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: 2063
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:39 am

Fellow Contributors,

This thread is about German photographs and where they indicate German ships were, relative to one another. Fantasy theories about why some British documents are not available are irrelevant and a mere distraction.
I totally reject Antonio’s thought that NH69729 shows the Bismarck bearing down on the Prinz Eugen at nearly a 90-degree angle. As I said earlier, this would close the gap between the two ships in only 40 seconds, which is clearly not feasible.
and later
Do you still claim that the Bismarck was coming at the Prinz Eugen at nearly a 90 degree angle? We can still discuss that concept if you want to.
This repeated observation by Robert Winklareth in 2006 was not challenged or contested by Mr Bonomi although it contradicted both his meticulously-created photo sequence/track and the Gefechtskizze.

My observations included:
Bismarck is heading directly at right angles to the rail. There are virtually no rails aboard the entire vessel (PG) which are at 45 degrees (or 90) to the centre line, to allow this to be a view looking aft.
No contention from Mr Bonomi just:
Now I think we all can say with a very high confidence level that Nh 69729 was surely taken midship as I said , between the catapult and the crane.

It shows Bismarck coming 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen beam on starboard side.
Prinz Eugen was sailing from right to left on course 270 degrees.
But he never scrapped his conjectural plan, which was contradicted by these photos.

All the Christmas 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 » Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:15 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "This thread is about German photographs and where they indicate German ships were, relative to one another"
..therefore, ask to someone, who felt necessary to express a totally unjustified "wonder" for the PG scarce documentation (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&p=85270#p85262), to speak about his interpretation of the photo (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&p=85162&hilit=228#p85162).

The only scarce documentation is from British side.
In alternative, try to counter this argument (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&p=85270#p85270)...


&: "No contention from Mr Bonomi"
Incorrect statement... again... for the third consecutive time.... (obviously this is intentional and provocative, but tolerated by the "moderator").
Antonio Bonomi cautioned Mr.Wadinga: "YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. " viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... t=15#p4026
...Mr.Wadinga obviously chose to ignore this, as he is "ignoring" now that Antonio's statement back in 2006 (with the 90° over-simplification to R.Winklareth) was written just to counter his "parallel courses" theory...


The "parallel courses" theory was proven wrong by Antonio, but at least Mr.Winklareth did the effort to propose something: again try to do the same effort, instead of insisting in your vain and sterile "demolishing effort", with no value whatsoever.


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: 2063
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 27, 2019 3:29 pm

Fellow Contributors,
This thread is about German photographs and where they indicate German ships were, relative to one another

And to do that a conjectural map of some sort is necessary. The problem is when there is considerable disagreement about what is even visible in the photographs, and when many of them are kept hidden, either honouring irrelevant promises to long-dead "owners" or as a tactical ploy.

(obviously this is intentional and provocative, but tolerated by the "moderator").
It is pure, biased, interpretation to say that because Mr Bonomi admitted
"YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. "
this irrelevant phrase constituted a clear denial of the assertion of right angle courses. Stating
90° over-simplification
merely not to be the "looser" in an argument, that would freely distort truth as a tactical ploy. There is no denial since this can also be true, indeed likely, if the ships are at right angles. The evidence is that he at last accepted the error in his plan and started trying to redraw earlier this year, to accommodate what is clear in these photos.

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 28, 2019 5:17 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "...merely not to be the "looser" in an argument...."
I bow in front of such a recognized expertise in defeats (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&start=2250#p84821)...

&: "...Mr Bonomi admitted: "YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself. "... "
Incorrect (again...
Antonio didn't admit anything, he cautioned Mr.Wadinga, who was lightly jumping on to the wrong conclusion (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... t=15#p4026).

&: "The evidence is that he at last accepted the error in his plan and started trying to redraw earlier this year, to accommodate what is clear in these photos"
The evidence is that Antonio realized that a single photo (NH69729, not the NH69730 we are speaking about here) did not match exactly his reconstruction, needing EITHER a slightly different inclination of one single track leg (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) OR just a slightly different timing only on his (confirmed) original 2005 track.

Mr.Wadinga left the above discussion, without adding any value to the reconstruction of a better map, therefore he will need to wait until 2022, when a new super-detailed map will be published by Antonio, addressing all residual "issues". As simple as that.


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)

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 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:31 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:17 pm

, therefore he will need to wait until 2022, when a new super-detailed map will be published by Antonio, addressing all residual "issues". As simple as that.


Bye, Alberto
Just to mention that "super-detailed" and "accuracy" are two fundamentally different things, where one does not automatically imply the other. In case of the Denmark Street battle, we can of course create very detailed maps but have little objective ground truth or quantitative error margins to assess the accuracy of such reconstructions.

Happy new year to everyone!

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 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:51 am

Hello everybody,
Northcape wrote: ""super-detailed" and "accuracy" are two fundamentally different things, where one does not automatically imply the other"
Correct observation.

However, Antonio's 2005 map was detailed and accurate enough to be "adopted" by everyone up to 2019 (download/file.php?id=3593) as the best possible one. :wink:

His 2017 map (only published in Italy) was much more accurate but not very detailed (download/file.php?id=2313).

We can bet that his 2022 work (published in English and German) will be both super-detailed and accurate....


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: 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 Dec 30, 2019 5:12 pm

Please do not attribute an endorsement which I did not make. Mr. Bonomi's work is valuable to be sure, and I am not attempting minimize that, but if you zoom in on the section depicting the actual gunfire action itself you will note that my depiction is significantly different than Mr. Bonomi's. This area, of course, represents the area of major contention, and from this viewpoint it would appear that we agree only in very general terms. Also, I made, and make, no claim that my depiction is in anyway definitive.

Bill Jurens.

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 31, 2019 7:43 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Please do not attribute an endorsement which I did not make...you will note that my depiction is significantly different than Mr. Bonomi's. This area, of course, represents the area of major contention..."
Your battlemap (pag.211, signed W.Jurens) is almost identical to Antonio's 2005 original (download/file.php?id=3593), except microscopic differences for the British tracks only: "this area, of course, represents the area of" minor contention, because (as the PG Gefechtskizze), PoW track survived. It would be interesting to discuss the minor differences in a dedicated thread....

The real added value to any DS battlemap is the lost Bismarck track reconstruction (see NH69730 attribution/timing actual discussion here): your Bismarck track is carbon-copied from Antonio's one.
More, the relative positioning of all tracks (including the wrong Norfolk's one) is the same as Antonio's one.



In your place, I would carefully avoid insisting on this topic here, just serenely accepting your "endorsement" to Antonio:
Obviously, you have fully adopted Antonio's 2005 reconstruction (my euphemistic wording to define what you have actually done: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=30#p84873 (both unanswered questions) and viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347#p84945 (significantly unanswered question 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)

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 » Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:37 pm

Gentlemen,
Here we are on the verge of a new decade on the KBismarck Forum. The most recent post from Mr Virtuani on this thread promises a continuation of the same environment he has pursued over previous years.

What is the opinion of our general membership on this point? Is this what we wish this forum to be known for?

Please make your opinions known. Don't be shy.


Hoping for a better 2020.

Byron Angel

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

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

Post by frontkampfer » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:03 pm

IMO-This horse has been wipped to death. Closing time.
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"

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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:37 am

Happy New Year to everybody!
2020.jpg
2020.jpg (65.03 KiB) Viewed 562 times

Byron Angel wrote: "The most recent post from Mr Virtuani on this thread promises a continuation of the same environment he has pursued over previous years"
Wrong :negative:
The last Mr.Jurens's post (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=105#p85288) is an insult to the cleverness of every objective person (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=105#p85290).
It's the credibility of the "moderator" role (after his actions against Antonio) that has come to the end, not this forum.

I wonder what Mr.Rico waits to answer my questions (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347#p84945) in public and (hopefully) to restore freedom to discuss (hotly but) very productively, as in the past, until the actual "dictatorship" started.


frontkampfer wrote: "IMO-This horse has been wipped to death. Closing time."
...however, in no other site/forum/board/social so many new documents/reports/letters/accounts/maps re.DS battle have been found and published free for everybody as in our great forum, at least until it was a free place.

Possibly, these findings annoy the ones who prefer fairy-tales instead of historical research and crude truth: they are apparently happy to give up freedom and truth in exchange for their "quiet living".

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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

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

Post by paul.mercer » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:22 am

Gentlemen,
i do not intent to get into this argument as I know nothing about the subject.
What I will say however is that we are entering a new year and a new decade and it would be a shame if the hostilities (for that is what they were) between certain members carries on into it.
Perhaps it is time to shut down this particular subject and make a New Years resolution to be less aggressive in our posts and respect each others points of view even though we may not agree with them?

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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:57 pm

First, my wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year's to all. Also, my thanks to the members -- and there were a few -- who have, over the past few weeks and months, taken the time to offer support and constructive commentary regarding my duties as a moderator, both in open postings and in the form of private messages. (I have replied, I think, to all private messages, but am not sure that these replies have been getting through, so if you did not receive a reply, that's probably the cause.) In any case, I am grateful to those who have offered support in any way. Thanks to you, moderating the forum is not an entirely thankless task.

I am sorry to see that some of the first postings of the New Year have returned to what can only be described as a belligerent and aggressive tone. For that reason, I have banned Mr. Virtuani for a two week period, leaving his last post intact so that others can see -- and perhaps understand --the reasoning behind this action. Should highly aggressive posts continue, I will be considering the imposition of permanent bans.

Quite a few members have suggested that this particular thread be shut down, but insofar as the majority of the postings recently have been at least reasonably cordial and constructive, and considering my recent action to control postings should alleviate the tone somewhat, I see no immediate advantage in doing so. There is no need to formally kill it -- presumably, left on its own, it will die on its own, due to lack of use and/or disinterest. New postings -- at least for the next two weeks -- need not be restricted to a 'one per day, 150 word limit.

Again, many thanks to all, and a Happy New Year.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:44 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Splendid, commensurate and informed action by Moderator, so let's concentrate our minds on the thread content. I hope all interested parties, with renewed interest and energy for 2020, will co-operate and contribute in the search for and free distribution of knowledge, which is surely the function of this splendid website.

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?

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 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:52 pm

I have had a chance to do a bit of photogrammetric work on this photo over the last few days. 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, either shooting through one of the airports or (somewhat less probably) the door. This would seem reasonable insofar as it is, in practical terms, unlikely that the photographer would have been allowed to wander the weather-decks at leisure during action. Too much going on for ‘sightseers’…

It appears as though the photographer exposed the frame through the airport at frame 88.8 from the mannschaftskuche on the Oberdeck looking more or less perpendicular to the centerline. If so, and 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. This seems very close, so I’m a bit skeptical about this latter finding, but present it ‘for what it is worth’ without further analysis, and subject to revision.

As always, further comments welcome.

Bill Jurens

Post Reply