Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

Ahhh... now I have to finish my 1/1200 master for this one......

Dave G
 
The Super-Rivadavia or Super-Río de Janeiro or New York Improved:
yrhpUG8.jpg

FN6Wacy.jpg

34.000 tons!!! I'm pretty sure with 356mm.
JnWcBVL.png

36.000 tons!!! (last paragraph)

I really don't know if they are using metric system or not.
34.000 tonne = 33.463 long ton
36.000 tonne = 35.431 long ton
34.000 long ton = 34.546 tonne
36.000 long ton = 36.578 tonne

Source: Revista Maritima Brazileira, 1911.

I need those meetings notes! How can i get in contact with the Bethlehem company? Does it exist?
 
Last edited:
sorry but connecting the old company today (if exists) is futile. If you were not an Admiral, high ranking political leader or some military leader searching for expand it's navy no they will not even going to reply you (I doubt they even read the mails of a simple citizen!!! )
I've tried this with Bofors, Rheinmetal (for Oerlikon) and Gibbs & Cox and I never got an answer....
 
Even Ansaldo did not replied, though an Italian friend could barely contact them on their own language!
 
My friend contacted the Ansaldo Foundation and got this answer: (These conversations started in 2019 november! well before the virus outbreak)

They answered me some minutes ago. We have a problem. This is what they said: 'we currently own just the drawings and material related to railway engines and artillery (not sure if it's naval), produced by Stabilimento Meccanico di Sampierdarena. No drawings were received from Cantieri Navali di Sestri Ponente, both regarding civil and military constructions.'

I've asked where and if it's possible to see such drawings and if they know where they are currently located. I hope they will know.

after that he suggested:

I think the only one worth a look (which covers the age of steam and steel) is the Museo Storico Navale in Venezia (Venice), which has quite the collection of models of 1900s warships.

then:

They replied to my answer saying that the naval facilities in Sestri Ponente were ceded from Ansaldo to Fincantieri in 1966 and so they suggested to try to contact Fondazione Fincantieri if they still have some drawings. That may be worth a try.

I've asked him to try to contact OTO-Malera and got this answer:

I've sadly got some bad news. I've contacted Fondazione Fincantieri and they said they are in possession of such material anymore. I've asked them if they've got any idea about where we could possibly find such drawings.

As far as OTO Melara is concerned, I strongly doubt they could be of help. They make tanks and weapons and were never involved in the matters of shipbuilding. I know they made naval weapons but I don't think they were directly involved in the designing stages. That said, I'll wait for Fondazione Fincantieri to reach out for me again and hope they will have some clues for us to follow. Otherwise, I'm gonna contact either the State Archives or the Navy itself. If they don't know anything I don't know who should, it's their ships after all o_o''

then:

As you said, the problem is that either those shipyards are defunct or have changed hands and are now under control of Fincantieri - and that leads us back to point A.
I could try to contact the Museum in Venezia to see if they've got something, I would not count on it too much though.
The Director at FIncantieri has told me the drawings were either transferred somewhere he doesn't know or are lost to history. I think our best bet at this point would be to contact the Italian National Archives, although there's the caveat that people have to pay to get access to their info.

and the most recent (from early June)

Hey! No, sorry, they didn't. From what I understood they either did not own those plans anymore (if they are still in their museum's archives they're not available to the public), and if they are now part of Fincantieri's archives, I don't think we'll see them for some time (again, they are probably not available to the public since their archives contain also contains all the work they've done recently - some of that may still be classified).
It's been getting difficult to contact museums lately due to this 'thing' happening around, which is not making it easier. I have an ongoing project with another museum and for now that has been freezed till the archives reopen. And of all the museums here it Italy that have already reopened, they have not yet done it, so.. We live in interesting times.

and finally:

That is sad indeed. The only way to get through to them nowadays is either go through an official channel, or by having some kind of connection to people that can help you make it happen. Ask me how I know.


----------
Tzoli said the following:

That is sad to hear. Myself too tried to contact the Gibbs & Cox company especially their designing section if they could point me to their archive (There should be a battleship design from them from 1944/45 which Admiral King and Nimitz knew of) but as usual like in modern companies they don't even bother to reply with an automated message!
 
ceccherini said:
Actually Italian Navy's archives are open for public and completly free, you just have to take an appointment. The prospect of finding there private export proposals is quite slim but for official RM projects (like the discussed AA conversion proposals) it's where you want to go. http://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/storia/ufficiostorico/Pagine/default.aspx
Click to expand...
Hello.
Thanks for the link, but unfortunately I did not have good results when finding information.
Do you have a more direct link to the Rivista Marittima search engine?
Regards

By the way, does the United States or the United Kingdom have a similar search engine for their boletins/newsletter/magazines?
I don't quite understand how they are handled in other places, but here in South America we have the documents digitized and with access to the public (in relative quality and quantity).
 
COLDOWN said:
ceccherini said:
Actually Italian Navy's archives are open for public and completly free, you just have to take an appointment. The prospect of finding there private export proposals is quite slim but for official RM projects (like the discussed AA conversion proposals) it's where you want to go. http://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/storia/ufficiostorico/Pagine/default.aspx
Click to expand...
Hello.
Thanks for the link, but unfortunately I did not have good results when finding information.
Do you have a more direct link to the Rivista Marittima search engine?
Regards

By the way, does the United States or the United Kingdom have a similar search engine for their boletins/newsletter/magazines?
I don't quite understand how they are handled in other places, but here in South America we have the documents digitized and with access to the public (in relative quality and quantity).
Click to expand...
Hello, sorry I can't help you with the search engine, I think integral volumes can only be consulted in situ.
 
Hello. I need some help.
Any dutch/german researcher out there?
I need info about the netherlands Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw company (a german facade) in relation to the offer of designs of submarines and cruisers to Argentina.
Regards
 
Hello.

About the Brazilian sources from the years 1911/2 repeating the idea that Argentina threatened to buy a third battleship, in addition to the Rivadavia and Moreno, in case Brazil acquired Rio de Janeiro.
In connection with this, in 1912 the construction of the third battleship was approved in Argentina, but as Brazil gave up its purchase, Argentina also did so. For the information that I am handling it would be a battleship of 32,000 to 34,000 tons.

I highly doubt that I can get more details, a design or sketch. So I propose three designs of the weapons that it would have carried for a design made in 1912 and built in the bethlehem shipyards:

7x2x305: A new designed ship, american standards/style but similar to the Brazilian one, with 7 double turrets with 305 mm guns. The caliber would be standard to the Argentine and the firepower of 14 mouths. "Super-Rio de Janeiro"
b5hbgAM.jpg


6x3x305: A ship of similar design to the Rivadavia class, Argentine Type, but with triple turrets with 305 mm guns, standard caliber. It would increase firepower from 12 mouths to 16. "Super-Rivadavia"
ks9IMAD.jpg


6x2x356: A ship of similar design to the Rivadavia class, Argentine Type, but with double turrets with 356 mm guns, non-standard caliber to the Argentine navy. It would increase firepower by the weight of the projectiles, their firing range, and penetration ability. It would involve larger turrets, so it would be necessary to change the modification of the superstructure or lengthen the ship a little, lesser than the first suggestion (7x2x305). "Super-New York"
K80Vo8B.jpg


We can imagine that in this third ship the armor and the speed would be superior, but not much, to the Rivadavia class.

I hope you like it.

PS: I´m so sorry for the nicks XD
 
The Rivadavia's had been surpassed by Super Dreadnoughts. By mid-1914, Brazil has begun the Riachuelo with 8-15" and Chile has her 2 10-14" armed ships on the way (actually a heavier broadside than 8-15"). A third ship for Argentina would be looking at 14" guns or bigger. An interesting scenario would be for Argentina to sell one of the Rivadavia's and buy 2 new 34,000ton super Dreadnoughts leaving Argentina with the most powerful battleline.
 
Dorknought said:
The Rivadavia's had been surpassed by Super Dreadnoughts. By mid-1914, Brazil has begun the Riachuelo with 8-15" and Chile has her 2 10-14" armed ships on the way (actually a heavier broadside than 8-15"). A third ship for Argentina would be looking at 14" guns or bigger. An interesting scenario would be for Argentina to sell one of the Rivadavia's and buy 2 new 34,000ton super Dreadnoughts leaving Argentina with the most powerful battleline.
Click to expand...
According to the American and English analysis, the Rivadavia surpassed the Wyoming in attributes (there are statements by referents from the USN and publications by The Engineer). The North Americans would not have allowed their technology to be sold abroad (the offers were abundant and considerables), but neither would they have incorporated it due to the echelon configuration that was not a North American standard.
 
The US would probably let a sale to Greece.
  • The US had already sold 2 battleships to Greece.
  • US Yards had sold an ex Chinese cruiser to Greece
  • Bethlehem Steel were supplying 14" guns, turrets and armour to Germany to complete the Greek Battleship Salamis.
  • The USN wouldn't want the Rivadavia's if it meant they couldn't build Tennessee and California under the 1915 Program. USN Secretary Daniels and Congress are just as likely to do that.
Another alternative is for the US to acquire the Argentine ships and the US then sells USS South Carolina and Michigan to Greece. These 2 ships were already regarded as second rate by the USN in 1914.
 
Kingpin6100 said:
COLDOWN said:
Another interpretation of the 35/37.000 tons battleship
Click to expand...

This looks incredible.

My only issue- the 90mm guns would likely not have been in the incredibly complicated Italian quadriaxilly stabilized mount. Instead it would likely be the same as the Regina Marina's simple 90mm gun mount for land based AA defense:
Click to expand...
As far as I remember the author is neither one nor the other. I mean, they shouldn't be turrets (as Bruno has exaggerated) but they shouldn't be clean mounts either. It is specified that there must be protection for users.
The team that developed this proposal is the same team that developed the anti-aircraft cruiser, where they also mentioned the need for protection, but not to the extent of mounting turrets.
 
Argentine Battleship (Coast Defense) Proposal "Tiburón" (December 1.910)
e61dIqx.png

Between 1,911 and 1,912, faced with the Brazilian threat represented by the combination of the super-dreadnought battleships Rio de Janeiro and dreadnoughts Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo, Argentina chooses between several options, from the purchase of new battleships to diplomatic actions. The most notorious is to order a third battleship (in addition to the Rivadavia and the Moreno), this time with 34,000 tons of normal displacement, and with attributes superior to those of its rival. Another, more viable option is to order smaller ships.
The idea of this proposal is for Argentina to order armored ships of the coastguard type, with a reduced volume and displacement compared to traditional dreadnoughts, which do not imply large expenses on the public purse, allow fire dispersion and are adaptable to navigation from the estuary of the Río de la Plata.
The fundamental characteristics are:
- General armament configuration: Main 2 (1 × 2) 343/50, Secondary 4 (2/2) 152/50 and Tertiary 12 (12 × 1) 102/50.
- Configuration of the shield in its maximum exponents: Deck with 50 millimeters thickness for horizontal protection and Belt with 300 millimeters thickness for vertical protection.
- Basic configuration of its dimensions: Length 114 meters long and width 22 meters.
- Displacement: Normal of 9,000 long tons.
- Maximum speed: 22 knots of maximum speed.
- Combat style: "Striking weapon" vs Minas Gerais class.
More info: https://reportedebatalla.wordpress....orazado-guardacostas-argentino-tiburon-1-910/
Let me know if my english sux xD
 
Reciprocating, Steam Turbine or Diesel propulsion?
But it looks like a hybrid between a Monitor and Coastal Defence Battleship, or better described as a fast Monitor!
 
Diesel.
"Nos parece que el motor Diesel—entendiéndose con esta denominación todas las máquinas térmicas a combustible liquido pesado (aceites Diesel) en las cuales la ignición inicial
de los gases combustibles se produce por compresión de aire sin intervención de órganos magneto-eléctricos en el estado actual de la práctica de construcción, es el tipo más
acabado y el único que se pueda tomar en consideración para resolver el problema de la propulsión de grandes barcos."
"(..) la instalación de 2 motores de 9000 C. E cada uno, a combustión de aceite pesado, a dos tiempos y a doble efecto, que trabajan a toda fuerza con 165 revoluciones por minuto."
 
The same author, Tiburón*, wrote about Torpedo Battleship in the Mitteilungen aus dem gebiete des Seewesens.

"Quien escribe estos apuntes ya ha manifestado su pensamiento sobre el «torpedo battleship» propuesto para permitir el empleo del torpedo en los combates de escuadras de alta mar (1).
(...)
(1) Véanse « Mitteilungen aus dem gebiete des Seewesens» 1908— Pola: Torpedo—Schlachtschiffe por, Tiburón."

But I am not being effective with the google search engine or within the documents found.

* It means Shark ant it is not a surname, but a nick.
 
Hmm...
Austro-Hungarian Torpedo battleship proposal for Tiburón.
Let me check this but there was a BBT proposal from that time frame (1911) 20x1 12cm/50 +2x1 12cm/45, 10x1 57mm/50 and 30x1 457mm Torpedo tubes
 
Yes! That BBT is indeed for Tiburón!
Here are the links:
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_01.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_02.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_03.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_04.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_05.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_06.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_07.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_08.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_09.jpg
http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/engineering/austro-hungary/torpedo_bb_10.jpg


Can you tell me about this Tiburón character / article? I wish to send this info to Erwin Sieche and I could describe it better if I have more information!
 
previously I've sent him these images in an email and he replied with:

The article ‘Torpedoschlachtschiffe’ is probably from the semi-official Austrian naval journal ‘Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiete des Seewesens’.
I will check the exact date of publication.
Younger A-H naval officers were encouraged to present their technical and tactical ideas under a pseudonym.
The author uses ‘Tiburón’ – Is this a Hungarian word?

The article from ‘Scientific American’ is quite in the same science fiction mood as the one from ‘Tiburón’.
We all know that the idea of fighting a battleship-battle with mass-salvoes of torpedoes never became practical – even the Japanese which tried doctrine this in WW II (Guadalcanal) failed.

Kind regards
Erwin Sieche
Click to expand...
 
WOW. Where do i start?

Original article name is "UN NUEVO TIPO DE GUARDACOSTA. Contribución al estudio de la defensa del Río de la Plata" (A NEW KIND OF COAST GUARD. Contribution to the study of the defense of the Río de la Plata). It was published in the "BOLETÍN DEL CENTRO NAVAL N°327 2/1911"
There is a foreword by Lieutenant (Teniente de Navío) G. Albarracín*, written in December 1910 in Kiel, Germany. Albarracín describes that "Tiburón" is the pseudonym with which a distinguished naval professional hides. "Tiburón" is the spanish word of "Shark". In Argentina it also happens that groups of specialists hide behind pseudonyms**.

In the development of the article, Shark presents the information I shared on my blog.
Later adds a second variant:
- Displacement 7,000 t.
- Dimensions 100 x 20 m.
- Power 11,000 hp.
- Speed 18 n.
- Armament 2x343/50 + 12x102/50
No scheme.

The article ends signed by "Tiburón", December 12, 1910.

I will work on who he really is, but quarantine is very hard here in Argentina.

* Coincidentally, Albarracín is the one who in 1920 proposed to Argentina the purchase of the Italian battleship Caracciolo.
** Previous posts of the 35/37,000 tonne battleship and the 4,000 ton anti-aircraft cruiser proposals belong to a team called "Red".
 
Buy or modernize? That is the question!

In the late 1950s, there were many proposals to repower the Argentine fleet, with the lowest possible costs. These options included buying new or used ships or modernizing existing ones. Of this last case I will mention three proposals:
1- Replacement of the anti-aircraft artillery of the Belgrano and Nueve de Julio cruisers.
2- Conversion of the Cervantes and Mendoza classes from gun destroyers to anti-submarine frigates
3- Reconversion of the Buenos Airesos class from torpedo destroyers to leading destroyers

1- Replacement of the anti-aircraft artillery of the Belgrano and Nueve de Julio cruisers, changing to models 127/25 for 125/38.
(W.I.P.).

2- Reconversion of the Cervantes (Cervantes and Garay - 1928) and Mendoza (Mendoza, La Rioja and Tucumán - 1929) classes from gun destroyers to anti-submarine frigates, changing their superstructure, equipment and weapons (Bofors).
nyeZu0t.png

I have prepared the previous sketch with little information. There are other researchers on the subject, and they deserve more credit than what I am publishing.
Modifications made: I enlarged the superstructure so that there is more room for electronic equipment and to improve habitability (and so that these facilities do not have to replace propulsion equipment, which would bring down its maximum speed to approximately 28 knots as happened with Spanish modernizations in the Liniers class). Replacement of 2 small fireplaces with 1 large one. Replacement of the 5x120mm by 4x105mm. Elimination of 1x3 torpedo launchers. Added 1 anti-aircraft platform. I was missing an anti-submarine mine launch system on the back and side. And I was missing a radar system on the roof of the superstructure.

3- Reconversion of the Buenos Aires class (Buenos Aires, Entre Ríos, Misiones, San Juan, San Luis and Santa Cruz - 1938) from torpedo destroyers to leading destroyers, changing their superstructure, equipment and weapons to (127/25 from the cruiser Nueve de Julio or 127/38 to be acquired).
vq67t4Q.jpg

I made the previous sketch with Bruno. There are other researchers on the subject, and they deserve more credit than what I am publishing.
Ignore the anti-aircraft artillery because we don't dare speculate what it would be.

I hope that the end of the quarantine will bring more light to the previous ones.
 
Friedman states this for Design 312:
By this time both Armstrong (Elswick) and Vickers had designed triple turrets for the Royal Navy. Vickers offered the Argentines Design 312, armed with no fewer than fourteen 12in/50 (two triples at the ends plus four twin turrets) and twenty-four 4.7in QF (eight in twin mounts in deck barbettes, sixteen in casemates), displacing 21,600 tons.41

Dimensions of Design 312 were 525ft x 87ft 6in x 25ft 6in; speed was 21 knots (27,500 IHP). Armour thickness was not given. A price was quoted by telegram on 24 May 1909, but the position of the design in the Vickers notebook suggests that it was first offered in 1907.
Click to expand...

And for 335:
Design 335 offered fourteen 12in guns (two triple and four twin mounts) on 20,500 tons (510ft x 85ft 6in x 25ft) and 21 knots on about 25,500 IHP, with 10in belt armour amidships. Presumably two turrets would have been superimposed at each end and two more mounted in wing positions, something like those the Argentines eventually adopted.
Click to expand...

From this I assume 312 had 3-2-2-3 arrangement with twin wing turrets while 335 had 2-2-2-2 and the triples being on the wings
 
My own interpretation of 312 was:
  • As 1907,
  • Some kind of Bellerophon/S. Vincent,
  • 3 - 2/2 - 2/2 - 3,
  • No echelon but wings.
 
Last edited:
MOI of 335 was:
  • 3-2 - 2/2 - 2-3
  • One III turret lower at the ends, one II turret upper at the ends, and two II turrets at sides.
  • Echelon
But i like your idea, because is technically weird as the "tipo argentino" :)
 
The 312 is under drawing status, 335 in idea status but 332 with it's 4x2 13,5/50 are already finished, it's not a bad looking design with superfiring pairs.
 
COLDOWN said:
And the sweet coment is: The peace treaties of 1900 resulted in the cancellation of the production of 2 battleships in Italy, the Maipu class (Maipu and Chacabuco), similar to the Regina Elena class.
  • 14.580 tons
  • 18.500 hp
  • 21 kts
  • 4 x 305 mm
  • 6 x 203 mm
  • 12 x 152 mm
  • 16 x 76 mm
  • 4 tt
Click to expand...
New details of the negotiation that Argentina was carrying out to build battleships that would rival the Chileans "Swiftsure". It appears to be the pre-negotiated version of the one I previously shared.
Maipu class:
  • Ansaldo shipyard.
  • Building time: 15 months.
  • Dimensions: 138 x 23 x 8 m.
  • Displacement: 14.000 t.
  • Power: 25.000 hp. or cv.
  • Speed: 22 n. or miles.
  • Main guns: 4 x 30 cm, double turrets.
  • Sec guns: 16 x 19 cm QF, 12 on the central battery, 4 in turrets in the upper deck in casemates.
  • Ter. guns: 12 x 10 cm + 12 x 7,6 cm.
  • Belt: 25 cm.
  • Battery: 20 cm.
  • Barbettes: 35 cm.
  • High casemates: 35 cm.
  • Deck: 35 cm. ¿WTF?
No schemes, sorry.

Source: Revista General de Marina. Tomo LI. circa 1903.
 
So..
2x2 305mm
6x2+4x1 190mm or 4x2+8x1?
12x1 102mm
12x1 76mm
250-254mm Belt
That deck is more like 35 or 38mm eg 1,5inch not 35cm same for the casemates

AS the Italian arms industry was basically non existent at that time these were going to be all British Guns except maybe the 76mm which I can think of the 76mm/40 Armstrong-Ansaldo Modello 1897
Probably British guns:
12"/40 BL Mk IX, Armstrong Mk H or I
7,5"/45 BL Mk I
4"/40 QF Mk I and II, Armstrong Mk D or /49 Mk E
3"/40 12pdr 12cwt QF Mk I
 
Tzoli said:
So..
2x2 305mm
6x2+4x1 190mm or 4x2+8x1?
12x1 102mm
12x1 76mm
250-254mm Belt
That deck is more like 35 or 38mm eg 1,5inch not 35cm same for the casemates

AS the Italian arms industry was basically non existent at that time these were going to be all British Guns except maybe the 76mm which I can think of the 76mm/40 Armstrong-Ansaldo Modello 1897
Probably British guns:
12"/40 BL Mk IX, Armstrong Mk H or I
7,5"/45 BL Mk I
4"/40 QF Mk I and II, Armstrong Mk D or /49 Mk E
3"/40 12pdr 12cwt QF Mk I
Click to expand...
Scan of source:
ZYTl3u0.png

There must be a typo in the original article.

The italian factory of guns was Pozzuoli-Armstrong (Stabilimenti meccanici di Pozzuoli) founded since 1885.
Guns include 254mm, 203mm, 152mm, 120mm, 76mm. I know it because they equipped the Garibaldi/San Martin class armoured cruisers and Sarmiento training cruiser with those quick fire armstrong breech fron italian factories.
 
Yes British designed but Italian built Guns. I'm not sure that the 305mm cannons of the Dante, Cavour and Doria classes were of Italian manufacture or British ones.
Did the 254mm/45 Vickers and Armstrong Guns of the San Giorgo and Pisa classes too were Italian license manufacture or brought from England?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom