A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by northcape » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:24 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:26 am

Q.E.D.: even physical objects shapes cannot be accepted as a "fact"(download/file.php?id=3611, download/file.php?id=3612).... no surprise the "regrettable aftermath" of the Bismarck operation is indigestible for "someone".
You don't have the physical (3D) object to examine its shape. You have a digitized 2D image of a very blurry photograph of the physical object. Please try to understand this fundamental difference.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:35 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:40 am

@Byron and northcape

In regard of A turret:
Looking at the aft turret top slope of B and just copying the contour and place it on A, it fits perfectly. However I'm accepting that you consider my interpretation as speculation. Conversely, A turret pointing forward or trained 30-45°are also just interpretations, aren't they? Given these 3 different possible interpretations, which one is most likely, if you are fighting a battle?

Hi Marc,
Please do not misunderstand me - I now agree with your assessment that all four turrets must have been uniformly trained to port. The reason I chose to investigate the image via (admittedly crude) trigonometric means relates to the resolution (or "irresolution") of my ten year old monitor; I simply was unable to see what you were describing as present in your images. The trigonometry (assuming I have approached it correctly), however, bears out your conclusion/interpretation. If you have read my previous posts on this point, I hope you will see that I have tried to be careful to avoid making any claims that my impression/interpretation must be accepted as anything more than that.

Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and healthy holiday season.

Byron

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:16 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Participants are reminded that 'emojis' -- which in technical conversation add little or nothing to content -- are to be avoided."
Emojis are a standard feature of the forum, like bold, underline, fonts, etc... If you don't like, please, ask Mr.Rico to remove them from his website. Luckily, you don't have yet any "power" to impose also your writing style...

Byron Angel admitted: "I now agree with your assessment that all four turrets must have been uniformly trained to port."
Fair enough.
While, instead, Northcape insisted: "You don't have the physical (3D) object to examine its shape. You have a digitized 2D image of a very blurry photograph of the physical object. Please try to understand this fundamental difference."
...but I know the physical object...: "A" turret/barrels cannot have this appearance/length in any blurry photo if trained fore and aft, when seen from this perspective. A fact. We can only discuss whether A turret is trained -10° or +3° from the beam.

Nh69730_comp_2.jpg
Nh69730_comp_2.jpg (33 KiB) Viewed 580 times

Please, have you finally understood "this fundamental difference", or will you still insist in your evaluation error(s) ?




Of course, having no credible alternative whatsoever for PG own track and BS reconstructed track accepted/adopted/published by everybody, including our "moderator" (download/file.php?id=3593), "following" Antonio's original work, the photo can only be timed at ~06:08:20.

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: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:40 am

Fellow Contributors,

Back in 2006 Mr Bonomi wrote:
Consequently, those 2 photos ( Nh 69729 and the previous one ) could have been taken only from midship.
From an area with foldable railings between the first and the last 105 mm flak each side of the Prinz Eugen.

Bismarck is coming at almost 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen midship as the photos shows.
The last sentence is perfectly clear, but the evidence was tactically ignored for years. Later in a concerted campaign, invented tracks for other ships were added, but the fundamental flaws remained. Redrawing started in March this year, but fiddling with Bismarck's track whilst respecting the Gefechtskizze for PG could not reconcile Bismarck firing broad on her beam in "Nh 69729 and the previous one" and his own conclusions about PG's heading from those photos. He had not realised what Vice-Admiral Schmundt knew in 1941, the only
subsequent Cover-Up and the "Fairy-Tale"
was the Gefechtskizze itself. Photos to be kept “secret” for 80 years? Why?

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:44 am

Hello everybody,
"back in 2006 Mr Bonomi wrote" to Wadinga: "YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. "
while Mr.Wadinga insists to post only the over-simplification conclusion to Winklareth (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... t=30#p4243), ignoring Antonio's cautioning for himself (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... t=15#p4026)...

Anyway, Antonio's reconstructions (download/file.php?id=3593 , download/file.php?id=2313) up to 2017 are available for everyone to see whether his courses were crossing at 90°.... Where is Mr:Wadinga reconstruction ?

In 2019 Antonio started to discuss either a possible adjustment of the track (very slight refinement anyway...download/file.php?id=3416) OR simply a different timing for the NH69729 photo. Where was Mr.Wadinga ? Disappeared....

&: "He had not realised what Vice-Admiral Schmundt knew in 1941, the only subsequent Cover-Up and the "Fairy-Tale" was the Gefechtskizze itself."
Gefechtskizze (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) is clearly wrong for British tracks and Schmundt (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg003.html see par.4.c) asked to check with TS range plot for their position relative to PG ONLY, despite Mr.Wadinga attempt to deny it as an evidence... :negative:

We all know which was the "regrettable aftermath" (thanks to S.Roskill) of this battle....


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:29 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:44 am
In 2019 Antonio started to discuss either a possible adjustment of the track (very slight refinement anyway...download/file.php?id=3416) OR simply a different timing for the NH69729 photo.

Is this meant to imply that some degree of uncertainty still endures after more than a decade of study, analysis and investigation?
What's the word I am seeking? Oh yes - "Indeterminateness".

Byron

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:18 pm

Fellow Contributors,
Where was Mr.Wadinga ? Disappeared....
Mr Wadinga got fed up with playing poker with someone who kept gloating over the secret cards in his hand, and started adjusting Bismarck's course by plus or minus 20 degrees, without allowing others to see all the evidence as to whether this was valid or not.
The photos I have of this battle are many more than the ones showed on the map.
For obvious reasons we selected the better ones to be printed.
Some are out of private archives and I cannot use or post them too.
This was Antonio conveniently claiming also to be bound by promises over "private archives" of men long dead and beyond caring.
Consequently, those 2 photos ( Nh 69729 and the previous one ) could have been taken only from midship.
From an area with foldable railings between the first and the last 105 mm flak each side of the Prinz Eugen.

Bismarck is coming at almost 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen midship as the photos shows.
Addressed to "Marc, Wadinga and Bob". Both Bob and I had repeatedly said Bismarck was at right angles, he because he didn't believe it, I because i did. Nowhere did Antonio contradict this statement....because he believed it too.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:35 pm

It has always struck me as odd that the track charts of the battle from the German side seem to be so poorly recorded. Bismarck's were, of course, lost with the ship, and on the British side, the loss of relevant records, and the need for some reconstruction is understandable, but records aboard P.E. should have remained intact, and there were any number of observers on the bridge and above deck who could (or should) have been able to describe the maneuvers in some detail even from memory.

But this does not seem to have been done, and one wonders why not'?

Bill Jurens.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by HMSVF » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:47 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:35 pm
It has always struck me as odd that the track charts of the battle from the German side seem to be so poorly recorded. Bismarck's were, of course, lost with the ship, and on the British side, the loss of relevant records, and the need for some reconstruction is understandable, but records aboard P.E. should have remained intact, and there were any number of observers on the bridge and above deck who could (or should) have been able to describe the maneuvers in some detail even from memory.

But this does not seem to have been done, and one wonders why not'?

Bill Jurens.

Are they originals or reproductions?How many official documents are the bona fide? How much was destroyed,what was lost? My understanding is that the Japanese destroyed a vast amount of intelligence and information in 1945.Whilst we have many, many German sources how much was lost and why?

The problem with all these conversations is that this who were involved are now dead and their memoirs have been split into 2 camps - believable or non believable depending on who wants to prove what.Of course in addition to the whether they are valid or not you have the fallibility of human memory. Of course this isn't sexy. Nobody wants to hear that. It's about what the penetration of a 15 inch shell would be at 15000 yards, it's about heroes and villains where the dead have no right to reply. IMHO their stories are more interesting than the cold figure that KGV had 14 inches of armour over her machinery spaces.They knew their weapons inside out.They knew their trade. They knew the "rules of the game". They had the Mk1 eyeball, a rudimentary radar, but no Mk1 retroscope.


I bow to the vast experience on here but war is a human event. It's never clean, its never precise and it rarely ends in absolutes. The events argued on these boards occurred at the backend of the analogue age. Today we can map to the nearest centimetre and the nearest second. Back in 1941 it was a bloke,a protractor and a clock.

Whilst being under enemy fire.


They did a reasonable job, but not precise as many would wish. Innes Mccartney not long ago mapped the Jutland wrecks and tallied them against the Harper report. Harper didn't do too badly.

Then again he wasn't expected 90 years on to produce a battle chart or map with digital precision . Some wrecks were roughly where they should be, others like HMS Indefatigable were out.

Not that it made much difference to the 1000 odd who died on her.



Merry Christmas gentleman.


HMSVF

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:07 pm

For the sake of the record, although HMSVF's posting is well over the 150 word limit, as he posts infrequently and the content is non-inflammatory, rather than truncate, I have chosen to let the post stand as written.

Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3973
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by dunmunro » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:27 am

Here's a 3D model of Bismarck:

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/bismarc ... ea5589506b

The position of Anton turret to the twin stanchions (bollards) on the starboard side abreast Anton are key to interpreting the turret's training. We can see from the 3D model that the 38cm barrels can have the same staggered effect (near barrel apparently longer) even when the turret is trained forward (on the centre line).

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:28 am

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Is this meant to imply that some degree of uncertainty still endures after more than a decade of study, analysis and investigation? "
of course, yes. Antonio's 2005 reconstruction was the best possible (later adopted by everybody...download/file.php?id=3593), but it's not the final one.
In 2017 it was corrected (NF and SF were correctly positioned) and further refinements will come in 2022.... just be patient... as you were not kind enough to politely ask Antonio to explain you which ones, preferring to support , personal attacks against him.


Wadinga wrote: "Nowhere did Antonio contradict this statement....because he believed it too"
simply intentionally wrong.
Antonio Bonomi cautioned Mr.Wadinga: "YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. "
...but Wadinga preferred to ignore this instead...


Bill Jurens wrote: "records aboard P.E. should have remained intact, and there were any number of observers on the bridge and above deck who could (or should) have been able to describe the maneuvers in some detail even from memory.....one wonders why not'?"
PG track is very precise, detailed and "intact": no blood excuse on it.
Some other PG original documents may be just a bit more difficult to be located due to the war end consequences for Germany…

Astonishing is that the same PG detail is not available for Norfolk and Suffolk: ask yourself why....


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:42 pm

I'm not astonished. Norfolk and Suffolk were so peripherally involved -- one might fairly say that they did not participate in the main engagement at all -- I don't think anyone considered the resultant track charts, if any were ever formally prepared to begin with, worth keeping. Testimony at the Hood inquiries suggests that only rather informal recollections remained.

Bill Jurens.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:53 am

"Astonishing is that the same PG detail is not available for Norfolk and Suffolk: ask yourself why...."

Easy answer - Examination of ANY battle, naval or otherwise, will inevitably turn up a plethora of missing, misleading and erroneous documentation and it is a fair bet that a respectable portion of the information present will be conflicting, misleading or erroneous in one way or another. This is one of the sorrows of the historian. To assert that it represents evidence of a conspiracy requires a very great deal more convincing proof than has so far been proffered here.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:13 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Norfolk and Suffolk were so peripherally involved -- one might fairly say that they did not participate in the main engagement at all..."
Correct: they didn't participate to the main battle, despite being both able to do so...
I would not say they were "peripherally involved": they both shadowed Germans during the whole night. Suffolk even opened fire at 06:20.... However details re. their operation are extremely reduced...

Byron Angel wrote: "To assert that it represents evidence of a conspiracy requires a very great deal more convincing proof than has so far been proffered here"
If you need more "convincing proofs" than Tovey's despatches points 17 & 19, I can honestly do nothing for you...


Incontrovertible fact anyway: the plots of both Norfolk and Suffolk are missing today despite they were produced and SF ones were even destined to be an integral part of the final operation report package but were never seen...

Suffolk_TP_1.jpg
Suffolk_TP_1.jpg (22.2 KiB) Viewed 363 times

Prinz Eugen battlemap has luckily survived the war, instead...


In conclusion, Mr.Jurens "wonder" for the lack of information coming from PG is totally unjustified: British side information (for some ships) is much less (and much more contradictory too...).


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)

Post Reply