Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

"Between 1908 and 1909* Argentina received from the British shipyards: 67 designs of battleships and 77 designs of destroyers". o_O
*We should interpret, also, that it is between the years 1907 and 1910.
Source: Destéfani, Laurio. “Historia Marítima Argentina. Tomo IX”. Page 133.
 
I will try to get you diagrams of them, but I doubt that these are preserved in Argentina.

On the other hand, between 1924 and 1925, Argentina received 27 cruiser offers, 27 destroyer offers and 24 submarine offers from shipyards in Spain, United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and Sweden.
Montenegro, G. "El Armamentismo Naval Argentino". Page 121.
I will also try to get you these diagrams.
 
1.908 "Germania" design for Argentina

tPAumgN.jpg


12 x 305 + 16 x 150 + 8 x 57 + 4 x 570

230 mm / 25 mm

160 m x 26 m

21.000 t / 29.000 shp / 21 k
 
Do you have that image in higher resolution and do you know the year as well as dimensions?
Or it's a design from this table?
But interesting, German designed cage mast.
Looks like a modified 6 turreted and lengthened Kaiser
 
Tzoli said:
Do you have that image in higher resolution and do you know the year as well as dimensions?
Or it's a design from this table?
But interesting, German designed cage mast.
Looks like a modified 6 turreted and lengthened Kaiser
Click to expand...
Like i said year is 1.908, design is from Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft for Argentina.
Hope this images help:
Y0KMCkA.png

jN2u6AA.png

NBbPoes.png

2arUoZh.png

cxzAHMX.png

2 or 3 of this ship "should be able to fight the Minas Gerais class".
For any questions I will be at your disposal
Regards
 
Interesting Vickers submitted cage masts, never seen this on a Vickers design before.
Were cage masts specifically requested in the Argentine requirements?
 
Hood said:
Interesting Vickers submitted cage masts, never seen this on a Vickers design before.
Were cage masts specifically requested in the Argentine requirements?
Click to expand...
The Argentine commission - secretly - had already chosen Fore River. Designs like 428 were received to steal ideas. That is why the commission changed the requirements and filtered competitors to win the American company.
 
No they did not. A-47 was from 1911 and had no connection with Rivadavia expect it has the same turret layout, and would had armed with 356mm cannons
 
The Argentine commission - secretly - had already chosen Fore River. Designs like 428 were received to steal ideas. That is why the commission changed the requirements and filtered competitors to win the American company.
[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought but wanted to make sure of the timing, i.e. that it wasn't a proposal made before the Fore River design was chosen and the subsequent industrial espionage occurred.
 
Hood said:
The Argentine commission - secretly - had already chosen Fore River. Designs like 428 were received to steal ideas. That is why the commission changed the requirements and filtered competitors to win the American company.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought but wanted to make sure of the timing, i.e. that it wasn't a proposal made before the Fore River design was chosen and the subsequent industrial espionage occurred.
[/QUOTE]
By 1.908 the main lines of the ship were already defined (echelon, 12x305, etc.) by the argentine office in London. It must be an overcoming version of Minas Gerais.
By the end of that year, Fore River & Bethlehem was the association that charged less for tons and proposed a shorter construction time.
Compared:
- Italian companies after the American offered the best price, proposed to build in a short time, but did not ensure the availability of weapons (by armstrong boycott) or quality of their engines.
- British companies sold at prices that were too expensive, with long terms and did not ensure a high-level technology transfer.
- The German companies cost more expensive than the English, but they offered shorter terms and their business, ultimately, went through preventing the sale from being British.
- The French companies had a lower value than the British and the German, with shorter terms as well, but the offended ships were not very interesting ("meh").
By 1.909 the designs were much better than those of previous years. The tender continued with higher standards, to carry out this industrial "espionage", both by Argentina and the United States.
By 1.910 the contracts for the construction of Rivadavia were signed. The honors of the other nations would be restored with the purchase of destroyers to Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
 
More info about Rivadavia´s designs:

This is not the Real Rivadavia (Jane´s 1910):
ekDhaDk.jpg

I have the intuition that it is the diagram before the last design made by the Fore River circa 1908-9.

The last design offered by the American company during 1909 was 27,940 tons, 22.5 knots, 12 inchs belt (source: Boletin Centro Naval Argentino).
This data is quite similar with the following diagram (Jane´s c. 1925):
Np7APn8.jpg

But there are still differences with what we know with the real Rivadavia.

Tzoli, I would really appreciate it if you ever do Rivadavia and these designs with your art.
 
When I cross that bridge. I am only myslef and there are thousands of never were designs of various countries!
 
Mr. Tzoli,

I've got some drawings from the National Maritme Museum that are indicated as projected cruisers for south american customers at the end of the 1890s.
I'm not sure but one of them could be of the Design 35, offered for Argentina in 1900. The information available in the NMM is not clear about this.
The Design 35 is registred as a protected cruiser with 8600 tons, 350ft (lenght), 65ft (beam), 24ft (draught), four 9,2in (twins), twelve 7.5in (single), fourteen 14pdr QF, with Belleville boilers (13,500 SHP - 20 kts).
Friedman indicates this design as a Vickers' project.
This is all I have about this design.
Maybe Mr. Coldown could find more information about this project.
I hope these information could help.
 

Attachments

  • Preliminay designs.png
    Preliminay designs.png
    3.8 MB · Views: 178
  • Modified Designs.png
    Modified Designs.png
    4.1 MB · Views: 173
Akaloso Dudu said:
Mr. Tzoli,

I've got some drawings from the National Maritme Museum that are indicated as projected cruisers for south american customers at the end of the 1890s.
I'm not sure but one of them could be of the Design 35, offered for Argentina in 1900. The information available in the NMM is not clear about this.
The Design 35 is registred as a protected cruiser with 8600 tons, 350ft (lenght), 65ft (beam), 24ft (draught), four 9,2in (twins), twelve 7.5in (single), fourteen 14pdr QF, with Belleville boilers (13,500 SHP - 20 kts).
Friedman indicates this design as a Vickers' project.
This is all I have about this design.
Maybe Mr. Coldown could find more information about this project.
I hope these information could help.
Click to expand...
Hello,

As you said, the design 35 was an offer in the 1.900.
Surely it has been the protected cruiser design offered by the UK to compete with the third generation of Garibaldi/San Martin class armored cruiser designs offered by Italy.
After the 1902 territorial treaties between Argentina and Chile, this Third Generation was later sold and was named Kassuga and Nisshin in Japan.
Due to their design characteristics, they were also an intermediate point between the power of cruisers and the intention to buy battleships in the Ansaldo house (which would be called the Maipú class) in the same years.

Norman Freedman, if I recall correctly, assign the following characteristics:
_ "35 A" for argentina .
_ Main Battery 4 x 234mm
_ Secc Bat 12 x 190mm
_ Th Bat 14 x 76mm
_ No info about machine guns and torpedoes
_ Large 107m (351.05f)
_ Width 20m (65.62f)
_ Displacement 8.600t
_ Power 13.500 shp
_ Speed 20n
I always imagined it similar to Blake, Endymion or Royal Arthur.

Sorry to be late answer, my quarantine is not at my home.
 
Battleship proposal to be acquired in November of 1943 (Revolución del 43).
Armament: 9 (3x3, 2/1) 381mm + 12 (6x2) 152mm + 12 (6x2) 89mm + 16 (4x4) 37mm + 16 (4x4) 13mm
Belt: 356mm
Deck: 200mm
Turrets: 381mm
Dimensions: 228m x 31m
Tons: +35,000
Power: 150,000 SHP
Speed: 30kn
Aircrafts: 3-2
fGvDdJW.png
 
Last edited:
Wow a new Argentinian requirement for a battleship midwar?
Those calibers seems to indicate German weaponry.
I presume the 89mm was 88mm originally and 13mm was 12,7mm
But quad 37 and 12,7mm? That is more like Soviet gun mounts!
 
On second tought... on this paper the Littorio was stated with 89mm despite it carried 90mm AA Guns so maybe it is more like an Italian design???
 
Dilandu said:
Whoa! From where is this data?
Click to expand...
Boletines Navales Argentinos (Naval Bulletins)

Tzoli said:
On second tought... on this paper the Littorio was stated with 89mm despite it carried 90mm AA Guns so maybe it is more like an Italian design???
Click to expand...
Yes, more likely. An Argentine Littorio.
"89mm" is a real bore length from a "90mm" gun (always upper), we usually write like that in Argentina.
I will check for more quality info.
 
Can you check more into this bulletin? Is it a serious request from Argentina or serious offer from Italy?
Also can you check it's date? With to be aquired by 1943 that would mean an offer from 1938/39 which is a close date to the one offer to Spain again for a modified Littorio!
 
Wow! I was always wondering if the ABC powers had looked into modern BBs in the late 30s, especially I vaguely remember that one of Chile's naval budgets in the late 30s set funds aside for a new BB. VERY interesting!
 
Tzoli said:
Also can you check it's date?
Click to expand...

It is almost certainly not 1943, because description of "Washington" stated that she have 15 secondary guns and speculated that she may carry her secondaries in triple turrets, and "King George V" stated to be carrying 152-mm secondaries. In 1943, even in Argentina some photos of "Washington" would be available for sure.

I'd say it is 1941-1942 at most.
 
Kingpin6100 said:
Wow! I was always wondering if the ABC powers had looked into modern BBs in the late 30s, especially I vaguely remember that one of Chile's naval budgets in the late 30s set funds aside for a new BB. VERY interesting!
Click to expand...
I can't recall the Chilean buying intentions of the 1930s. They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
For its part, Argentina was much more active in this regard. It introduced formal interests to Germany (and its partners) in the 1930s and to the United States in the 1940s (during World War II).
In the postwar period the interest of the Battleships disappeared, it was realistic. However, I have read that Chile tried to acquire the Vanguard and that Argentina made a counterproposal, so that this country does not acquire it or to acquire it for itself. Surely it is the late 1950s, I do not remember it well (Let us remember that the Argentine economy was several times larger than the Chilean and superior to the Brazilian until 1960s).
 
Dilandu said:
Tzoli said:
Also can you check it's date?
Click to expand...

It is almost certainly not 1943, because description of "Washington" stated that she have 15 secondary guns and speculated that she may carry her secondaries in triple turrets, and "King George V" stated to be carrying 152-mm secondaries. In 1943, even in Argentina some photos of "Washington" would be available for sure.

I'd say it is 1941-1942 at most.
Click to expand...
The publication is from November-December 1943, after the "Revolución del 43" with a lot of military facism-nacionalism. It is likely that the writing had been produced a few months before, and therefore the inconsistency in the information of foreign ships in the midst of war (for example, the tons, as happened with the Yamato).
 
COLDOWN said:
They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data on those proposed refit?

P.S. Side question - do you know about any Peruvian interest in heavy warships? Avalanche Press article mentioned, that before buying "Dupuy de Lome" they expressed interest in French dreadnoughts, and it is known that they have at least brief interest in HMS "Gorgon" in 1920s. I also heard rumors (frankly, I doubt them...), that in 1920s Peru have some interest in ex-Austrian warships in service.
 
Tzoli said:
Can you check more into this bulletin? Is it a serious request from Argentina or serious offer from Italy?
Also can you check it's date? With to be aquired by 1943 that would mean an offer from 1938/39 which is a close date to the one offer to Spain again for a modified Littorio!
Click to expand...
Working on it, still reading.

It was a local proposal. Builder? Hard to say, maybe a local dream on the hull and equipment from foreing powers (Italy gets all the coices)
 
COLDOWN said:
The publication is from November-December 1943, after the "Revolución del 43" with a lot of military facism-nacionalism. It is likely that the writing had been produced a few months before, and therefore the inconsistency in the information of foreign ships in the midst of war (for example, the tons, as happened with the Yamato).
Click to expand...

Well, the "Yamato" size was hard to estimate, but any photo of "Washington" would clearly demonstrate that she did not carry triple secondary turrets. So the original source (that publication used), must be 1941-1942 at most.
 
COLDOWN said:
However, I have read that Chile tried to acquire the Vanguard and that Argentina made a counterproposal, so that this country does not acquire it or to acquire it for itself. Surely it is the late 1950s, I do not remember it well (Let us remember that the Argentine economy was several times larger than the Chilean and superior to the Brazilian until 1960s).
Click to expand...

Here?

Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

(b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile;
Click to expand...
 
Dilandu said:
COLDOWN said:
They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data on those proposed refits?
Click to expand...

My guess (complete speculation) was that this was the Vickers 102mm N that was proposed to rearm La Argentinia and actually ended up on the Almirante Riveros destroyers. But I don't know for sure.
 
Dilandu said:
COLDOWN said:
They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
Click to expand...
Do you have any data on those proposed refit?

P.S. Side question - do you know about any Peruvian interest in heavy warships? Avalanche Press article mentioned, that before buying "Dupuy de Lome" they expressed interest in French dreadnoughts, and it is known that they have at least brief interest in HMS "Gorgon" in 1920s. I also heard rumors (frankly, I doubt them...), that in 1920s Peru have some interest in ex-Austrian warships in service.
Click to expand...
I read it in a "turn off" website and i can´t remember the name, ask me that next week please so i can search it with more time.
The antiair guns mentioned were the 102/62, later used in the chilean destroyers (also offered to La Argentina cruiser as 105/60mm)

About Peru i cant remember about big ships, its hard to believe. Im checking, it will take time.
Freedman said something about some kind of España class for perú.
Do you speak spanish?
 
Kingpin6100 said:
Dilandu said:
COLDOWN said:
They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data on those proposed refits?
Click to expand...

My guess (complete speculation) was that this was the Vickers 102mm N that was proposed to rearm La Argentinia and actually ended up on the Almirante Riveros destroyers. But I don't know for sure.
Click to expand...
NF said it was 102mm for both nations (Peru too). Other source (cant remember) said 105mm for argentina, and that number is more, how can i said, more rouded for argentina.

Dilandu said:
COLDOWN said:
The publication is from November-December 1943, after the "Revolución del 43" with a lot of military facism-nacionalism. It is likely that the writing had been produced a few months before, and therefore the inconsistency in the information of foreign ships in the midst of war (for example, the tons, as happened with the Yamato).
Click to expand...

Well, the "Yamato" size was hard to estimate, but any photo of "Washington" would clearly demonstrate that she did not carry triple secondary turrets. So the original source (that publication used), must be 1941-1942 at most.
Click to expand...
Nice yo know that.

Dilandu said:
COLDOWN said:
However, I have read that Chile tried to acquire the Vanguard and that Argentina made a counterproposal, so that this country does not acquire it or to acquire it for itself. Surely it is the late 1950s, I do not remember it well (Let us remember that the Argentine economy was several times larger than the Chilean and superior to the Brazilian until 1960s).
Click to expand...

Here?

Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

(b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile;
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Chile yes, Argentina not yet.
Ohh god, i love foreing relations and cia documents, they have a lot of info.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom