Bismarck firing procedures at DS

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:32 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:11 pm



POW and the 2 SHELLS :
This seems to be an improbably tight grouping to be from two 14in shells. I would expect a separation at least equal to the height of the splash.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:47 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:41 pm
Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

Yes I agree, … in fact the PoW smoke screen is to the right of the 2 fall of shot and not of the PoW under the German fire.

That in fact is exactly the way I read it.

What is important is the clear identification of the 2 PoW shells against the background, ... the impact of their fall of shot, … well separated from the PoW under fire from the Bismarck.

The last caption I have proposed is a bit more clear than the Busch one … :wink:

Anyway, … now all should be clear enough for everybody.


Bye Antonio
No, that's what your caption says:
FOBs.jpg
FOBs.jpg (43.21 KiB) Viewed 301 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:30 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

I see what you mean.

Bottom line, do you agree that on the fact that the 2 shells ( A + B on my pics ) were from the PoW and the 3 shells we can see falling very close to the PoW ( 1, 2 and 3 on my pics ) that was leaving the battlefield making her smoke screen are from the Bismarck ?

The obvious correspondence of this photo timing with the PoW gunnery map and the Prinz Eugen battle maps will do the rest of properly timing this photo as I already did long time ago.

Bye Antonio
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 )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:56 am

@Antonno
do you agree that on the fact that the 2 shells ( A + B on my pics ) were from the PoW and
I tend to disagree.
the 3 shells we can see falling very close to the PoW ( 1, 2 and 3 on my pics ) that was leaving the battlefield making her smoke screen are from the Bismarck ?
I disagree. In my unedited high quality version of the picture 1, 2 and 3 are totally missing.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by wadinga » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:52 pm

Hello Marc,

Can you please employ your familiarity with the subtleties of the German language to:
This is the original caption from the Bundesarchiv for NH 69731:
Die Hood ist gesunken (zwei Rauchwolken links). Die deutschen Schiffe feuern auf die schwer beschädigt ablaufende, schwarz qualmende Prince of Wales, hinter deren Deck Aufschläge sichtbar sind (Teleaufnahme)

The pop up menu says this is an original caption supplied with the photo, not something generated by an indexer later. Or worse still written 75+ years later by somebody with an opportunist/sensationalist book to write.


Hello All,

"leaving the battlefield"...……. wasn't Bismarck "leaving the battlefield" as well at the same time? Is there a standard size for a naval battlefield? Are there "linesmen" to identify when contestants are outside the field of play? Do you have to hold up a board with their number on when they want to "rejoin the battlefield" as Prince of Wales apparently did just a few minutes later? Is an American battlefield "bigger and better" as at Midway and Leyte Gulf?

The "battlefield" continued to follow Bismarck through the 25th and 26th. IIRC Bismarck "left the battlefield" vertically on the morning of the 27th.


This puerile campaign of defamation now pervades every utterance.


All the best

wadinga


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:12 pm

@Sean
The Hood has sunk (two clouds of smoke on the left). The German ships fire at the heavily damaged [and] sailing off, black smoldering Prince of Wales, behind whose deck impacts are visible (telephoto)


Yes, according to the pop-up it's the original caption to or on [probably the backside of] the picture.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:47 pm

Regarding the photo discussion, I would approach the greatly enlarged and highly modified images, and their associated interpretations by Mr. Bonomi (and others?), shown in Mr. Bonomi's posts on 09 September, with considerable skepticism. They are screened and highly modified images. The screening process itself, used to reproduce the photographs in book form, can -- either on purpose (to make the picture 'look better') or by accident -- both removes significant data and adds artificial artifacts which can often result in visual illusions. No amount of subsequent modification can remove these; the damage has already been permanently done via the screening process itself.

An unmodified photographic print, which has not been screened, is a much much better reference source. Although the print does remain somewhat interpretive, and is always to some extent an expression of the skill and intent of the photographer working on the easel in the darkroom (remember those?), it always remains much much better than anything that has been previously screened.

In this particular case, an original photographic print, or a high-resolution copy of the same would retain much more information than any previously screened image, which for detailed interpretive work is often essentially useless. Ideally, it would be best to locate and view the original negative(s) which hold, probably, three or four times the information content than a typical photographic print does. Examination of the negative(s), because they retain information on image scale, would also probably permit some fairly high-quality photogrammetry to be done. If someone knows if these still exist, and can examine them, that might move the this discussion forward considerably.

Has anyone done this, and does anyone know if the negatives are actually still available?

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:07 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote that you do not see the 3 Bismarck shells ( 1, 2 and 3 ) on your photo ... :shock:

NH_69731_3_Bismarck_shells_01.JPG
NH_69731_3_Bismarck_shells_01.JPG (113.97 KiB) Viewed 244 times

I have many versions of that photo ( IWM and BA ) including one original high quality scan photo taken from an original war time printed photo, ... including also scans from Otto Schlenzka and Hans Henning von Schultz originally owned photos, ... and the 3 Bismarck shells ( 1, 2 and 3 ) are well visible on all the photos, ... just as I showed you all here in too, ... here above.


NH_69731_enlargement_01.jpg
NH_69731_enlargement_01.jpg (54.36 KiB) Viewed 244 times


On 1943 publications those 3 shells are visible as well close to Prince of Wales, ... and nobody was editing or cropping anything on 1943.

Anyway, those 3 shells are not so important, ... because the important ones are the 2 shells visible on the fall of shot from PoW ( A and B ) landing close to the Prinz Eugen.

Now, please explain us all why you tend to disagree about them ? What is your problem here ? What are they according to you ?

@ Bill Jurens,

you are right, and this is the reason why I work with all original high quality material all the time I can, ... like in this particular case.

I have a lot of DS original photos like this NH 69731, ... including some never published ones :wink: , ... but I have never found the negative or the full PG film yet, ... because the one we see is the propaganda reduced and cutted/paste version of the original film.

Bye Antonio
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 )

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by José M. Rico » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:17 am

Image

If my opinion is of any value...
"Hood 1" is not a flaw in the print as has been suggested, however, it does not originate from Hood either. "Hood 1" is much closer to the camera than "Hood 2". "Hood 1" is in fact a single shell splash and it is also closer to the camera than the "2 shells" on the right.
Moreover, I believe "Hood 1" and "2 shells" belong to the same salvo directed at Bismarck from the after turret of Prince of Wales.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:24 am

Hi Jose,
thanks for your input here.
Interesting point re.Hood 1. I however doubt it can be a splash from PoW.
In the film and in the photos we always see white water column, not black. Also, the distance between the 2 splashes would be a bit too large (over 700 meters) for coming from the same after turret, even accounting for the "large spread" of the maneuvering PoW (at 6:03 PoW had ended her "hard turn" and started much smoother maneuvers anyway).


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by José M. Rico » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:10 pm

The difference is that the water column in "Hood 1" is still gaining height, while the 2 splashes on the right are already falling down. The "black color" that you mention for "Hood 1" is a grey shade on the left side of the splash but it is actually white on the right side (it just difuminates with the white background). Just like in the splashes around Bismarck during the 27 May battle (white on the left side and grey on the right side).

Image

One thing is pretty clear for me, "Hood 1" is not from HMS Hood's remains burning and has nothing to do with "Hood 2".

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:02 pm

Hi Jose,
Y2 and Y3 guns were out of action at salvo 19. Y3 was back in action only at salvo 21 (according to McMullen GAR).
Also, this shot is a bit too far from the other two if belonging to the same salvo.

Do you think it can be a high explosive 5,25" shell fired in local control by a secondary turret of PoW (according to Leach narrative, the HALA directors were all temporarily out of action or unable to take over the control at that time, but there is no explicit mention to a "cease fire" of the 5,25" battery.....) ?

Still I don't see why "Hood 1" should not be something burning (with a different, less persistent type of smoke than Hood oil's one) near the Hood explosion position as I can't see it closer to camera than "Hood 2".....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:23 pm

Hello Alberto,

Smoke doesn't blow upwind, it blows downwind. All the smoke in the photo blows downwind. Whatever Hood 1 is, it can't be a new kind of smoke that travels upwind.

Im Ersten Gefecht has a retouched version removing all the scratches and blebs but its still there and identified as a "Rauchwolken" smoke cloud. One of the different versions Antonio says he has, might throw more light on it.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by José M. Rico » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:38 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:02 pm
Do you think it can be a high explosive 5,25" shell fired in local control by a secondary turret of PoW (according to Leach narrative, the HALA directors were all temporarily out of action or unable to take over the control at that time, but there is no explicit mention to a "cease fire" of the 5,25" battery.....) ?
No, I don't believe it is from PoW secondaries, but now that I think about it, I'm wondering if it could also be a 8" inch from Norlfolk...
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:02 pm
Still I don't see why "Hood 1" should not be something burning (with a different, less persistent type of smoke than Hood oil's one) near the Hood explosion position as I can't see it closer to camera than "Hood 2".....
If "Hood 1" on NH 69731 were smoke from HMS Hood, there would still be some type of trace left on photo NH 69725 which was taken just a few minutes later exactly from the same spot aboard Prinz Eugen. On NH 69725 we can still see smoke trace from "Hood 2" (left )and "PoW" (right), but there is nothing remaining of "Hood 1" just as there is obviously nothing left of "2 shells".

Image

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:46 pm

Norfolk didn't open fire but if she did, she would have fired a salvo.

Post Reply