Oh well, here we go again, chasing the White Rabbit down the Wormhole.
that is totally incorrect, as 1) there are no railings in the "flash effect" (NH69730) photo
I never said there were any railings in the Flash-effect photo. Apart from an enigmatic observation on attribution, there was no response to the question which was: who thinks the muzzles in the photo are 4.1" ones and does anyone agree the barrels are in the horizontal ie stowed position, and is it likely therefore these are starboard side weapons which did not engage the British ship/s unlike the port side weapons?
If these are the starboard side weapons and they are in the stowed position, ie on centreline pointed forward, (the aft mount stowed aft) then the photographer is looking at about 30-45 degrees aft of the starboard beam towards Bismarck. This means PG is on Bismarck's starboard bow. Therefore PG has turned considerably more than a right angle to starboard from Bismarck's course. The only time anything like this is depicted on the Gefechtskizze is long after Bismarck has ceased firing, yet in the photo Bismarck is still firing.
The photo from Lagemann's collection which shows PG side railings at 90 degrees to Bismarck's heading, and therefore PG's heading at 90 degrees to Bismarck's heading, and thus disagreeing completely with Mr Bonomi's conjectural reconstruction is Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27
Original caption on or with photo:
Seegefecht des Schlachtschiffes "Bismarck" unter Island. Nunmehr richtet Schlachtschiff Bismark seine ganze Feuerkraft auf das sich zurückziehende Schlachtschiff "Prince of Wales". Wilhelmshaven; Herausgabe-Datum: Juni 41 PK: MPA-Nord Bildberichter Lagemann
Battle of the battleship "Bismarck" under Iceland. Now battleship Bismark is directing all its firepower to the retreating battleship "Prince of Wales". Wilhelmshaven; Date of issue: June 41 PK: MPA-Nord Picture reporter Lagemann
also www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/ph ... 69729.html
Too bad the Bundesarchiv can't spell Bismarck consistently, or maybe that misspelling is Lagemann's own authentic mistake, faithfully reproduced.
What Bismarck is actually firing at is a matter for conjecture, despite the caption/s, but the relationship between the two vessels, which, if shot with a standard lens, are apparently unnecessarily close together, is clear.
Mr Bonomi's map showing PG crossing at no more than 45 degrees from Bismarck's entirely conjectural track at about 06:08:30 is thus disproved by this single photograph. The idea that PG would execute an emergency turn across the flagship's bow, only a few hundred metres ahead, at 06:06:30 risking a catastrophic collision, merely so as to be a few hundred metres further from an already beaten opponent and then turn back onto the original heading by 06:09:00 makes tactical and ship handling nonsense.
However I believe Mr Virtuani is correct in one matter: I have seen no evidence Lutjens ordered PG to take up any position to starboard of the flagship. That she did so must lie entirely with Captain Brinkmann's own initiative.
It would be interesting if Herr Nilsson could make the other under exposed photo available in a more visible size.
I can confirm there are several "private" (usually lower quality) photos (not only this one), taken from PG, that confirm the use of different focal lengths (during WWII the "private" focal length was the standard 50 mm).
These photographs would seem to be being "witheld" in order to hamper the investigative work being attempted here. If they aren't being withheld, why can't they be reproduced? Mr Jurens may choose to give an opinion as to whether one can tell the lens focal length from a print, when one does not have access to the full negative extent, or any idea how far away the subject is.
All the best