A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:09 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Herr Nilsson has produced an excellent graphic example, I presume this is the midships starboard mount. However projecting the muzzle alignment plane to Bismarck still puts the ships at approx. 90 degrees to each other, not 50. Also it assumes deploying the unengaged guns but for some unexplained reason. Is the boat actually stowed here, here since blast damage would be inevitable? I see plans with clear deck ahead of the midship mount. If Yeoman Dungert is the photographer he will be near the forward mount at action stations.


HMSF said:
and the picture was taken from PG's port side with PG being slightly ahead and to starboard of Bismarck ?
Is there anything in the picture to suggest this? That is why I suggested considering the 5 points, rather than using preconceptions based on unreliable maps or preconceived timescales.
4/ Barrels are approximately horizontal re horizon?
Schmalenbach says the port side 105mm were engaging PoW. The muzzles in the picture are not engaging anything, their barrels are horizontal. The starboard side guns were not engaging anything and had no reason to move from stowed fore and aft positions.
2/ Plane drawn through muzzle ends aligns directly towards Bismarck?
Quite impossible if these guns were engaging PoW.
3/ Plane drawn through muzzles indicate photographer POV approx. 30 degrees "ahead" of muzzles?
If this were port side after mount in the stowed position (photographer has to be on the ship) PG and Bismarck will collide in approx 30 seconds. This did not happen. This is taken from the starboard side of PG not the port. Maybe I can develop some computer graphics skills and draw this to match Herr Nilsson.

All the best

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros » Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:40 pm

wadinga wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:09 pm
Quite impossible if these guns were engaging PoW.
It's difficult to know.
The total time in which Prince of Wales was inside the range of Prinz Eugen's 105mm guns was about 1,5 minutes (90 seconds). For the remainder of the battle (12,5 minutes or 750 seconds), the 105mm guns were not engaging the British ships. They were, however, engaging a Short Sunderland (don't know for how long, but it can't be more then half a minute, IMHO), and they were, presumably "tracking" the enemy ship(s), slightly before and slightly after entering and exiting their range. Overall total "engage" , "pre-engage" and "post-engage" time I estimate to be about 150 to 200seconds out of a battle total of 840 seconds.

PS: This bring me back to an old question of mine: did Bismarck use her 105mm guns as well ? (Prince of Wales is thought to have been at 14km at some point, so closer then she was to Prinz Eugen, which did employ 105mm guns against the British ship.)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:46 pm

Fellow contributors,

Ref the 5 questions - reposted by Wadinga - I do not know what to say about them, i.e. I do not have an opinion.
but an opinion based on an unknowable factor is stated with insupportable precision:
The total time in which Prince of Wales was inside the range of Prinz Eugen's 105mm guns was about 1,5 minutes (90 seconds)
whilst describing that unknowable:
(Prince of Wales is thought to have been at 14km at some point, so closer then she was to Prinz Eugen, which did employ 105mm guns against the British ship.)
"thought to have been"

Please Alecsandros, your knowledge and contribution is always valued but say what you see in the photo, rather than assuming other information is correct, and ignoring what is in the photo. You can start a separate thread about Bismarck's 105mm.

Schmalenbach describes flak units Bruno and Dora as firing at PoW (how does this relate to the six mounts?) former 68 nose fuse , latter 6. Jasper says 78 nose fused shells were fired against surface targets. HA firing by Cesar is only mentioned as happening subsequently. The mount seen in the photo has no elevation either for surface or HA fire.

All the best

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

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

Post by alecsandros » Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:49 pm

I think the image is to blurred to be judged correctly without further knowledge. They may be 105mm, 37mm or 20mm guns........
Because other mounts, such as the 2cm guns, also had a "muzzle bulge", and could appear in the photo.

Also, we could be looking at the 3.7cm C30 guns, with canvas on them (to prevent sea spray from entering the barrels. It would make sense for the 3.7cm to be still covered, as they did not have to fire until this moment in time).

IF they are 105mm guns, they may be simply from the third turret, the one that did not engage (my hunch being that it had to do with ship to ship geometry, i.e. that turret could not be trained against the target).

Best,
(and hope not to be to confusing)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:23 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Correction to previous post Dora fired 68 rounds Bruno only 6 rounds. Did the 6 mounts have individual names? PG's main turrets were apparently named Graz, Braunau, Innsbruck and Wien.

Schmalenbach notes the portside crews were sheltering on the starboard side until change of target to PoW.

These muzzle fittings are parallel sided in the photo, not flared like 20mm and 37mm and besides the spacing vs barrel thickness is right for the 105mm. However what ever they are, if they are horizontal they are likely to be fore and aft giving the same inter-vessel geometry.

Notwithstanding these points remain:
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 horizontal re horizon?
5/ If 3 and 4 accepted that this indicates photographer (because he has to be standing on deck), is looking at starboard side mount stowed fore and aft pointing forwards?
All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

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

Post by HMSVF » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:30 pm

wadinga wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:09 pm
Fellow Contributors,

Herr Nilsson has produced an excellent graphic example, I presume this is the midships starboard mount. However projecting the muzzle alignment plane to Bismarck still puts the ships at approx. 90 degrees to each other, not 50. Also it assumes deploying the unengaged guns but for some unexplained reason. Is the boat actually stowed here, here since blast damage would be inevitable? I see plans with clear deck ahead of the midship mount. If Yeoman Dungert is the photographer he will be near the forward mount at action stations.


HMSF said:
and the picture was taken from PG's port side with PG being slightly ahead and to starboard of Bismarck ?
Is there anything in the picture to suggest this? That is why I suggested considering the 5 points, rather than using preconceptions based on unreliable maps or preconceived timescales.
4/ Barrels are approximately horizontal re horizon?
Schmalenbach says the port side 105mm were engaging PoW. The muzzles in the picture are not engaging anything, their barrels are horizontal. The starboard side guns were not engaging anything and had no reason to move from stowed fore and aft positions.
2/ Plane drawn through muzzle ends aligns directly towards Bismarck?
Quite impossible if these guns were engaging PoW.
3/ Plane drawn through muzzles indicate photographer POV approx. 30 degrees "ahead" of muzzles?
If this were port side after mount in the stowed position (photographer has to be on the ship) PG and Bismarck will collide in approx 30 seconds. This did not happen. This is taken from the starboard side of PG not the port. Maybe I can develop some computer graphics skills and draw this to match Herr Nilsson.

All the best

wadinga
Is there anything in the picture to suggest this? That is why I suggested considering the 5 points, rather than using preconceptions based on unreliable maps or preconceived timescales
.

Only that I was trying to understand PG's course and direction in regards to Bismarck,that if the image was showing Bismarck's starboard bow then PG must have been on Bismarcks starboard side/PG's port side? I'm certainly not questioning your thesis,Im just trying to work out the relative positions of the two ships and their respective headings in my own head to try and understand the discussion.


I don't want to interrupt the flow so I'll disappear back into the ether!


Best wishes to all,


HMSVF

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:52 pm

The main problem(s) here seem to revolve around determining exactly what mount the barrels seen in the upper right hand corner belong to, and at what angle of elevation and train the mount in question might have been in when the photo was exposed. The difficulty, of course, is that there is really very little on the image itself that would enable this to be determined with any great degree of confidence. As before, examination of the negatives (should they survive) might shed some additional clues which would make a better determination possible. But as a start, we really have almost nothing...

There was, in the 60s, a song by Simon and Garfunkel called 'The Boxer', in which the words "All lies and jest! Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest..." (almost) appear. Truer words were never spoken. Having made my share of (a few rather egregious) errors in air photo interpretation in my younger years, I'm now much more cautious -- many might say 'excessively cautious' -- in my interpretations.

Bill Jurens.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:50 am

Bill Jurens wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:52 pm
The main problem(s) here seem to revolve around determining exactly what mount the barrels seen in the upper right hand corner belong to, and at what angle of elevation and train the mount in question might have been in when the photo was exposed. The difficulty, of course, is that there is really very little on the image itself that would enable this to be determined with any great degree of confidence. As before, examination of the negatives (should they survive) might shed some additional clues which would make a better determination possible. But as a start, we really have almost nothing...

There was, in the 60s, a song by Simon and Garfunkel called 'The Boxer', in which the words "All lies and jest! Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest..." (almost) appear. Truer words were never spoken. Having made my share of (a few rather egregious) errors in air photo interpretation in my younger years, I'm now much more cautious -- many might say 'excessively cautious' -- in my interpretations.

Bill Jurens.

Hi Bill,
Given the likely impossibility of achieving any sort of certitude, we are left with transacting business in terms of likelihoods. In the case of the pair gun barrels looming in the upper right of the photo in question -

What is the likelihood that they are the guns of a wing twin secondary turret?
> I consider the likelihood high.

Assuming 1 above is a lee wing twin secondary mount, upon what bearing was the turret likely to have been pointed?
> If trained upon either beam or near thereto, arguably no deck would have been present beneath the barrels of the guns to accommodate the photographer.
> If these are guns of a port-side mount trained astern, Prinz Eugen must arguably have been on a potential collision course with Bismarck.
> If these are guns of a starboard-side mount trained forward, which I by far consider most likely, Prinz Eugen must be on Bismarck's starboard bow and Bismarck is abaft Prinz Eugen's starboard beam or on her starboard quarter, and heading away from her ..... which would make the most sense from a tactical maneuvering perspective.

Another issue might be a reversed negative?????

If you can offer any scenarios which have escaped me, I'd be interested to know them.

B

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:48 pm

Fellow Contributors,
so I'll disappear back into the ether
No, please don't, remain and continue to contribute to this collegiate discussion before the looming Age of Ragnarok descends on us again.

Indulge me in my putting what is evident in the photo into context.

If what appears to me to be in the photograph is correct, then an observer, let's call him Yeoman 1st class Fritz Dungert, is standing by the forward superstructure near his action station on PG's starboard side, just forward of the forward starboard 105mm mount, which since it has no target is stowed pointing forward and horizontal. PG is running ahead, parallel and closer to the British than Bismarck. He can see Bismarck's port side on PG's starboard quarter much as is seen in the famous film. Suddenly PG sheers to starboard in a 90 (or more) degree turn turning right across the flagship's bows. Since the speed vector in the same direction to Bismarck's heading has dropped to zero as a result of the turn, the distance between the ships closes extremely rapidly as the flagship charges down on her junior which narrowly avoids a collision. Further aft on the starboard side, a member of the PK group takes an absolutely head-on shot of Bismarck blazing away on her port beam at PoW, coming in at right angles to PG's railings. But by the time the behemoth reaches that spot in the sea, PG has moved on. Dungert raises his camera to his eye (unless it is a TLR -Rolleiflex, Voightlander etc etc) and takes this picture of Bismarck's starboard bow. Since he is using a standard lens with a relatively wide angle of view (and generous depth of field) the 105mm muzzles appear in the photo on the right hand side. At the instant the shutter opens, by chance, a mighty flash illuminates the subject, saturating the film and in subsequent processing, a dramatic image ensues.

Moments later the ship swings back to port and since she has lost so much ground on the flagship, during this s-shaped turn, the Bismarck is between her and her target and so fire must be withheld.

Dungert's picture is not as proficient (well-exposed) as the professional shots of the PK team, but its dramatic effect ensures it is one of the most famous photos of WW II. Cropping out of the 105mm muzzles removes the vital information about position on deck in many publications.

All the best

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

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 Jan 16, 2020 6:16 am

I think there is a lot of interpretation for just one photo where only short parts of two barrels are visible. Of course it is possible, but as for other reconstructions, there is not really any hard evidence to make this possibility significantly more likely than others. Looking at the PE deck plan, I can't follow the reasoning why this can only be the starboard front gun and not one of the the port rear guns. Maybe I am missing something.

As with any underdetermined problem, it is very easy to find a fitting/valid model. But at the same time the significance of this model drops drastically. E.g. it maybe is interesting, but should not be used for any further interpretation or reasoning.

Just out of curiosity, what could have been the cause for this obviously risky manoever of PE?

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 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:10 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "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 horizontal re horizon?
5/ If 3 and 4 accepted that this indicates photographer (because he has to be standing on deck), is looking at starboard side mount stowed fore and aft pointing forwards? "
1) Agree
2) Very Approximately.
3) Approximately, ahead of muzzle orientation.
4) Approximately. It depends on mount elevation + photographer's POV.
5) Agree. However, the mount is not necessarily stowed fore and aft.


&: "My interpretation based on the five points is we are clearly looking at Bismarck's starboard bow from PG's starboard beam. "
Agree. We are looking at Bismarck's starboard bow, looking aft of the PG's starboard beam, with the 105 mm mount trained to starboard.
That's why this photo is perfectly matching Antonio's original 2005 reconstruction, as taken at around 06:08:20 (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait2.htm).
Possible alternatives are welcome while IMO "indeterminateness" claims or hypothetic scenarios without a complete reconstruction are much less and a sterile criticism of the accepted reconstruction is not at all...


&: "Dungert's picture is not as proficient (well-exposed) as the professional shots of the PK team "
apart from a "fantasy" attribution to Dungert of this photo, I humbly disagree: the photo (in its high definition version at least...) looks of a much higher quality than the others (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=15#p85175) and much better exposed (in almost all the others, with the possible exception of the "last salvo" one, Bismarck's fitting details are invisible and the ship is just a black silhouette, while here we see a lot of her).
Can someone post a better image of Bismarck taken during the battle ?
Was PK so "naif" to loose the opportunity of a short range shot of the "mighty" Bismarck ?
I don't think so....



&: "Maybe I can develop some computer graphics skills and draw this to match Herr Nilsson. "
Correct. I also suggest to everybody to try to develop also some battle reconstruction skill to match Antonio's 2005 battlemap, instead of just criticising the only good, complete and coherent work done until now.

There is not an alternative reconstruction, showing the instant when NH69730 was taken, the position of all ships and of the photographer, apart from this one (see image n.19 download/file.php?id=3603).

This above link should also answer Mr. HMSVF question:
HMSVF wrote: "Im just trying to work out the relative positions of the two ships and their respective headings "
at least according to all accepted/published/credible/etc.... reconstructions (download/file.php?id=3593), until we will finally see something better from someone else.


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
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 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:15 am

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "No, the mount could be turned. In case of ~50° to the right from its stowing position and the photographer standing near the railing behind the crane it would suit courses of 270° for PG and 220° for BS. "
Correct, thanks to Herr Nilsson for his graphic demonstration (download/file.php?id=3622), that represents one of the possible geometrical solutions, depending on 1) the mount exact training and 2) on the photographer relative position on the cruiser's decks.

It is exactly what I had already tried to explain here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=15#p85171 without being apparently understood.... my fault, for sure....


It's however surprising how the key sentence of Mr.Nilsson post has been lightly... ignored for days by his interlocutor instead.
Let me repeat it (loud and clear, my bold) to help its comprehension for benefit of Mr.Wadinga:
"if... it would suit courses of 270° for PG and 220° for BS".
Almost exactly like Antonio's reconstruction shows since 2005.



Also, it would be interesting to get an answer to the question related to flak mounts naming convention "Bruno", "Dora" and "Caesar" are mentioned by Schmalenbach....
Wadinga had written: "how does this relate to the six mounts? "

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
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 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:18 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "It would appear that if the image does indeed include 10.5 cm barrels in the upper left hand corner, and these are from the mount in question, and the mount is oriented fore and aft, then the photographer would have been just inside the starboard galley.... "
However, while the other conditions are possible/probable, in no way the mount can be demonstrated to have been stowed fore and aft.


&: "...assuming that a 50mm focal length lens was used (which would be typical for a 35mm camera of the period) this geometry, if extrapolated, would suggest that at this point Bismarck was only about 230 meters distant...".
Please, see the photo taken just few instants after (thanks to Herr Nilsson for posting a snapshot of it): download/file.php?id=3607
I think we had at least two photographers (possibly more) with different (cameras and) lenses on the starboard side of PG.
The "low quality photo", taken few seconds after the "flash effect" one (as the profile of the Bismarck is the same in both images) would suggest a quite higher distance than 230 meters.


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
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 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:19 am

Hello everybody,
Northcape wrote: "Northcape wrote: "what could have been the cause for this obviously risky manoever of PE? "
A second torpedo alarm was raised on board PG at 06:06 - 06-07, when Brinkmann saw a torpedo trail and the GHG reported torpedo noise. Please refer to PG War Diary (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip pag.21) and to PG battlemap (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif).


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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:51 am

Fellow Contributors,

Northcape's observation
Looking at the PE deck plan, I can't follow the reasoning why this can only be the starboard front gun and not one of the the port rear guns. Maybe I am missing something.
We now have agreement from several parties that the angle subtended at the muzzles appears to be about 120 degrees between the barrel orientation and the POV of the photographer. The left barrel is closer than the right barrel. If the after port mount were either stowed aft or even rotated somewhat to the right as Herr Nilsson showed for another mount, there is very little available range of rotation before the photographer has to be floating over the sea. PG's port 105mm were firing at PoW, Navweaps gives 17,700m max theoretical horizontal range at 45 degree elevation, these guns are not elevated.

Second, to be aft of the after port 105mm mount the photographer has the barrel blast of turret Cesar a few metres away to contend with = surely unbearable.

Third, if this any port side 105mm mount, and Bismarck is as close as Bill estimates, and we are 30 degrees off Bismarck's bow, the two ships collide in seconds- which did not happen.

Mr Virtuani has enthusiastically repeated:
"if... it would suit courses of 270° for PG and 220° for BS".
Without realising Herr Nilsson has not been able to repost an extended version of his drawing (as requested) in which a line drawn from the parallel muzzles to Bismarck at 30 degrees from her bows shows her course to be at 90 degrees to that of PG. This exactly unlike any of Mr Bonomi's conjectural tracks but this 90 degree crossing is shown in some tracks approved by those who were actually there.
Please, see the photo taken just few instants after (thanks to Herr Nilsson for posting a snapshot of it)
Information which might be derived if deliberately-hidden photos were actually made available is non-existent information.

Digressing briefly: Imaginary torpedoes/ screw noises had been reported several times that morning, and threads considering this in detail exist. With an enemy still over 14,000 yds away, requiring a launch at perhaps 20,000yds to get to detection range at this time, this report was just another spurious alarm over-reacted to in the stress of battle. The only person to "see tracks" was the person who gave the order for a "risky manoeuvre".


All the best

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

Post Reply