Smoke on NH 69731

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Smoke on NH 69731

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao all,

I am interested to know the various opinions about this photo and what can be realized from her details :

Image

Thoughts ??

Ciao Antonio :D
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

I've always assumed that the black smoke in the center was burning fuel from Hood.

I understand the two splashes are from PoW's after turret, and the smoke to the right represents PoW's turn to port to withdraw.

I don't know what the object to the left is.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Photo nh 69731

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Bgile and all,

I think you got the majority of the points already and very well :wink: .

The smoke in the center is the main smoke pillar of the sunk HMS Hood.

The smoke in the right is definitively the HMS Prince of Wales on retreat after her turn to port to withdraw ( as confirmed also by the visible semi-circle smoke of her funnel on the air ).

Very good is your intuition of the 2 shell splashes being from the HMS PoW ( very likely the 19th salvo fom Y turret on local control ) falling short of the German ships and directled correctly to the Bismarck as cursor ( Bismarck was still behind Prinz Eugen at that point ).

The last smoke pillar ( the shorter one ) on the far left is another one from HMS Hood remains ( as confirmed by both German and British reported sources ).

The photo is not the full one, as the top part is totally missed and shows a portion of the sky very important to determine the correct photo sequence taken by Prinz Eugen on the British ships.

A very high definition one could also be used to see some German shell splashes very short of HMS Prince of Wales position.

The railing visible is of course a midship area of Prinz Eugen on port side.

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi Antonio!!

Long time no see!! Good to see a new post from you!

You were the one who in another thread had explained to me the correct interpretation of the series of 3 photos from Hood's initial explosion (NH 69724) to PoW's disappearance over the horizon (NH 69725).

However, I had still interpreted the "object" on the far left in this particular photo to be an errant shell splash either from PoW or from Norfolk. In clearer copies of the picture it does not seem to be on the horizon as the other smoke pillars are. Norfolk's salvoes fell short, so I think the possibility is reasonable.

It seems too far away from the oil fire, too short and thick with no "dispersal" as it billows upwards to be smoke from Hood. Then in the subsequent photo (NH 69725) it has disappeared completely. If it was smoke there should be residue visible.

Also, the series of photos show that there was a shift in wind direction after Hood blew up. NH 69724 shows funnel and gunfire smoke from PoW as well as smoke from Hood's boat deck fire drifting upwards and to the left. In the two subsequent shots, the smoke is billowing heavily to the right. I think the wind must have been fairly strong to make the oil fire smoke billow so markedky to the right in your posted photo, yet it is having no effect on the object to the far left. To me, this makes it more likely to be a shell splash.

Just my very humbe opinion....makes any sense?

Regards,

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Smoke on the horizon

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Paul,

YES, you are right,.. it has been long time,.. work and other priorities sometimes keep you busy,.very busy.

Anyway,..YES, I remember I told you already some things about the British taken photo sequence.

The top clouds and sky being a factor and the wind as you correctly point out is another factor, while the British battleships were making 27 knots you had the effect you can see on nh 69724 ( Hood exploding ) and when the ships are almost stopped, turning away or sunk you see a very different effect on the smoke pillars as the wind forces the smoke very evidently to the right as it must be due to the wind direction that morning.

About that smoke column on the far left, many opinions have been made, your one adds on and it is very interesting as well.
Keep in mind that every other water column due to shell splashes was white on photos and this one is very dark like the other smoke pillar.

A very enlarged photo scan high quality will even allow you to see white shell splashes by German ships main guns very close to PoW sailing away, you cannot see that on this photo definition.

I am keping my opinion being Hood remains due to Fritz Otto Busch caption on this photo that you can read on his book published on 1943, so with absolutely fresh memory of the event from his side being an eyewitness himself.

He wrote : Hood sunk ( 2 rauchwolken links ), so he says 2 smoke columns to the left, and that is a very clear indication that Hood sinking position for some time was marked with more than one smoke pillar ( confirmed by British survivors on the water as well ).
Busch wrote this also clearly on his book battle map as well, with 2 pillars drawn and a caption too.
Other German reports were mentioning same thing, 2 smoke pillars were marking Hood sinking position.

This is way I keep on thinking that is the second Hood burning part.

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi Antonio,

I understand what you're saying, but it still does not totally add up to me..

On its colour, remember photos like these can have "effects" that are deceptive - like the square-like appearance of a "ship" at the base of Hood's oil fire in NH 69725. And I still ask...where is the smoke column or the residue from it in this photo which it seems to me, based on the appearance of the two visible smoke columns, to have been taken after NH 69731?

Granted, it could be that a piece of wreckage (boat deck maybe?) was blown well clear of the actual sinking site and continued to float and burn. But again, with the wind strength, the smoke should be curving to the right like the others.

Also, which of the Hood survivors reported two fires? IIRC in Ted Briggs' book he only mentions the oil fire. Was it mentioned in testimony at one of the Enquiries?

ALSO..just thought of this one!....there is no evidence of that "smoke" in the two views shown in the Schmalenbach film, brief though they are. This suggests that the column was very short lived - like a shell splash, possibly darkened by the explosion of the shell or simple shadow. :think:

Anyway...isn't it great to have found another little DS detail to argue about?? :lol:

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

What evidence is there for a large oil fire after Hood sank?

I thought there was very little ejecta, or flotsam and jetsam from the severed hull, which sank quickly.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

For one: Ted Briggs- Flagship Hood, Chapter 21

"A small patch of oil blazed where she was cremated." (P. 217)

"The oil fire, which was still burning, instilled a spirit of self preservation in me. I feared that larger patches of fuel, in which my raft was swilling, might be ignited..." (P. 218)

Oil fires tend to produce thick black smoke and can burn for a long time. The one in the picture burns continuously from a specific point, as PoW retreats behind her smoke screen. "Flotsam and jetsam" fires would lkely go out pretty quickly in roughish seas, hence if the left column is smoke as Antonio suggests, that was probably flotsam blown away by the explosion.

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Nh 69731

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao all,

does anybody have the chance to post here this photo as showed on the Baron Von Mullenheim-Rechberg book about Bismarck either in German or in English language with the caption written under it ?

If the scan will be at a good enough quality ( maybe 300 or 600 DPI ) than we can see what is visible close to PoW leaving the battle area and probably 3 Bismarck shell splashes into the smoke.

Reading the caption than will give us a very clear scenario about this photo as somebody saw it with the help of some lenses.

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi Antonio & all,

As I look at the Baron's caption, I realize that all along he had the accurate interpretation of that photo. Over the years, this photo has been captioned incorrectly in most publications, saying that it was Hood blowing up or the remains of Hood on the right with PoW on the left (even now, on the NHC website)- which just did not make sense. The correct answer was there all along, but in the past, I guess I did not know who to believe :oops: !

Anyway, no need to try to post the photo which is just a darker version of the one above. It cuts off the third column on the far left though.
The caption reads:

"To the left, the wreckage of the Hood still burns as the Prince of Wales comes under fire by the Bismarck. Between the Prince of Wales and the burning remains of the Hood are splashes from the Prince of Wales' shells, which fell hundreds of metres short." (Photograph courtesy of Paul Schmalenbach)

If you use some imagination, you can MAYBE pick out what could be shell splashes off PoW's starboard quarter, i.e. to the right of the point of origin of the smoke column. So, I'll give you that one Antonio! :clap:

My only comment on the Baron's caption is his reference to burning "wreckage". I doubt that by that time - when PoW was firing her last two salvoes in local control - there was any significant wreckage of Hood left afloat to burn with such intensity. I would much more readily accept Ted Briggs' account that it was burning oil - after all he, along with Dundas and Tilburn were swimming for their lives right at the spot, not looking through lenses 16,000 yards away! Besides - an oil fire makes sense in the circumstances.

Ciao! (as Antonio would say)

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Smoke on NH 69731

Post by Vic Dale »

Hi to all.

Take a close look at this photo and you will clearly see Prinz Eugen's guard rails square-on to the image. That has to mean that it is before 0604 since Prinz Eugen turned away at 0603:45 and filming was moved to the other side of the ship where Bismarck could be seen out on the quarter.

If the smoke to the right IS PoW's smoke screen, it is very ineffective and is so high as to reveal the whole ship. Remember that the after director just 8 feet above the after turret, was blinded by this smoke screen, whilst Y turret could still see.

The black smoke in the centre is PoW turning hard around to port, having just steered out around Hood's smoke shroud. This is 0602 just about the time that PoW took the hit on her bridge. The shell splashes to the right may well be remaining shells from that salvo and given the flat trajectory at the ranges at that time they would fall far over. Bismarck is about 3500 yards to the left of the camera and the range is about 15,000 yards - angle of descent for shells fired from the 38 cm SKC would be about 13 degrees from the horizontal.

Hold the picture in preview and enlarge it and you wil clearly see the grey outline of a ship under the smoke at the near extreme left. She has just turned and is coming back to pass between Hood's remains and the camera.

NH 69731 was taken about 30 seconds after NH69725, where the geometric shape of a ship can be clearly made out. There were no other ships in that area, so that has to be PoW. now compare the smoke trail with that in NH69731 and it is virtually the same.

There is no explanation, which will work AND show that the smoke comes from the Hood - her oil or her wreckage.

It's funny how people can read something like, "A small patch of oil was blazing." and transform that image into a major oil fire. It is also strange that the smoke is blown so flat and is carried so far to the right by a wind which was blowing at no more than 7 knots.

I believe the mark to the far left is spurious. Anyone who has inspected the footage frame by frame will have noticed similar marks which last for just one frame.

Regards Vic
Olaf
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Smoke on NH 69731

Post by Olaf »

Hi all ~ I mainly agree with Vic but I honestly believe that NH 69731 was not taken AFTER NH 69725.
I have no comparison (PG film - where to find?) but both smoke pillars look more 'faded' or 'torn by the wind' in NH 69731 than in NH 69725. I always believed, the white splashes in the right-handed smoke on NH 69731 originated from German gunfire on Hood's position because her end came too quickly (for the Germans) to switch target to PoW. If this were really splashes from PoW - in which direction would she have fired? BS was still behind PG... so short gun fire splashes should be visible on the left of this photo, right?

I guess "NHC" got the sequence of the photos in the correct order. A smaller number doesn't really mean that the photo was taken earlier than another with a higher number.

Just my 0.02 ~ Olaf
Why the Navy? Well,.... I was young and short on money...
http://linerpara.de
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Smoke on NH 69731

Post by Bgile »

If you think the smoke in the center is Pow, where is the smoke from her gunfire?

What is the smoke on the right? If you look at the tracks, you will see that PoW was never to the left of Hood's wreckage.

The shell splashes are much too close to be from Bismarck. If they were 15,000 or more yards away they would be very tiny and you would just see the tops of them.

Edit: Oops ... Bismarck. Corrected source of shell splashes.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Smoke on NH 69731

Post by wadinga »

Vic,

I think your explanation, though persuasive for some, is a little too imaginative.
The black smoke in the centre is PoW turning hard around to port, having just steered out around Hood's smoke shroud
We know exactly what PoW's track was- it's on the gunnery salvo plot, no hard turn to starboard, no putting the Germans on the port side, no steaming north east round an imaginary box, no hard turn to port. I think Mr McMullen would have noticed the gyrations you have developed.

And also
where the geometric shape of a ship can be clearly made out
I think "clearly made out" should say "easily imagined" :angel:

Also on wind strength the KTB says Force 3- ie 7 to ten knots not
no more than 7 knots.
quite enough to smear the oil fire smoke.

All the Best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Smoke on NH 69731

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Sean and all

YES, we know exactly HMS PoW course and gunnery report and they correspond to the photo and to what a good quality photo really shows.

If you buy a Nh 69731 or IWM HU 384 good quality reproduction you will clearly see.

1) 3 clear Bismarck shell water columns inside the smoke screen of HMS PoW leaving the battle field on the right, very small and far away but close to their target, just as they must be :wink:
This immediately confirms the 2 white water column we see in the middle are the 19th salvo of PoW fallling short to Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, but correct as cursor toward Bismarck that was behind Prinz Eugen.
Everything matches of course with PoW gunnery report that describes that salvo of 2 guns by Y turret local control as short :wink:

2) You can see that under Hood oil smoke pillar on the left there is no ship, ..... nowere, .. neither possible on imagination ...

Question from my side,.. is it so difficult to realize on the air the semi circle of smoke left by the ship on the right sailing away ( and also targeted by 3 Bismarck shells very close ) ???

Which ship did that manoeuvre ??? As far as I know HMS PoW was the only ship doing that manoeuvre ... am I wrong ??

In that situation, position and time on the battle she can only fire the Y aft turret,.. as she did,.. and we correctly see her fisrt 2 shells falling short,..were is the problem or the mismatch ??? Hood oil pillar is on the left as it must be,....

Numbering was done not following the sequence as nobody was able to do it correctly apparently, ..this is why Nh 69731 is before Nh 69725.

Similarly of Bismarck,. ... the Nh 69728 is not after the Nh 69727,.. but before :wink:


Ciao Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Post Reply