obviously FAR TOO BLOODY CLOSE!!! This is just what I would expect if after chopping across the flagship's bows PG had swung back to port, losing a lot of ground on the flagship. We are not seeing cool, measured tactics here, we are seeing a chaotic shambles.
I don't agree with
This photo IS the Battle of the Denmark Straits. It shows the German squadron chaotically zigzagging and nearly colliding, it exposes Brinkmann's inexperience in panicking over GHG's spurious torpedo sound warning, turning and creating this situation. It explains the Baron's (and other officers) lack of enthusiasm for the victorious Lutjens after the action. His lack of orders on sighting the enemy, lack of control of the squadron and their disorganization as PoW turned away, meant that pursuit of the wounded quarry was impossible.
Your thought provoking book included this photo, and there is much to be learned about it yet.
All the Best
wadinga
To answer some of your points
As I explained about Cesar, the rails in danger of blast damage all around the main armament were lowered- including right out to the bow (and the stern). You can't guarantee which direction you will be shooting in. This is all part of the "Clear the Decks for Action procedure. Any foldable rails not lowered are well away from the fore and aft extremities or torpedo tubes, where the tubes actually swing outboard over the top of the lowered rails.NH69722 shows the railing along the edge of the main deck folded down all the way to the bow, far away from any battle stations. Why are they folded down when there is no apparent need to do so? Why are the railings on the upper deck also folded down?
The only infallible Italian I've heard of is the Pope, and he doesn't push that line any more. As you sayThe timestamp on NH69730 is Antonio's own timestamp as shown in his reconstruction.
and I believe you, so the second shot is 5 plus seconds after the first.as an experienced user of a Contax II camera for over 25 years, I can tell you that it would take closer to five seconds after pressing the shutter release button to bring the camera down from the face, turn the rewind knob until it stopped (there were no rewind levers in those days), bring the camera up to the face again, reacquire the subject, and then press down the shutter release button again.
I don't really understand what
means at all. Sorry to be dense. The Bismarck is heading straight at the cameraman, basically heading SW. The ship (PG) the cameraman is standing on, (probably on the starboard side, probably on the upper deck forward of the after 4.1" mount, maybe near the crane) has just turned hard a starboard from roughly the same course as the flagship to one that crosses her course at 90 degrees to NW heading, creating major excitement.Regarding your last comment, wasn't the Bismarck traveling from left to right in NH69729? Was the Prinz Eugen traveling from left to right as well, or was she traveling in the opposite direction, from right to left?
I don't accept
More onboard pictures will whittle down the locations of the foldable rail, and none of them will be looking aft and all of them will be looking off the beam. This photo is by far the most important of the entire sequence, as I said before.Can you establish a point from where NH69729 was taken with any degree of certainty? I can't, and I don't believe that Antonio or you can either.
If it is of interest, I don't agree with Antonio at all about the dramatic "flash effect" NH69730. I think I agree with you, that the photographer has moved over to the Port upper deck, now that nobody is shooting at PG. But as an experienced Contax user, familar with its lens and assuming the uncropped version showing the 4.1" mount muzzles is the whole negative, I'm sure you will agree the flagship is obviously FAR TOO BLOODY CLOSE!!! This is just what I would expect if after chopping across the flagship's bows PG had swung back to port, losing a lot of ground on the flagship. We are not seeing cool, measured tactics here, we are seeing a chaotic shambles.
I don't agree with
as it is a blurry fuzzy mess which will allow argument to go ad infinitum and allow NH69729 (which will eventually prove beyond reasonable doubt your ingenious and imaginative theory is wrong), to be sidelined.NH69726 is replete with clues that can positively establish the orientation of the Bismarck in that photograph as well as the direction in which she is firing and resolve the dispute once and for all.
This photo IS the Battle of the Denmark Straits. It shows the German squadron chaotically zigzagging and nearly colliding, it exposes Brinkmann's inexperience in panicking over GHG's spurious torpedo sound warning, turning and creating this situation. It explains the Baron's (and other officers) lack of enthusiasm for the victorious Lutjens after the action. His lack of orders on sighting the enemy, lack of control of the squadron and their disorganization as PoW turned away, meant that pursuit of the wounded quarry was impossible.
Your thought provoking book included this photo, and there is much to be learned about it yet.
All the Best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Nh 69729
Ciao all,
@ Marc
Many thanks
I saw it,.. I will work on it tomorrow, very though period this one for me, really busy .
I am glad so many other persons are joining in, that is very positive.
@ Wadinga,
you know I agree with your evaluations.
I think the one about the needs to free up the cartridge unload sytem for B and C turret is very interesting and of course very clever from you side as usual.
@ Bob,
look at your reader, you will find a couple of interesting photos for you to evaluate.
Talk to you soon.
Ciao Antonio
@ Marc
Many thanks
I saw it,.. I will work on it tomorrow, very though period this one for me, really busy .
I am glad so many other persons are joining in, that is very positive.
@ Wadinga,
you know I agree with your evaluations.
I think the one about the needs to free up the cartridge unload sytem for B and C turret is very interesting and of course very clever from you side as usual.
@ Bob,
look at your reader, you will find a couple of interesting photos for you to evaluate.
Talk to you soon.
Ciao Antonio
-
- -
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
- Contact:
Hi Wadinga,
I believe that you have your photographs mixed up. Perhaps you got your "6's" and "9's" upside down. It is NH69729 that is a blurry mess, as everyone can readily see by just looking at the photograph, and not NH69726. I have high-resolution glossy prints of both photographs, and NH69729 is completely devoid of any detail when magnified - just a blurry mess as you described.
On the other hand, NH69726, when enlarged 15 x, shows an amazing amount of detail not evident when looking at just a printed version of that photograph. For example, the two little bright spots shown amidships on the level of the main deck turn out to be clearly defined identical features of the center and aft 150mm secondary gun turrets on the port side of the ship. The detail is so sharp that even the foot-high barbettes under those turrets are readily distinguishable.
Your concept of what happened is very interesting, but highly speculative. When you can present hard evidence to support your theory, I would be most happy to discuss the matter with you further. In the meanwhile, i thank you for sharing your opinions with the rest of us.
Bob
I believe that you have your photographs mixed up. Perhaps you got your "6's" and "9's" upside down. It is NH69729 that is a blurry mess, as everyone can readily see by just looking at the photograph, and not NH69726. I have high-resolution glossy prints of both photographs, and NH69729 is completely devoid of any detail when magnified - just a blurry mess as you described.
On the other hand, NH69726, when enlarged 15 x, shows an amazing amount of detail not evident when looking at just a printed version of that photograph. For example, the two little bright spots shown amidships on the level of the main deck turn out to be clearly defined identical features of the center and aft 150mm secondary gun turrets on the port side of the ship. The detail is so sharp that even the foot-high barbettes under those turrets are readily distinguishable.
Your concept of what happened is very interesting, but highly speculative. When you can present hard evidence to support your theory, I would be most happy to discuss the matter with you further. In the meanwhile, i thank you for sharing your opinions with the rest of us.
Bob
-
- -
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
- Contact:
Hi Monitor,
You obviously have not read my "autopsy" (critical analysis) of NH69726 wherein I cover at least a dozen points of comparison with clear daytime photographs of the Bismarck, both port bow and port quarter views. The features identified on NH69726 clearly match the features in a port quarter view of the Bismarck, but have no resemblance to those in port bow views.
As to the direction in which the Bismarck was firing, that's easy to establish. If the Bismarck had been firing to port, the fireball seen in NH69726 would be on the near (port) side of the ship. Yet the postside surfaces of the hull and superstructure remain completely in the dark - in the shadow of the flash.
If the Bismarck had fired to port, the entire port side of the ship would have been brilliantly illuminated, especially amidships where the angle would have reflected the flash directly to the camera. As it is, only a few items were illuminated by the flash, such as the rear-facing surfaces of the center and rear 150mm secondary gun turrets on the port side of the ship.
If you look carefully at NH69726, you will see the rear of turret Dora surrounded by the fireball. If the fireball had been on the near (port) side of the Bismarck, turret Dora would have been totally obscured by the fireball, as would more of the port side of the ship.
If you can explain how the portside surfaces of the hull and superstructure, especially amidships, could have remained completely in the dark when the Bismarck fired to port, then I might be inclined to accept your conclusion.
Bob
You obviously have not read my "autopsy" (critical analysis) of NH69726 wherein I cover at least a dozen points of comparison with clear daytime photographs of the Bismarck, both port bow and port quarter views. The features identified on NH69726 clearly match the features in a port quarter view of the Bismarck, but have no resemblance to those in port bow views.
As to the direction in which the Bismarck was firing, that's easy to establish. If the Bismarck had been firing to port, the fireball seen in NH69726 would be on the near (port) side of the ship. Yet the postside surfaces of the hull and superstructure remain completely in the dark - in the shadow of the flash.
If the Bismarck had fired to port, the entire port side of the ship would have been brilliantly illuminated, especially amidships where the angle would have reflected the flash directly to the camera. As it is, only a few items were illuminated by the flash, such as the rear-facing surfaces of the center and rear 150mm secondary gun turrets on the port side of the ship.
If you look carefully at NH69726, you will see the rear of turret Dora surrounded by the fireball. If the fireball had been on the near (port) side of the Bismarck, turret Dora would have been totally obscured by the fireball, as would more of the port side of the ship.
If you can explain how the portside surfaces of the hull and superstructure, especially amidships, could have remained completely in the dark when the Bismarck fired to port, then I might be inclined to accept your conclusion.
Bob
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Nh 69729
Ciao all,
@ Marc, Wadinga and Bob,
I think that the photo called PG 27 I have sent you should have provided some elements to better confirm the railings down situation on both sides ( port and starboard ) from 105 mm aft platform till C turret barbette.
In fact that photo should demonstrate with no more doubts that during a firing action the unload cartridge method used by Prinz Eugen ( back bottom turret ) mandatorely required the foldable railings to be closed down to avoid the cartridges to snap into them and cause major damages and the C turret becoming unusable.
Same thing do apply to B turret in fact.
I think it is a pretty serious and logic reason to close all foldable railings during action station and readiness for a firing action.
In fact as I wrote I had noticed on fire training photos of Prinz Eugen that they were all down as well.
But the credit to have resolved this ' enigma ' goes to Wadinga that clearly addressed the issue
Now I think we all can say with a very high confidence level that Nh 69729 was surely taken midship as I said , between the catapult and the crane.
It shows Bismarck coming 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen beam on starboard side.
Prinz Eugen was sailing from right to left on course 270 degrees.
On same moment photos from the other side ( to port of Prinz Eugen ) will show same foldable railings midship ( confirmed by the film were we can see 2 level of foldable railings on both decks, in parallel ).
Nh 69730 comes close after this photo showing the wake of the previously made turns executed by Prinz Eugen.
The whole sequence is supported by the Prinz Eugen battle map as well as by the narrative of the battle witness.
Let me know your opinion and if you agree with me of course
Ciao Antonio
@ Marc, Wadinga and Bob,
I think that the photo called PG 27 I have sent you should have provided some elements to better confirm the railings down situation on both sides ( port and starboard ) from 105 mm aft platform till C turret barbette.
In fact that photo should demonstrate with no more doubts that during a firing action the unload cartridge method used by Prinz Eugen ( back bottom turret ) mandatorely required the foldable railings to be closed down to avoid the cartridges to snap into them and cause major damages and the C turret becoming unusable.
Same thing do apply to B turret in fact.
I think it is a pretty serious and logic reason to close all foldable railings during action station and readiness for a firing action.
In fact as I wrote I had noticed on fire training photos of Prinz Eugen that they were all down as well.
But the credit to have resolved this ' enigma ' goes to Wadinga that clearly addressed the issue
Now I think we all can say with a very high confidence level that Nh 69729 was surely taken midship as I said , between the catapult and the crane.
It shows Bismarck coming 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen beam on starboard side.
Prinz Eugen was sailing from right to left on course 270 degrees.
On same moment photos from the other side ( to port of Prinz Eugen ) will show same foldable railings midship ( confirmed by the film were we can see 2 level of foldable railings on both decks, in parallel ).
Nh 69730 comes close after this photo showing the wake of the previously made turns executed by Prinz Eugen.
The whole sequence is supported by the Prinz Eugen battle map as well as by the narrative of the battle witness.
Let me know your opinion and if you agree with me of course
Ciao Antonio