Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

[Mera A Firewing]

Something I've recently thought about is that, due to the increase in displacement, the new battleship may require more power.
For reference, the 1914 battleship Agincourt had a normal displacement of 27,500 long tons (and a maximum of 30,900 long tons), with a power of 40,100 horsepower and 4 propellers and a speed of 22.4 knots. And the Rivadavia battleships of 1914/15 had a normal displacement of 28,000 long tons (and a maximum of 32,000 long tons), with a power of 40,900 horsepower and 3 propellers and a speed of 22.6 knots.
This new vessel should surely have the same speed, but as it increases its size and displacement (normally around 30,000 long tons), then it would need to generate more power. What I would suggest is adding a fourth engine and a fourth propeller, to reach a power of around 50,000 horsepower and a speed greater than 22.5 knots. And also enlarge the funnels a little. For more precise numbers, Springsharp or similar calculators are required (which I don't use unfortunately).

Okay.

 

[COLDOWN]

Well I just did a publication on facebook, so I wanted to share the general idea here too.

[En] “Design No. 1124”. Cruisers for Argentina and Venezuela



On this occasion I wanted to show you the Vickers-Armstrong cruiser “Design No. 1124” that was offered to the Argentine Navy in 1947.
Unfortunately Norman Friedman's writing in “British Cruisers. Two World Wars and After” and David Murfin’s interpretation in “Directory of British Cruiser Designs. 1860-1960” have caused readers to fall into a confusion in which historical and technical details of the potential ships resulting from the Vickers-Armstrong negotiations with the Argentine and Venezuelan Navies are mixed.
Below I will try to contribute to the understanding of the cruiser “Design No. 1124”.

This “stock” design belongs to a set that was presented around April 1947 for the new Argentine Naval Plan that included aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and other ships, as well as the standardization of weapons and equipment.
“Design No. 1124” was a large light cruiser, similar to the North American Brooklyn class, but with more modern features and equipment. The maximum displacement is 13,700 long tons, its maximum power is 80,000 horsepower and its maximum speed is 30.5 knots. The main armament is twelve 152mm and the secondary armament is twelve 120mm. The heavy machine guns are 40mm and the light ones are 20mm. The belt protection is 94 millimeters and the deck is 50 millimeters. Radar, fire target and other equipment would combine American and British technologies.

Friedman's description of the alleged weaponry is as follows:

• Main armament: 12 (4x3) 152mm (6 inches) Vickers-Armstrong Mark XIII type in Mark XXIV mounting.
• Secondary armament: 12 (6x2) 120mm (4.7 inches) Bofors.
• Anti-aircraft weapons: 8 (4x2) 40mm Bofors type in Mark V mounting and 12 (6x2) 20mm Oerlikon type.

From complementary sources (such as “Warship 1996”) we learn that:

• Main armament: supposedly the RP 10 mount, with an elevation of 70 degrees for anti-aircraft capability, 50.8 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 6 to 8 rounds per minute.
• Secondary armament: supposedly the Bofors Model 1942, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 23.5 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute.
• Anti-aircraft weapons: supposedly the RP 50 and the Boffin.

The certainties of the armament are not properly stated, as we can understand this from the “stock” condition of this offer. However, in Friedman's publication the scheme presented here is called interchangeably “Design No. 1124” and “Design No. 1124A”, which is an error that carried over to Murfin's publication as well. And that other publishers, like the undersigned author of posts on the “Reporte de Batalla” blog, have reproduced.

Because other researchers have brought us the plans of the “1124A” and “1124B” (respectively with two internal variants given by the distribution and protection of the machinery), both offered to the Argentine Navy, we can verify that the characteristics and schemes Both designs are similar, but are not identical to the “1124”.
I repeat, "1124", "1124A" and "1124B" are not the same Design.

As at this moment I want to emphasize the “Design No. 1124” only, then I do not want to go into the particularities of the “1124A” and “1124B”, although I would like to make some comparisons to the general characteristics:

• Dimensions: The “1124” with a maximum length of 185 meters (606 feet) and a maximum beam of 20 meters (65 feet) is smaller than the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants. (respectively with a maximum difference of 7 and 1 meters).
• Displacement: The “1124” with a maximum displacement of 13,700 long tons is lighter compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (by 800 to 1,500 long tons).
• Mobility: The “1124” with a power of 80,000 horsepower and a speed of 30.5 knots has a lower circulation capacity compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (respectively by 20,000 and 1.5 knots).
• Protection: The “1124” with a belt protection of 94 millimeters and the deck of 50 millimeters has a slightly lower defense compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (in the first case due to 6 millimeters).
• Main armament: The “1124” with 12 (4x3) 152mm (6 inches) has the same number of cannons. But both the “1124A” and the “1124B” are of the Vickers-Armstrong Mark W type in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 70 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 45.4 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute (these are the same cannons as the cruiser “La Argentina”, now improved for anti-aircraft capacity and with a greater rate of fire).
• Secondary armament: The “1124” with 12 (6x2) 120mm (4.7 inches) has the same number of cannons. But in the “1124A” it is the Vickers-Armstrong Mark IX* type in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 22.7 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute ( They are the same cannons as the “Buenos Aires” destroyers, now improved for anti-aircraft capacity and with a greater rate of fire). And but in the “1124B” it is 20 (10x2) 88mm type Vickers-Armstrong “Design 44,690” in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capability (they would have been a novelty).
• Anti-aircraft weapons: The “1124” with 8 (4x2) 40mm Bofors type and 12 (6x2) 20mm Oerlikon type has a lower general anti-aircraft capacity. The “1124A” has 14 (4x2+6x1) 40mm Bofors type. And the “1124B” has 6 (6x1) 40mm Bofors type, which combine at 88mm.

The following is worth mentioning in a separate paragraph. In the postwar period, Argentina acquired weapons from the Bofors company (Sweden) (highlighting the 105mm/41cs and 40mm/56cs dual-purpose anti-aircraft guns) and planned unsuccessful tenders (as the Rivadavia modernizations). It would be interesting to confirm Friedman's mention that the Bofors 120mm cannons could have come from those lands as well, in the event that the acquisition of the “Design 1124” had been completed, but at the moment no documents have been found in the Argentine archives.

So, in short, the negotiations with Argentina were not simple nor did they cover a few cruisers designs. Unfortunately, the confusion between the designs threatens the dissemination of their particularities. And this also affects Venezuela, since Murfin has called the “287/21/62” negotiated almost a decade after the Argentines as “1124”.
Regards

PS 1: A more detailed publication https://reportedebatalla.wordpress....ceros-diseno-1124-para-argentina-y-venezuela/

PS 2: If anyone informed believes that I have noted wrong any information, do not hesitate to comment to check it.