A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:05 am

to Mr. Wadinga writing: 'My point has always been that since such locations are a tiny fraction of the whole handrail environment of the vessel, if they exist at all, then the strong likelihood is that the vessels are at right angles to one another. It is illogical to argue that there is such a location, solely because the speculative scenario says there must be one.'

I possibly do not get the point. The location certainly exists because is visible in photo.
The statement that there are very few meters such chain railings is not relevant, because the very few meters with 2 third stanchions are actually depicted in photo posted by Mr. Nilsson, so many or few meters change nothing in this discussion. They exist and they can indicate the location of cameraman.
No attempt to find the location only to justify Mr. Bonomi map. The railings with 2 third stanchions are partially parallel to the hull and partially angled. If photo depicts a parallel section, then Bismarck is on a course perpendicular to Prinz Eugen course, as Mr.Wadinga believes. If photo depicts an angled section then Mr. Bonomi reconstruction is confirmed. The fact that the 3 third stanchion is on the right in photo points to the aft end of the angled section (place 1) and confirms the reconstruction with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen courses forming an angle c 50 or 60 degrees.
The parallel location fore of this one shows 1 third stanchion: there are other image confirming that they are not 2 third high.It must be excluded. Are you aware of other positions where 2 third stanchions are present supporting your geometry ?
I suggest to avoid polemic with repetition of the word 'speculative': we just completely disagree on that judgement, that is anyway very subjective.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:11 am

Sorry for my delayed answer. I was (and still am) pretty sure that the picture was taken on wheather deck, but Hans' proposed positions on the boat deck made me feel unsecure so I decided to trawl through my archive last weekend.

Some thoughts:
Place 1:
There were no railings and stanchions in the area of the motor yawl. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles.

Parallel:
There was just one stanchion and just the upper chain in front of the dinghy. What seems to be short stanchions are boat cradles. What seem to be chains are wooden strips on the hull.

Place 2:
Here I was unable to see a candidate.

In all three cases the boats would obstruct the view anyway.

However, I found another version (uncropped?) of the Denmark Straits picture. It shows two short stanchions and one is just a few centimeters away from a long stanchion.
file77zma1o8ibl1g3y71ktl.jpg
file77zma1o8ibl1g3y71ktl.jpg (28.31 KiB) Viewed 337 times
By a fluke I found one picture showing the position exactly .
short stanchions small.jpg
short stanchions small.jpg (48.67 KiB) Viewed 337 times
Regards

Marc

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

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am

Hello,
thanks to Mr. Nilsson for the clear photo. After you found it, I saw the same position, less clearly, in photo of Lutjens visit at Gotenhafen (see below).
Litjens-gotenhafen.jpg
Litjens-gotenhafen.jpg (7.76 KiB) Viewed 334 times
.
Place 1: vertical parts of boat craddles are inclined inboard. The visible 2 third stanchion is vertical and at the deck edge. The 'packs' visible in photos seem to me to be supported by a chain railing, present at place 1 (see below).
Place1_Railing.jpg
Place1_Railing.jpg (7.1 KiB) Viewed 334 times
Parallel: there is no dinghy in a slightly brighter photo version (see below).
Parallel_Railing.jpg
Parallel_Railing.jpg (4.18 KiB) Viewed 334 times
Place 2: I agree. No clear photo available to me.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:02 am

hans zurbriggen wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am
Hello,
thanks to Mr. Nilsson for the clear photo. After you found it, I saw the same position, less clearly, in photo of Lutjens visit at Gotenhafen (see below).
Well..no. The rope is wraped around a detachable rack. The stanchions are very hard to see in this picture.
stanchions.jpg
stanchions.jpg (24.41 KiB) Viewed 328 times
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am
Place 1: vertical parts of boat craddles are inclined inboard. The visible 2 third stanchion is vertical and at the deck edge. The 'packs' visible in photos seem to me to be supported by a chain railing, present at place 1 (see below).
On Rheinübung there was no stanchion.
boot small.jpg
boot small.jpg (25.71 KiB) Viewed 328 times
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:39 am
Parallel: there is no dinghy in a slightly brighter photo version (see below).
Yes, but there was one during Rheinübung.
dingi2 small.jpg
dingi2 small.jpg (10.43 KiB) Viewed 328 times
Regards

Marc

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

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 am

Hello,
thank you Mr. Nilsson !

hans

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:56 pm

Fellow Contributors,

To Herr Nilsson and Hans. Excellent, ground-breaking investigative work, gentlemen, conducted co-operatively in a model manner.

To confirm, we now agree the handrail section in question is on the Main or Weather deck, between the starboard midship mount and the crane, and is thus parallel to the ship's centreline.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm

If Herr Nilsson's photo shows the stanchions in question, I wonder if this might act as further confirmation that the 'flash' photo was taken either through one of the air-ports or the door immediately behind leading to the galley, which suggests an angle within 20 or 30 degrees from directly off the beam.

I, too am greatly encouraged to see the maintenance of a reasoned and reasonable discussion here. Makes me smile.

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 Feb 03, 2020 5:37 pm

A BIG DITTO !!!

This is a most impressive and satisfying example of the sort of progress possible to achieve through cooperative and collegial effort.
My congratulations.

Byron

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:21 am

Bill Jurens wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm
If Herr Nilsson's photo shows the stanchions in question, I wonder if this might act as further confirmation that the 'flash' photo was taken either through one of the air-ports or the door immediately behind leading to the galley, which suggests an angle within 20 or 30 degrees from directly off the beam.
Doors and deadlights usually were marked with a red ball. That means they had to be locked even at cruising stations. Furthermore the deadlight of the galley is locked from the outside. One had to unlock it from the outside before he could take a picture from inside the galley through an air-port.

The person who made the film sequence seems to be moving towards the railing. While we can see parts of the railing at the beginning we can't see it at the end ...even when the camera is tilting downwards.

In my opinion the pictures most likely were taken outside of the galley.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Hello Herr Nilsson. Can we be careful about terms film and photos? There is movie film of Bismarck taken from the starboard side of PG. Is there any suggestion that is from the same location? We have two "90 degree" photos identified by the railing, and the proximity of the 105mm muzzles to me suggests a similar location for the Flash photo.

I too, believe the PK people would have been allowed quite a lot of latitude in operating where they wanted to. Whilst Brinkmann may have liked to have kept them well out of the way of his fighting crew, visual combat propaganda was vitally important to the Third Reich and Goebbels had the influence to force compliance.

The alignment of the top chain and the horizon suggests the POV of the camera was down at chest height ie lower than deadlights etc.

Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course, and at a perhaps dangerously short distance before the cease fire at about 06:09? Or are there other possibilities?

All the best

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:01 pm

wadinga wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm
Hello Herr Nilsson. Can we be careful about terms film and photos? There is movie film of Bismarck taken from the starboard side of PG. Is there any suggestion that is from the same location?

I was talking about the movie film when I wrote film sequence. The camera is moving closer towards the railing during this sequence.

At the beginning of the battle sequence of the movie film we can see this garbage chute again.
Garbage2.jpg
Garbage2.jpg (14.65 KiB) Viewed 245 times
wadinga wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm
Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course, and at a perhaps dangerously short distance before the cease fire at about 06:09? Or are there other possibilities?
I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.

In my opinion Bismarck wasn't very close to Prinz Eugen.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:28 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Herr Nilsson has written:
I was talking about the movie film when I wrote film sequence. The camera is moving closer towards the railing during this sequence.
Agreed, in general the top rail is well below the POV in the movie and as time goes on the rail disappears out below the field of view, even given that the horizon moves up and down. The general shaking, jumping when PG fires and freedom to pan left and right eg when shells land suggests a hand held camera at eye level.

The question is whether the same movie camera rushed across through the dogged down doorways etc to the port side to film Hood's destruction or whether two movie cameras were deployed, one either side in similar positions and the edited film intercut later.

The two 90 degree photos align the top chain closely with the horizon and looking at the crowds on deck picture, this chain is at about waist level, not chest high. Therefore it is likely a stills photographer, perhaps kneeling for more stability, took these pictures.
I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.
There is no foreshortening or angular displacement between the lower chain and the horizon. Bild 146-1990-061-27 indicates PG is already very fine on Bismarck's starboard side having crossed her bows. Whether it is 90 degrees or 85 makes little or no difference, the course of the two vessels is very different.

The relative angular distance between the short stanchions and the width of Bismarck's hull shows she is "close" in ship manoeuvring terms especially for two vessels moving at nearly 30 knots. The rudder jam suffered later indicates why fast moving vessels generally maintain generous margins of safety with regard to each other. The famous incident when PG rammed Leipzig shows what can go wrong.

Plotting the stills' camera position on the PG deck plan may allow more to be derived from the Flash picture.

All the best

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

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:36 am

Hello,
to Wadinga writing: 'Do we all accept that these appear to show that Prinz Eugen sheered across Bismarck's bows, at about 90 degrees to her course'
It took to me some time to check photos. I disagree with conclusion, while I must correct what I said before. I also agree with caution suggested by Mr. Nilsson.
Upper railing in Bundesarchiv photo posted by Mr.Nilsson is at height of the camera, thus railing absence of inclination can not prove any inclination of cameraman versus ship centerline .
2 third railing, only slightly below the upper one, is inclined 2° to horizon (optical effect that it is parallel is due merely to horizon not being perfectly horizontal in image). Thus cameraman may well be looking aft.
An opposite but not much different inclination of less than 3° is present, once corrected horizon inclination, in NH69724. In NH69724 the cameraman is surely looking 20° fore of the beam for battle geometry at Hood explosion time. Railing is much more far from lens in NH69724 and cameraman point of view is much higher than railings, not at level of railing. Optical effect suggests more inclination but, once aligned the horizon, the two photos are not different (but opposite) for railings inclination if measured with goniometer.
Photo from Bundesarchiv could have been taken with cameraman looking 20 to 40° aft, and thus Bismarck can be on a course not perpendicular to Prinz Eugen.


hans
Last edited by hans zurbriggen on Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:38 am

Hello,
to Mr. Nilsson writing: 'The person who made the film sequence seems to be moving towards the railing ':
I do not think movie (film) camera could be moved in any way during sequence. Afaik it was mounted on pedestal and quite bulky: it could only be elevated and trained by operator but only moved while not operated.
To me, shaking was due to roll, pitch and own gun fire, affecting operator control of bearing and elevation, not to the camera being moved in position.

hans

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:04 am

@wadinga
wadinga wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:28 pm

The two 90 degree photos align the top chain closely with the horizon and looking at the crowds on deck picture, this chain is at about waist level, not chest high. Therefore it is likely a stills photographer, perhaps kneeling for more stability, took these pictures.
Possibly...or the camera has a waist-level-finder.
wadinga wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:28 pm
I'm extremly cautious about this. The chains are close to eye-level. I think a lot of information about inclination is lost in these pictures.
There is no foreshortening or angular displacement between the lower chain and the horizon. Bild 146-1990-061-27 indicates PG is already very fine on Bismarck's starboard side having crossed her bows. Whether it is 90 degrees or 85 makes little or no difference, the course of the two vessels is very different.
At the beginning of the movie Bismarck has a relative bearing of - let's say - 120°. It seems that the ships are moving almost parallel until Bismarck seems to turn towards Prinz Eugen. That means at the same speed there is not very much change of the relative bearing.
However, there is a still with railings which is also part of the movie film. Using the railings for determining the relative bearing leads to about 90°.

That's why I think a lot of information about inclination (or better relative bearing) is lost in these pictures and that's why I'm cautious.
Attachments
Railing1.jpg
Railing1.jpg (35.69 KiB) Viewed 202 times
Regards

Marc

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

Post Reply