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: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:05 pm

Fellow Contributors,

The so called "Flash Effect" photo catalogued in US naval records as NH 69730 and described in the following terms on this website:
This is the most well known photo of the battleship Bismarck and one the most famous of World War II as well. It was taken from the Prinz Eugen sometime between 0607 and 0609 hours. By then the Hood had already been sunk and the Bismarck hit by three 14-inch shells. The after turrets "Cäsar" and "Dora" are firing against the Prince of Wales in one of the last salvoes of the battle. Don't be misled, it's daylight but the flash of the guns led to the darkened underexposure of the photo.
at http://www.kbismarck.com/denmark-strait-battle.html

It has been claimed as "author" by Paul Schmalenbach in the Warship Profile series, "Courtesy of Paul Schmalenbach" by Baron Mullheim-Rechberg in A Survivor's story, The other Denmark Straits pictures, are Propaganda Kompanie Lagemann's work as recorded in the Bundesarchiv. (Schmalenbach cheekily puts "author" against these in his work). In Fritz Otto Busch's Prinz Eugen Im Ersten Gefecht published 1944 it is credited to Lagemann, but does not appear in the Bundesarchiv collection today.

This photo is reproduced in cropped form in John Winton's "War at Sea" originally published in 1967 with the following caption:
Bismarck firing at HMS Hood. This picture was taken by Yeoman 1st Class Fritz Bunsert in Prinz Eugen and it came to light in America after the war was over, when Prinz Eugen was on her way to act as a "guinea-pig" for the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll.


The photo was sourced from Associated Press.

When tracked through the AP website we find from the Denver Post, presumably February 1946:
A direct hit blasts the 5,000-ton German battleship Bismarck shortly before it sank in the Atlantic 400 miles West of Brest, France, following a 1,750 mile chase from Bergen, Norway, by air and sea units of the British Navy. This picture was taken by Yeoman 1/c Fritz Dungert aboard the former German Cruiser Prinz Eugen which is now at Philadelphia prepared to sail to the South Pacific where it will be one of the targets in the atomic bomb tests next May. Dungert says the picture was taken May 27, 1941, the day the Bismarck went down.
I consider the exact content of what the photo depicts to still be up for debate, but this attribution is so specific it has the ring of truth about it. Even the errors give some authenticity "5,000 tons" and "the day the Bismarck went down". Dungert is a German surname eg Max Dungert the impressionist painter of the Weimar Period. Or was the yeoman just a "chancer" claiming ownership of the photo to impress an American journalist? It is surprising that Bundesarchiv would get all the other PK pictures but not this one.

Whereas the PK Kompanie photos are correctly exposed, as one might expect from professional photographers, this example suggests it might well have been taken by an excited amateur on the spur of the moment. Paul Schmalenbach, as a crew member of PG and most prolific writer on her history seems to have been the conduit by which Fritz Bunsert/Dungert's snapshot reached the naval history world, although AP might have got the attribution correct. Fritz Bunsert or Fritz Dungert? Are there any records of PG which could tell us?

All the best

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:21 pm

Hi Wadinga,
Interesting indeed. A couple of thoughts .....

[ 1 ] I wonder if the difference in attribution surnames might have been the result of a possible misreading of German "Fraktur" typescript (also represented in German cursive script) which was in common use at the time. I recall from my schooldays that one had to be very careful when reading/translating it.

[ 2 ] I don't recall PG having been in company with Bismarck at the time (27 May) described by the Denver Post.


Byron

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:34 pm

Hello Byron,

Yes the factual errors
"5,000 tons" and "the day the Bismarck went down".
maybe undermine the Yeoman's credibility a bit or is it the newspaperman's error in recording what he was told? As we know this not a hit either, but let's not spoil a good story with facts!

Since John Winton cites AP as his source for the photo and that leads back direct to the Denver Post (possibly appearing in lots of newspapers through syndication) I think Dungert is probably the original, mangled to Bunsert at some later stage before it made Winton's page. As soon as the reporter wrote it down it would be in standard Roman characters but maybe he couldn't read his own writing! Maybe there was a crew list in "Fraktur" script, but the use of "says" implies the Yeoman was actually aboard the ship in Philadelphia.

The US Navy site says:
German battleship Bismarck firing on HMS Prince of Wales. Photographed from the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Other photos on the site have the same provenance recorded ie do not mention Lagemann or Propaganda Kompanie at all. They may have been attached to an onboard copy of the KTB which was handed over with the ship to the US Navy.

I have attempted sensible discussion in the past about what is shown in this photo and others which apparently show Bismarck and Prinz Eugen travelling on courses orthogonal (and like this one perhaps even further rotated) relative to one another, whilst Bismarck is still firing, but have been shouted down because this did not "fit" the "proven" solution. Or indeed what is depicted on the "useless" Gefechtskizze. Maybe we can have an enlightening discussion? Who will join in?

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:26 am

My experience has been that the attribution and pedigree of various photographs and film clips, in the absence of clearly identifiable visual clues in the image itself, tends to be somewhat problematical. This is true throughout World War II. Unfortunately, only a proportion of the photos presented as being from the Denmark Strait action can be conclusively and unequivocally linked to the action itself. The relative sequencing of shots that might have been taken during the action has also been interpreted in dramatically different ways by different authors, e.g. Mssrs. Bonomi and Winklareth, which tends to suggest, at least to me, that the exercise may reveal more about the interpreter than the subject itself.

I suspect very few, if any, interpretations could withstand close cross-examination as evidence in a court of law.

Bill Jurens

Algonquin-R17
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:40 pm
Location: Canada

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

Post by Algonquin-R17 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:48 am

Sean,

Just a question please, would "an excited amateur on the spur of the moment. " be authorized to have a camera aboard during war time and be able to use it during a battle? I believe that would have been contrary to the censorship policy of Canadian warships at the time but perhaps not the case for Germany.

Bill,

I agree that photographs should be able to stand on their own merit when cited as evidence and not require enforced persuasion to be accepted by knowledgeable individuals that express reasonable doubt. Such material needs to be asterixed as ambiguous.

Bob

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:07 am

Fellow Contributors,
would "an excited amateur on the spur of the moment. " be authorized to have a camera aboard during war time
No, certainly not, not under any circumstances whatsoever. Never. Ever. Impossible. Did it actually happen? Yes, frequently, on both sides and in all navies, often with the indulgence of Captains or senior officers.
I suspect very few, if any, interpretations could withstand close cross-examination as evidence in a court of law
Luckily this is an enthusiast site and not a Court of Law and as such it surely in order for us to be allowed to treat
one the most famous of World War II as well
in line with the claimed provenance unless there is strong negative evidence that it is not what it purports to be. The only time the Gefechtskizze shows PG on a course which is at right angles or more to the base course of 220 degrees is after the cease fire, yet this photo and others which are identified by Langemann show Bismarck firing when this juxtaposition takes place.

Unfortunately a dogmatic reconstruction has been forcibly and strenuously presented, which refuses to take account of PG railings clearly visible at right angles to Bismarck's course when she is firing, something which is also incompatible with the Gefectskizze timings. Several of the track charts presented by people who were there show a right angle crossing between the ships which must have been a memorable event for them even if the precise orientation is debatable. The Gefectskizze was described as "useless and worthless" which is an unbelievably harsh description by a senior officer to whom it was delivered as part of an official report, signed by Captain Brinkmann, unless he had very strong contradicting evidence that it was so. I consider these photos could be part of this evidence, as could the detailed artillery report, currently still missing.

This is where IMHO continued debate here could deliver some value.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:36 pm

Although I would consider the use of the word "discussion" more useful than the word "debate", I shall continue.

The historical utility of conventional photography might be seen as occurring in three phases, all revolving around what amount to issues of provenance.

The first usually considered, but probably not the most significant, is what might best be described as the 'testimonal provenance' of the image, that is the description, oral or otherwise, that accompanies the image when it is placed in the record. These might consist of written records stating that the image depicted a certain situation, was made in a certain location, and/or was made on a certain date and time.

The second issue revolves around the provenance of the image itself in its usually presented form as a black-and-white or color photograph. Although he probably did not invent the concept, the well-known photographer Ansel Adams often employed a musical metaphor, that being that the print as shown in a gallery, etc., represents only a performance, of which the negative is the score. The implication, of course, is that the print represents what might best be described as an artistic interpretation of the material represented on the negative. Having spent many years working in a conventional darkroom, I can attest to the veracity of this observation. In most cases, except perhaps in the routine processing of negatives from microfilmed written records, the object is not necessarily to accurately represent what the camera actually saw, but to superimpose upon that an additional layer of aesthetic (or perhaps political) interpretation.

The previous assumes that the image being recorded was, at least in principle, an objective depiction of what the camera actually saw. But this is not always the case. Hollywood, for example, routinely distorts reality by exposing film on elaborate sets that are in most cases intended, via various optical illusions, etc., to mislead the viewer into thinking that the inside of a warehouse near Santa Monica is really the inside of a pyramid in Egypt as seen 4000 or so years ago. In the case of movies, this is expected and represents part of the artistic experience, but few -- although I have seen it attempted -- would purport that a still image from a Hollywood movie actually might be taken as an actual depiction of the events occurring on the screen. One must be fairly careful -- and increasingly careful as digital manipulation of imagery improves -- to ensure that the image presented is not one more-or-less entirely created inside a computer. It would be, for example, quite easy now for someone to create and thereafter 'discover' a photograph showing Winston Churchill and Adolph Hitler playing golf together, and it might take considerable skill to be able to actually prove such and image was a mere concoction.

This leads us to the third issue, i.e. the information (at least in conventional photography) contained in the negative itself. The negative itself contains what amounts to the most objective depiction of the scene passing through the lens. Although some manipulation of the negative can be done in the darkroom during development, these effects are usually quite small, and can in reality only affect what amounts to the 'gamma' or contrast of the image, having no effect on content or geometry. But the negatives -- being the 'score' of the performance --can include a good deal of information which is potentially of historical value but otherwise normally hidden from one viewing only the print. Amongst these bits of information are the full extent of the image that was actually seen through the lens, the limits of which (knowing something about the lens used in the exposure) can, via photogrammetric techniques, reveal useful information about the physical geometry of the scene represented in the print. Although it is possible to reconstruct some of this geometry from examination of the print itself, the results are comparatively inaccurate and often unreliable. The second is that in many cases the original negative represents only one in a series, the sequence of which -- though not necessarily the exposure interval between frames -- is preserved, or at least recoverable. For example, the sequence of photographs taken on a single roll of 35mm film can be reconstructed by a reassembly, if such is necessary, of the series of small segments of film that were, after development, run through the enlarger. Further, the original negative sequence often includes duplicate or near-duplicate images which were arbitrarily discarded before prints were made from what was, at the time, seen to be the 'best' image in the sequence. Often, however, the apparently sub-optimal images elsewhere in the sequence contain information that, though not appreciated as being useful at the time, are actually more useful for objective historical analysis.

In that regard, before any elaborate attempts at reconstructing the Denmark Strait action can be considered definitive, it would be desirable to know if the original negatives still exist. If they do, they probably contain - at least for analytical purposes - probably an order of magnitude more useful information that the scans of prints typically shown on the internet can possibly provide. If they do not, then it must (or should) be acknowledged that the images themselves, though perhaps visually interesting in and of themselves, are of significant historical value.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:09 am

Fellow Contributors,

I am very happy to consider this a friendly discussion and very much appreciate Bill's exposition on photographic elements to be considered. I personally do not consider it is possible to accurately reconstruct definitive vessel tracks from these photos, whatever their provenance, however they are shuffled in sequence, reversed or whatever, and have spent many years and words saying so. What may be said is that some of the tracks presented are at odds with what the photographs apparently show.

The earliest reproduction of this photograph I have seen is in Ersten Gefecht 1944 when it is credited to Lagemann. This printed version cropped out the horizontal barrels of a gun mount adjacent to the photographer. Otherwise it is very similar to the generally-reproduced versions. This dramatic and striking image is one of the most famous photos of World War Two as is noted on this website. Would a photographic expert might be able to speculate whether this a correctly exposed image, deliberately darkened in the darkroom for dramatic effect or is the lack of detail indicative of a poorly exposed original?

It is difficult to imagine a propaganda advantage in darkroom manipulation of the image to make it look like night-time when all the other photos clearly show it was daylight. The flash effect is clearly a case where the exposure was exactly the right time to catch gun flash, and at a time when the two vessels were very close together emphasising its impact and so a poorly exposed original is worth using. We might further speculate that since there are no other pictures from the same location, from slightly earlier or later, this might not be an official photographer with unlimited access to film who can afford to be profligate in pursuit of the perfect shot and who might "bracket" exposures? Instead this anomalous picture looks like a one-off from someone taking a quick snap, without much skill or preparation, but hitting the shutter at just the right moment.

It would certainly be helpful if the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz could be persuaded to say whether negatives for Lagemann's photos exist from 1941. The online catalogue shows only a limited number of images, most of which are by now familiar.

I have not seen a reproduction showing a larger area of the flash effect photo than Mr Rico has used. http://www.kbismarck.com/denmark-strait-battle.html The horizontal orientation and perspective of the gun barrels lead me to think that if this is Denmark Straits as claimed, this is a 4.1" mount on PG. Since the port battery was manned and in use against PoW and this mount is obviously in the stowed position I believe it to be the forward or midships mount (which stowed pointing forwards) on the starboard unengaged side. This fits perfectly with the more than 90 degree orientation of PG to the original course of about 220 degrees which happened according to the Gefechtskizze after 06:14 except that Bismarck is still firing and she was supposed to have stopped at about 06:09. Either Bismarck was till firing when PG turned away through more than 90 degrees or PG made her turn before Bismarck stopped firing at 06:09. This timing incompatibility of the Gefechtskizze and this photograph is I consider of significant historical value, and is surely worthy of evaluation and discussion.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:24 am

Wadinga wrote:

"Would a photographic expert might be able to speculate whether this a correctly exposed image, deliberately darkened in the darkroom for dramatic effect or is the lack of detail indicative of a poorly exposed original?"

I don't know if I qualify as an 'expert' or not, but I have spent a very considerable amount of time in a darkroom, and taught photography for a number of years.

It's hard to tell if the problems in the 'flash image' result from a poorly exposed negative or a poorly printed positive image. If the negative is underexposed -- in old style photographic terms, "thin", then it will tend to print darkly almost whatever one does. What we probably have here, though, is a situation where the brightness range of the original subject was too high, meaning that in printing the flash part of the image could not be burnt down from pure white without overexposing (i.e. darkening) the rest of the image. As the lighting was probably relatively low to begin with, it's likely that the film was 'pushed' a fair amount in processing, a process which brings out some of the shadow detail at the cost of greatly increasing the contrast in the negative. Assuming the material was processed while still at sea, which would seem likely, the printer may not have had the skill, time, or material to do all of this properly. Credit where credit is due; even at best, by using a series of masking internegatives, etc., the process can be a very tricky one, and it's sometimes virtually impossible to get anything very visually pleasing. And, in chemical processing there is, in general, no way to give things a 'second try'. So, you makes your decisions and takes your chances on the outcome. No second-guessing, negative wise...

Of course without the actual negative at hand, and in the absence of a few densitometer readings, and microscopic readings to determine silver grain geometry, the previous can hardly represent more than pure speculation. It would, of course, be very useful to know if this image represents a single frame, e.g. as taken from a 4x5 plate camera, or one of a sequence taken by a smaller camera equipped with roll-film. If the latter, the position of the 'flash photo' in the sequence might give some valuable clues as to exactly when it was exposed. Typically roll film was not cut into single negative pieces, and one usually has at least three or four frames in a strip to work from. That usually means a total of four or five short strips from a full-roll sequence, and even though the strips have already been cut apart from one another, it's usually possible to reassemble them by carefully matching the cutlines, which are -- or were -- almost always done more-or-less freehand, with scissors.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:06 pm

Hello Bill,

From information freely provided by Mr Bonomi, and a picture in Erste Gefecht, we are fairly sure Lagemann and the PK people had movie camera(s) on a tripod and used the standard issue Wehrmacht Leica 35mm roll film camera for stills, as sophisticated/mobile setup as one might hope for in a combat situation. If a crewmember were responsible for this particular image it is hard to imagine he had anything fancier and more likely more primitive, although perhaps with a larger negative size, whatever the German equivalent of a "Box Brownie" might be. With a very simple shutter arrangement, compensation for under/over exposure would indeed be down to the darkroom and as the Capra shots on D-day show anything might happen in rushed handling in a combat situation aboard ship.

Your observation on matching short strips to derive exposure sequence is of course very valid, but only if the vicissitudes of war have preserved them. Within each image though, surely there is something to be interpreted/derived. Having seen the muzzles of the 4.1" mounts on Bismarck, do you think we are seeing PG's similar weapons in the flash effect photo?

Best Regards

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:27 am

I would consider that attribution problematical.

Bill Jurens

BuckBradley
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:29 am

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

Post by BuckBradley » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:36 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:26 am
My experience has been that the attribution and pedigree of various photographs and film clips, in the absence of clearly identifiable visual clues in the image itself, tends to be somewhat problematical. This is true throughout World War II. Unfortunately, only a proportion of the photos presented as being from the Denmark Strait action can be conclusively and unequivocally linked to the action itself. The relative sequencing of shots that might have been taken during the action has also been interpreted in dramatically different ways by different authors, e.g. Mssrs. Bonomi and Winklareth, which tends to suggest, at least to me, that the exercise may reveal more about the interpreter than the subject itself.

I suspect very few, if any, interpretations could withstand close cross-examination as evidence in a court of law.

Bill Jurens
I don't know Bill--are we talking state court or federal court?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3569
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 10, 2019 8:58 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I have attempted sensible discussion in the past about what is shown in this photo and others which apparently show Bismarck and Prinz Eugen travelling on courses orthogonal (and like this one perhaps even further rotated) relative to one another, whilst Bismarck is still firing, but have been shouted down because this did not "fit" the "proven" solution. Or indeed what is depicted on the "useless" Gefechtskizze. Maybe we can have an enlightening discussion? Who will join in? "
I would have joined in before, but I have been very unfortunately unable to post for a long while.... :wink:

The only "sensible" discussion I remember was about the "splash" photos (that are also part of the film sequence) here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526 and for these photos a conclusion has been reached (hopefully) forever for the absence of any argument raised against their timing (around 06:04).
Please see here the conclusions, in case of any residual doubt: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=45#p84777.



Coming to the "flash effect" photo itself (download/file.php?id=3588), all the credible (and even the just decent) battle reconstructions (called "proven solutions" by the above post author...) time it to around 06:08, because this is the very first photo in which we finally fully see the starboard side of the Bismarck, that means Prinz Eugen has crossed the course of her flagship already, moving on her starboard side for the first time since the beginning of the battle.

In case you have doubts, please, study with attention the battlemap recently published by Mr.Jurens (here posted together with Mr.Bonomi's one download/file.php?id=3593) and you will easily judge yourself when the photo could have been taken from the German cruiser...
If still unable to determine the timing, here an enlarged part of the "agreed" battlemap.....Already in 2005, Antonio Bonomi had timed it precisely at 06:08:20, as you see... just following the line to photo 19....

Flash Effect Photo_Timing-1.jpg
Flash Effect Photo_Timing-1.jpg (43.38 KiB) Viewed 234 times

Any doubt yet ? Hopefully not, despite statements like the following one:

"...Unfortunately a dogmatic reconstruction has been forcibly and strenuously presented ....which refuses to take account of PG railings clearly visible ...something which is also incompatible with the Gefectskizze timings " (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=85126&sid=f59663896 ... cb4#p85126)
that is totally incorrect, as 1) there are no railings in the "flash effect" (NH69730) photo and 2) the PG battlemap is compatible, very well explained and in agreement with all photos and film, as reproduced by all credible battle reconstructions (a work that someone else has not yet done himself here...happy just to provoke underlining the pretended inconsistencies of a largely agreed reconstruction (defined as"dogmatic"), just because extremely annoying : download/file.php?id=3593.)

Nobody has forcibly imposed the adoption of such a reconstruction to the "ones" who have recently published books: it is just the only possible (and best) one (up to now).

Please also refresh your memory here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424), when Antonio tried to analyse the most correct track of Bismarck vs PG and was left alone because nobody was able (or willing) to follow his reasonings. Everything will be explained and published anyway in the next Antonio's books.



"What may be said is that some of the tracks presented are at odds with what the photographs apparently show. "
The BS track itself has been reconstructed by Antonio (and widely "adopted" after 2005 by anyone...) only using photos and film: where the reconstruction, apparently considered the most reliable by everybody, would be wrong? What is the alternative ? Questions to which someone refuses to answer.....

For the time being this reconstruction has to be still considered the "best", at least for German and BC1 tracks download/file.php?id=3593 (because British heavy cruisers track(s) are evidently wrong).



"I have not seen a reproduction showing a larger area of the flash effect photo than Mr Rico has used. http://www.kbismarck.com/denmark-strait-battle.html ....This timing incompatibility of the Gefechtskizze and this photograph is I consider of significant historical value, and is surely worthy of evaluation and discussion."
I have seen a (possibly not larger area but surely) much higher definition version of the "flash effect" photo in the private collection of Antonio Bonomi, showing very interesting details that will be shortly explained by Antonio himself in his Bismarck books (after the Tirpitz ones publication will be completed) and that will further confirm the geometry of the battle and its reconstruction.... A pity that Antonio is not here anymore to provide for free to everyone all the related details.
The analysis of the PG AA guns would be correct only if the mounting was really in stowed position (that is not a proven fact) but, in any case, the photographer is NOT looking at 90° to the beam of PG, but much aft, thus the course of Bismarck (between 220° and 200° or even 180°) is around 100° to 50° from PG course (270°-280°), as at 06:08:20 of the battle reconstruction. There is no need to invent any strange inconsistencies or to speculate about BS having fired at 06:14.

This looks just the attempt to avoid to admit that the reconstruction itself explains almost all the battle evidences. A serious discussion had been already stared by Antonio and abandoned by everybody here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424)


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: 3569
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 10, 2019 9:05 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "....only a proportion of the photos presented as being from the Denmark Strait action can be conclusively and unequivocally linked to the action itself. ....The relative sequencing of shots that might have been taken during the action has also been interpreted in dramatically different ways by different authors, e.g. Mssrs. Bonomi and Winklareth, which tends to suggest, at least to me, that the exercise may reveal more about the interpreter than the subject itself. " (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=85136&sid=0d35f063a ... f24#p85116)
Fully agree with the last sentence, applicable to all the ones who have "drawn" a DS battlemap, indeed "revealing about the interpreter" a lot of interesting things....



& "I would consider that attribution problematical. " (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=85136&sid=0d35f063a ... f24#p85136)
The "flash effect" photo has been published by Bill Jurens & Co. in their last book (Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History) at pag.228 with the following caption: "This famous overexposed photograph of Bismarck was taken from Prinz Eugen after the latter vessel was ordered by Admiral Lutjens to take station on Bismarck's starboard side. The main battery turrets are engaging Prince of Wales at 06:04 after Hood had been sunk."
Apparently, no problem at all attributing the photo to the DS battle in a very recently published book.

Thus, easy direct questions for Bill Jurens now:

1) After having published the photo, why are there now (late) doubts about its attribution ? What has emerged new ? :think:

2) After having published (and signed) a very precise battlemap (pag.211 of his book: download/file.php?id=3593), how could he time this photo at 06:04 ?
As per "his" battlemap, at 06:04 PG was stationed on the port side of BS, both German ships firing their guns aft of their beam (while the photo shows Bismarck starboard side and firing fore of her beam...) ? :shock:

2) Where is the "order" (from the above caption at pag.228) from Adm,Lutjens coming from ? This "order" is mentioned also at pag.218 and repeated at pag.242, without giving any reference for it. :?:
I'm not aware of any source for this info, that would be a very valuable one, if true and not only an "authors' free interpretation"....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:57 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: 3569
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 10, 2019 9:18 am

Hello everybody,

ref. to this post viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85125
Algonquin wrote: "would "an excited amateur on the spur of the moment. " be authorized to have a camera aboard during war time....? "
I think quite many people (especially officers) had their own camera on board during WWII (my father had one in 1943) even without a formal authorization. Whether they had opportunities / were allowed to take photos of an action (my father was an engineer and thus he could take no picture of the actions at all from his action station....) and (in case) to "publish" them, is another story, but I think this famous Hood's photo was taken by a crew member of PoW on May 23 (btw, is anybody aware who actually took the photo ?) :

23May1941.jpg
23May1941.jpg (12.43 KiB) Viewed 224 times

Or was there a British kind of "Propaganda Kompanie" also on board of PoW ?


& "...knowledgeable individuals that express reasonable doubt..."
The problem is not in the word "knowledgeable" but in the word "reasonable": when doubts are expressed against any evidence just to deny the only possible and logical battle reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593), without proposing any decent alternative, then "reasonability" is possibly just "personal agenda" instead. Don't you think so ?

This is even more true when doubts are expressed (or supported) here in the forum only now by people who have published works in which the photos have been lightly used without any "caution" for what was written in their (evidently incorrect and contradictory) captions (see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85162) ....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:28 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)

Post Reply