To analyze this, I captured the image, magnified it approximately five fold, and digitized 52 locations where coordinate lines cross. For the record, the data are appended below. (Assuming I located the crossings correctly to the nearest pixel, we should expect the errors to be on the order of 1/5 = 0.20 pixel: there's no getting around this basic discretization error.)
Because the meridians are equally spaced, parallel, and vertical, this must be the standard aspect of some cylindrical projection. The measurements indicate the y-spacing is inversely proportional to the cosine of the latitude; that is, y should be the integral of the secant function: this identifies it as some variant of a Mercator projection. As a check, regression of the y-coordinate on the Mercator formula (ln(sec(lat) + tan(lat))) works extremely well, with a typical residual error of 0.18 of a pixel on the screen. (Residuals appear random, are uncorrelated with latitude, longitude, or their squares, and exhibit no heteroscedasticity.) Comparing 0.18 to the expected error of (approximately) 0.20 pixel shows that's as well as one can possibly do with this image.
As a double-check, I created a small shapefile reproducing the graticule shown in the image, projected it with a Mercator projection (based on the sphere, with a standard parallel of 0 degrees), and adjusted the world file of the image to position and rescale it to match the lines of latitude in the projected shapefile. The match is visually perfect:

However, as is readily seen, 12 degrees of longitude in the projected (red) graticule span only 11 degrees of longitude in the original image. This indicates the Mercator projection has been expanded horizontally by a factor of 12/11 (approximately). Such an expansion still gives a valid projection, but the result is no longer conformal (which is one of the exemplary properties of the Mercator).
Note that this distorted Mercator is not necessarily identical to the original projection: especially over small areas of the globe, two different projections can have excellent visual matches. The analysis has established that a distorted Mercator will work well within the accuracy of the original image itself, and (most likely) only for features within the extent of that image. It also successfully rules out many other likely possibilities, including Transverse Mercator (meridians would not be equally spaced and would have to curve towards each other at the top and bottom) and Stereographic (which is conformal, whereas this projection clearly is not).
For those who would care to improve on this analysis, here are the measurements.
X Y lon lat
44.248 590.275 13 56
91.999 513.548 14 55
139.427 438.279 15 54
186.855 365.113 16 53
234.283 293.567 17 52
281.873 223.963 18 51
329.301 155.330 19 50
376.567 88.153 20 49
423.995 22.758 21 48
471.423 88.477 22 49
519.013 155.491 23 50
566.603 223.963 24 51
613.707 294.052 25 52
91.789 590.335 14 56
138.889 590.335 15 56
186.930 590.021 16 56
234.187 590.335 17 56
281.601 590.649 18 56
329.015 590.492 19 56
376.900 590.021 20 56
423.842 590.335 21 56
471.256 590.492 22 56
518.984 590.335 23 56
566.712 590.335 24 56
613.340 590.492 25 56
613.654 513.720 25 55
613.340 438.674 25 54
613.340 365.512 25 53
613.026 294.078 25 52
613.497 224.056 25 51
613.183 155.447 25 50
613.497 88.566 25 49
566.398 22.940 24 48
519.455 22.783 23 48
471.256 23.097 22 48
423.999 22.940 21 48
376.429 22.940 20 48
329.329 23.097 19 48
281.287 22.940 18 48
234.030 23.097 17 48
186.930 23.097 16 48
139.517 22.940 15 48
91.632 23.097 14 48
44.061 22.783 13 48
43.904 88.880 13 49
44.061 155.604 13 50
44.532 224.056 13 51
44.218 294.235 13 52
44.375 365.198 13 53
44.061 438.517 13 54
44.218 513.249 13 55
44.375 590.178 13 56