Naval History Forums

Sean, my drawing from 17th has no information in vertical direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion the upper and lower edges of the muzzles create a triangle and one edge of the triangle is far outside of the picture (trapezoid)(blue). Looking from above the whole plane of the triangle is in fr...

I have to raise objections.

It's pretty unlikely that there were open air ports or doors or anything else. The ship is in battle condition.

However, I found a picture in my collection, which probably was taken on May 23rd:

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 m...

If the photographer is 25 degrees ahead of the muzzle plane and the mount were to be trained 50 degrees aft of forward stowage, he is surely floating above the sea. We can imagine a triangle where one corner is the mount pivot, one side the barrel length from that point and the obtuse angle from th...

Re NH 69730, If accepting DS origin, do you agree/disagree 1/ Muzzle end sleeves indicate 4.1" barrels? 2/ Plane drawn through muzzle ends aligns directly towards Bismarck? 3/ Plane drawn through muzzles indicate photographer POV approx. 30 degrees "ahead" of muzzles? 4/ Barrels are approximately h...

&: "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/Jure...

@Byron and northcape

A is trained in the same direction like B,C and D.
In regard of the secondary armament firing:

I kindly suggest to say 140° (true) or 10° "fore of port beam", to avoid to confuse others.... 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 o...

I think Byron was talking about NH 69730.

Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:03 am

.. (on a 260° bearing, Bismarck would have been shooting against... polar bears in Greenland....and not even R.Winklareth proposed to reverse this photo...).

I wrote 260° and not 260° true.

All turrets are pointing into the same direction of about 260°.

Why the secrecy? Presumably the PG crewmember wanted them to be kept hidden and firstly extracted an oath of secrecy from the "friend" who has perpetuated the cloak of security many decades on, by demanding the same from Herr Nilsson. Will this latest "holder of the knowledge which must not be know...

@wadinga I got my copies of the several private photos from a friend about ten years ago who got it from a Prinz Eugen crew member. It wasn't intended for further circulation and I'll keep my promise. @Bill Jurens Because of the barrels in the foreground the flash photo looks like a telephoto lens c...

There were private photographs taken of Bismarck during the Denmark Strait battle. The main difference is that they were not taken with a long focus lens. I doubt that there were long focus lenses aboard Prinz Eugen except those of the PK, but if so I don't think they were used because it would have...

I'm curious how a proposed surrender- (or better scuttling-) scenario would look during a gale in a submarine-infested area. What would be the difference compared to the fight to the last shell?