Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

[COLDOWN]

1910 Russian scheme of the Argentine battleship Rivadavia under construction in the United States

This scheme isn't perfect but it's a good work of the spirit of this ship.

Quotes of the article:
"The displacement on samples should equal to 27,800 tons, and on the battleships should contain all cargo and 1000 tons of fuel, i.e. 40% of full its stock."
"Length 184.22 m., Width 29.26 m."
"Twelve 305mm .; twelve 152mm .; twelve 102mm. Guns.
305mm: 394kg, 914m/s, 16,890mt, 2r/min.
152mm: 47.6kg, 914m/s, 2.082mt, 8r/min.
102mm: 15kg, 914m/s, 640mt, 12r/min. "
"Mine armament of battleships will consist of two onboard underwater vehicles for firing 53 cm. Mines."
"The total capacity of the turbines is equal to 40,000 hp, which corresponds to a normal displacement at 27 800 tons, the speed at 22.5 knots. But it can be expected that the power will actually reach 45,000 hp from. And speed stroke - up to 23-23.5 knots. "
"The radius of action is: 10,500 miles at 11-knot"
"The estimated cost of one battleship is £ 2,190,000."
Armor details are in the scheme.

Of course, Russian-Spanish-English translation xD

Source: The article "Новые аргентинсше эскадренные броненосцы" can be found in the "Morskoj sbornik 357 / 03-04" (1910).

 

[Dilandu]

In case someone is interested in these I can provide access to them to see the diagrams or read the text. Right now I don't remember the original source.

I'm very interested. Hm. May it be, that the same designs be suggested to both Peru and Argentina?

 

[Nick Sumner]

I'm not 100% sure what's happening with the fore funnel. There seems to be a structure above it. Any ideas?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Experimental weather cover being shown in the deployed position?

 

[Tzoli]

Well there were a number of capital ship designs for non ABC countries both South and Central America: (larger capital ships)
For Peru:
Armstrong Design 783P a Coastal BB: 7300tons 2x2 8" 1914
Vickers Design 512 Battleship of 11.500 tons 2x2 14" 1911
Vickers Design 513 Battleship of 11.500 tons 2x3 or 3x2 14" 1911

For Uruguay:
Armstrong Design 374 Battleship of 10.500 tons 2x2 10" 1904

For Mexico
Vickers Design 819 A Small coastal BB / Monitor for Mexico 4850tons 1x2 8", 2x2 6", 1933

Or course there were others like destroyers, Cruisers: Protected, Scout, Light, Heavy

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello helloo hellooo

I was busy looking for information in Russian-Soviet archives and I came across an author who mentions the construction of destroyers for Argentina in the shipyards of the United Kingdom. It is suggested that between 1939 and 1943 an order was made for 12 destroyers with an option for 5 more.
This class would have been called "San Juan" and implied changing the name to one of the Buenos Aires class destroyers, to which they were quite similar. The Buenos Aires were made in the United Kingdom, too, being launched in 1937 and put into service in the ARA in 1938.
The "San Juan" class destroyers would have had the following characteristics:

• 1,350 long tons of standard displacement.
• 35.5 knots of maximum speed.
• 4 (4x1) 120mm main armament.
• 8 antiaircraft machine guns.
• 8 (2x4) 533mm torpedo launchers.

Now, this class of ships is mentioned as similar to the United Kingdon "S" class destroyer. If we compare this with the "Buenos Aires" class destroyer (using Navypedia) we can observe the following differences:

• Cannons in the same quantity and caliber (4x120mm), but better angle for the S and possibly a more modern firing system than the BA.
• More powerful anti-aircraft for the S (8x20 + 2x40) and limited for the BA (8x13).
• Greater complete displacement for the S (2,500t) and with a fifth of difference (500t) compared to the BA.
• Higher speed for S (1 knot) being less that of BA (35.5-36 knots).
• Higher power (6,000 HP) for the S, being less that of the BA (34,000 HP), but with a lower HP/t ratio (16 to 17).

I will leave you a couple of images to demonstrate the above (ignore the google translations):

Spoiler

Cheers

 

[COLDOWN]

In case someone is interested in these I can provide access to them to see the diagrams or read the text. Right now I don't remember the original source.

I'm very interested. Hm. May it be, that the same designs be suggested to both Peru and Argentina?

Unfortunately these are designs presented in an article by the author De Feo for the Italian Rivista Marittima.
This article was translated and presented in magazines in Argentina and Peru, and the misunderstanding of the latter (writing the first paragraphs, signing the end, various expressions, etc.) led me to think that it was an original idea of or for these countries.
As compensation for the time you have dedicated to this topic, allow me to attach the full article with the Argentine (spanish, of course) translation:

Spoiler

 

[Hood]

Hello helloo hellooo

I was busy looking for information in Russian-Soviet archives and I came across an author who mentions the construction of destroyers for Argentina in the shipyards of the United Kingdom. It is suggested that between 1939 and 1943 an order was made for 12 destroyers with an option for 5 more.
This class would have been called "San Juan" and implied changing the name to one of the Buenos Aires class destroyers, to which they were quite similar. The Buenos Aires were made in the United Kingdom, too, being launched in 1937 and put into service in the ARA in 1938.
The "San Juan" class destroyers would have had the following characteristics:

• 1,350 long tons of standard displacement.
• 35.5 knots of maximum speed.
• 4 (4x1) 120mm main armament.
• 8 antiaircraft machine guns.
• 8 (2x4) 533mm torpedo launchers.

Now, this class of ships is mentioned as similar to the United Kingdon "S" class destroyer. If we compare this with the "Buenos Aires" class destroyer (using Navypedia) we can observe the following differences:

• Cannons in the same quantity and caliber (4x120mm), but better angle for the S and possibly a more modern firing system than the BA.
• More powerful anti-aircraft for the S (8x20 + 2x40) and limited for the BA (8x13).
• Greater complete displacement for the S (2,500t) and with a fifth of difference (500t) compared to the BA.
• Higher speed for S (1 knot) being less that of BA (35.5-36 knots).
• Higher power (6,000 HP) for the S, being less that of the BA (34,000 HP), but with a lower HP/t ratio (16 to 17).

I must I am very sceptical of these claims. What is this Russian source and how come such a design and alleged order has never surfaced in English-language sources?

The chances of any new construction for any foreign nation after 1st September 1939 is highly unlikely, a few export ships were completed that were already under construction, but the Admiralty would never allow the equivalent of two flotillas of destroyers to be completed for a neutral nation.
Such a large order would have attracted a lot of attention at the time and soon come to the notice of publoshers like Janes and Brassey at the time and naval historians since, but there is no trace.
Also, I doubt whether Argentina could have financed such an order.

The S-class was the War Emergency destroyer, based on the Intermediate Destroyer which had been worked up by the DNC in 1939 as a mass-produceable design to fill the number of hulls needed. The specs of the War Emergency Type don't quite match these quoted specifications. Its possible that its a Yarrow or Thornycroft export design.
For example in 1947 Yarrow offered Argentina an improved L-class with three 4.7in Mk.XX mounts and a 58,000shp powerplant for 35kts, but the Argentines showed no interest.

So for me, this sounds like a Russian author has either got confused or wrong information entirely.

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello helloo hellooo

I was busy looking for information in Russian-Soviet archives and I came across an author who mentions the construction of destroyers for Argentina in the shipyards of the United Kingdom. It is suggested that between 1939 and 1943 an order was made for 12 destroyers with an option for 5 more.
This class would have been called "San Juan" and implied changing the name to one of the Buenos Aires class destroyers, to which they were quite similar. The Buenos Aires were made in the United Kingdom, too, being launched in 1937 and put into service in the ARA in 1938.
The "San Juan" class destroyers would have had the following characteristics:

• 1,350 long tons of standard displacement.
• 35.5 knots of maximum speed.
• 4 (4x1) 120mm main armament.
• 8 antiaircraft machine guns.
• 8 (2x4) 533mm torpedo launchers.

Now, this class of ships is mentioned as similar to the United Kingdon "S" class destroyer. If we compare this with the "Buenos Aires" class destroyer (using Navypedia) we can observe the following differences:

• Cannons in the same quantity and caliber (4x120mm), but better angle for the S and possibly a more modern firing system than the BA.
• More powerful anti-aircraft for the S (8x20 + 2x40) and limited for the BA (8x13).
• Greater complete displacement for the S (2,500t) and with a fifth of difference (500t) compared to the BA.
• Higher speed for S (1 knot) being less that of BA (35.5-36 knots).
• Higher power (6,000 HP) for the S, being less that of the BA (34,000 HP), but with a lower HP/t ratio (16 to 17).

I must I am very sceptical of these claims. What is this Russian source and how come such a design and alleged order has never surfaced in English-language sources?

The chances of any new construction for any foreign nation after 1st September 1939 is highly unlikely, a few export ships were completed that were already under construction, but the Admiralty would never allow the equivalent of two flotillas of destroyers to be completed for a neutral nation.
Such a large order would have attracted a lot of attention at the time and soon come to the notice of publoshers like Janes and Brassey at the time and naval historians since, but there is no trace.
Also, I doubt whether Argentina could have financed such an order.

The S-class was the War Emergency destroyer, based on the Intermediate Destroyer which had been worked up by the DNC in 1939 as a mass-produceable design to fill the number of hulls needed. The specs of the War Emergency Type don't quite match these quoted specifications. Its possible that its a Yarrow or Thornycroft export design.
For example in 1947 Yarrow offered Argentina an improved L-class with three 4.7in Mk.XX mounts and a 58,000shp powerplant for 35kts, but the Argentines showed no interest.

So for me, this sounds like a Russian author has either got confused or wrong information entirely.

Hello.

Let me start with russian sources:

• Шведе Е.Е. (1940) Военные флоты 1939-1940 (page 217)
• Шведе Е.Е. (1943) Справочник корабельного состава Военно-Морских флотов иностранных государств. Часть 1 (page 180)

I don´t really like Jane´s Fighting ships early publications xD Weyer´s Taschenbuch does not mention these ships either (it mentions the Buenos Aires class with other guns, 120/50 instead of 120/45). I have no access to 1930s/1940s british Brassey´s Naval, french Flottes de Combat, american Navy League Annual or italian Lega Navale

Of course that is a bold statement. I myself ignored it for a while but picked it up again when I saw it repeated. Yesterday I have consulted in forums, because institutions are still closed due to quarantine and there are still military purchase laws from those years that are still in a state secret. I honestly do not believe there is an immediate response to this matter, neither for confirmation nor for denial.

Regarding the Argentine-United Kingdom relations the first was practically a colony and the second did a lot to maintain argentine neutrality to let it send shipments without alterations. These economic and cultural relations remained even after the 1943 Argentine coup d´etat (with a catholic, anticommunist, nationalist and fascist dye), but served as an excuse for the USA to undermine the position of UK in the world concert.

About the Argentine economic and financial situation, allow me to illustrate one law that was approved and sanctioned by Congress on September 11, 1941, under No. 12,690. It foresaw an investment of 712,000,000 pesos m/n* and contemplated: 1 battleship, 3 light cruisers, 6 submarines, 4 torpedo ships, 20 torpedo boats, 220 planes, with their weapons and ammunition; anti-aircraft material and coastal defense facilities, ships modernization and creation of new bases. *those are 9/1941 USD 168,000,000 or 2020 USD 2.800.000.000. The Argentine problem was not the availability of money or the form of payment, but the lack of local industry and availability of vendors of war material.

The specifications of these torpedo boats are very similar to the Buenos Aires class. Perhaps the author was wrong with the type of ship, perhaps it was not a class "S" but a class "I". Hopefully one day we can go deeper into this.

Regards

 

[Tzoli]

Didn't the author confuse a possible second and third batch of Buneos Aires class destroyers?
Only 7 ships were completed and your Russian source states 12+5 more which equals to roughly 3 batches. What was the Argentine destroyer flotilla size in WW2? If 7 ships this order would indicate 3 flotillas plus 3 auxiliary or reserve units.

 

[COLDOWN]

Didn't the author confuse a possible second and third batch of Buneos Aires class destroyers?
Only 7 ships were completed and your Russian source states 12+5 more which equals to roughly 3 batches. What was the Argentine destroyer flotilla size in WW2? If 7 ships this order would indicate 3 flotillas plus 3 auxiliary or reserve units.

It is not impossible that he was confused! But with the little information we have, he leaves us two explicit details:

• Relevant: San Juan class will be based in the S class british destroyer.
• Not relevant: Standard displacements are different in both books, the Buenos Aires class as 1375ed and San Juan as 1350ed.

Towards the beggining of the War (1939) these torpedoe ships were in service:

• 7 Buenos Aires class (1400sd, 35,5k, 4x120 + 8x533) since 1938.
• 3 Mendoza class (1600sd, 36k, 5x120 + 6x533) since 1929*.
• 2 Cervantes class (1600sd, 36k, 5x120 + 6x533) since 1927*.
• 2 Córdoba class (1000sd, 32k, 3x102 + 8x533) since 1912 with 1930s modernization**.
• 2 Catamarca class (1000sd, 32k, 3x102 + 4x533) since 1912 with1930s modernization**.

Obviously the number of prominent destroyers is 12, while 4 remain in a second line.

If what the Russian author exposes is true, Argentina could double and standardize its fleet of destroyers. Even withdraw smaller destroyers. What I interpret is that it was an attempt to get a new batch of destroyers capable of rivaling the new destroyers that Brazil would have incorporated as M/Marcilio Dias class based on the Mahan design (1500sd, 37k, 5x127 + 12x533)***.

As an anecdote, Argentina's intentions to buy destroyers remained strong despite military restrictions. In 1943 it bought at least 1 unfinished destroyer from Spain, the Virrey Liniers (1700sd, 36k, 4x120 + 6x533), but for reasons that are not clear it was not incorporated into service.

Hopefully sometime we can get more information about this matter

Cheers

*The Mendoza and Cervantes classes are assimilable with each other.
**The Córdoba and Catamarca classes are assimilable with each other.
***They weren't finished with those characteristics.

 

[biber550]

Apart from the next design of 290 only 3 more drawings lest of this series.

The Vickers design for Russia had 14 12-inch guns. Is this a similar project?

 

[Tzoli]

Apart from the next design of 290 only 3 more drawings lest of this series.

The Vickers design for Russia had 14 12-inch guns. Is this a similar project?

You mean Vickers Design 346B with 14x 305mm Guns? I think it was a 3-2 2/2 2-3 layout
Friedman states this:

Design 346B offered fourteen 12in guns (mountings not specified) and eighteen 4.7in QF on 25,250 tons (538/565ft x 96ft x 26ft 6in) with the same speed (boilers 34,500 IHP capacity, engines 30,500 IHP) and 2300 tons of coal and 1950 tons of oil. Since all of these designs showed superimposed pairs of turrets fore and aft, McLaughlin suggests that this ship would have had a pair of wing turrets, with twins and triples at the ends.

 

[biber550]

Apart from the next design of 290 only 3 more drawings lest of this series.

The Vickers design for Russia had 14 12-inch guns. Is this a similar project?

You mean Vickers Design 346B with 14x 305mm Turrets? I think it was a 3-2 2/2 2-3 layout
Friedman states this:

Design 346B offered fourteen 12in guns (mountings not specified) and eighteen 4.7in QF on 25,250 tons (538/565ft x 96ft x 26ft 6in) with the same speed (boilers 34,500 IHP capacity, engines 30,500 IHP) and 2300 tons of coal and 1950 tons of oil. Since all of these designs showed superimposed pairs of turrets fore and aft, McLaughlin suggests that this ship would have had a pair of wing turrets, with twins and triples at the ends.

Thank you very much! I've been looking for this for a long time!

 

[COLDOWN]

Super-Rivadavias!
The previous appointment corresponds to October 1911 when Argentina had already launched its two battleships Moreno and Rivadavia. I would not be surprised if the construction of a third battleship has been studied (which was included in the contract as optional) or that it has been considered to modify the two ships under construction.
Context: When in 1910 Argentina hired two battleships (12 305-millimeter guns and 28,000 tons of displacement), Brazil executed its third battleship (12 356-millimeter guns and 32,000 tons of displacement). So between 1911-2, Argentina made its reply studying the construction of a third battleship (12? / 4? 356-millimeter guns and 34,000 tons of displacement). To this it happens that Brazil then changes and standardizes the characteristics of its battleship (14 guns of 305 millimeters and 30,000 tons) and that Argentina changes the characteristics of its potential battleship (32,000 tons of displacement). In 1913 Brazil launched her battleship as the Rio de Janeiro and immediately sold it to Turkey as the Sultan Osman-ı Evvel.
I am using a little memory for the data.

 

[MayoAuzl]

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

Like i said year is 1.908, design is from Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft for Argentina.
Hope this images help:

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

where I can find this part of german design for Argentina？it must be in a Argentina book（im not Spanish speaker lol but i Learned a little）
I took a quick look of 《Boletín del Centro Naval》from tomo23 to tomo26 and it seems nothing relevant about it
And I was very interested in the designs provided by other countries to Argentina at that time. Is there some Argentine information about the evaluation of these designs and the reasons for the final selection?

 

[COLDOWN]

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

Like i said year is 1.908, design is from Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft for Argentina.
Hope this images help:

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

where I can find this part of german design for Argentina？it must be in a Argentina book（im not Spanish speaker lol but i Learned a little）
I took a quick look of 《Boletín del Centro Naval》from tomo23 to tomo26 and it seems nothing relevant about it
And I was very interested in the designs provided by other countries to Argentina at that time. Is there some Argentine information about the evaluation of these designs and the reasons for the final selection?

May, hello.
I have compiled the images at this link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QTH--iPmA4DOdOVAQcSuOtUzTUCVYYOQ?usp=sharing
Some details:
- This study is not found in the "Boletín del Centro Naval" (BCN) but in the "Revista de Publicaciones Navales" (RPN). Of the latter I have very few copies: there is no availability of online access to the RPNs as if there is to the BCNs; physical magazines are sold at very expensive prices; it is not always guaranteed to find information of this type (proposals/schemes); and because of the quarantine the institutions on military history Argentina are closed for almost a year.
- This study does not cover all the designs offered from 1908 to 1910 by the German shipyards, but only one of the first offerings. But it is relevant because it shows that the "Tipo Argentino/Argentine Type" is already established in the general configuration of the battleship to be acquired (although its final version, aka Rivadavia class, has much superior characteristics, for example, same gun configuration but 11,000 tons more displacement).
- Future German proposals would consist of battleships with 12x305mm guns and 12x152mm guns (base and not limited to). And specifically with: 25,900t of displacement, 22.5k of speed and 305mm of belt or 24,900t of displacement, 22.0k of speed and 305mm of belt. These are mentioned in the BCNs, but I don't have the diagrams for these yet.
- In addition to the possibility of acquiring technically acceptable ships, the decision to choose the American shipyards has been commercial and political: Low production costs, the construction period of the ships and the improvement and common agenda of international relations between the two countries. This decision is so important that the Argentine maneuver had the cost of worsening relations with Italy, which did not even accept the purchase of 1,050 "Tipo Argentino/Argentine Type" Destroyers and which sanctioned financially.
- It would be very entertaining for me to exchange information on these topics.
Regards

 

[MayoAuzl]

May, hello.
I have compiled the images at this link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QTH--iPmA4DOdOVAQcSuOtUzTUCVYYOQ?usp=sharing
Some details:
- This study is not found in the "Boletín del Centro Naval" (BCN) but in the "Revista de Publicaciones Navales" (RPN). Of the latter I have very few copies: there is no availability of online access to the RPNs as if there is to the BCNs; physical magazines are sold at very expensive prices; it is not always guaranteed to find information of this type (proposals/schemes); and because of the quarantine the institutions on military history Argentina are closed for almost a year.
- This study does not cover all the designs offered from 1908 to 1910 by the German shipyards, but only one of the first offerings. But it is relevant because it shows that the "Tipo Argentino/Argentine Type" is already established in the general configuration of the battleship to be acquired (although its final version, aka Rivadavia class, has much superior characteristics, for example, same gun configuration but 11,000 tons more displacement).
- Future German proposals would consist of battleships with 12x305mm guns and 12x152mm guns (base and not limited to). And specifically with: 25,900t of displacement, 22.5k of speed and 305mm of belt or 24,900t of displacement, 22.0k of speed and 305mm of belt. These are mentioned in the BCNs, but I don't have the diagrams for these yet.
- In addition to the possibility of acquiring technically acceptable ships, the decision to choose the American shipyards has been commercial and political: Low production costs, the construction period of the ships and the improvement and common agenda of international relations between the two countries. This decision is so important that the Argentine maneuver had the cost of worsening relations with Italy, which did not even accept the purchase of 1,050 "Tipo Argentino/Argentine Type" Destroyers and which sanctioned financially.
- It would be very entertaining for me to exchange information on these topics.
Regards

Gracias！
It help me a lot ! And I also hope that the quarantine and the epidemic will end asap. My graduation trip was originally planned to go to Argentina Now it seems that it may be delayed until the 2030 World Cup;( (I mean my trip)

Back to the navy.A failed bid affects diplomatic relations,This is what i didn't expect. The relationship between Argentina and Italy should be good,right？ because of immigrants and the previous Garibaldi class AC

 

[COLDOWN]

As you say, the cultural relationship between Argentines and Italians has been strong since the late 19th century.
This favored the accelerated purchase of the Italian armored cruisers. In Argentina the class of cruisers was informally called "Los Generales" or "Los Garibaldi". This last denomination was a tribute to the Italian people for accessing and accelerating the acquisitions of the first of the six ships. But in no way "Garibaldi" is a representative figure of Argentine history, neither equal nor superior to the figures of "San Martín" or "Belgrano", who more formally gave the name to the class of armored cruisers.
Regarding the economic sanctions against Argentina, there was the prohibition of temporary / definitive migration from Italy at harvest time. And others that at this time I do not remember or do not have immediate access to the bibliography. Those were years when political figures were more relevant than government institutions, so they took all this as personal offenses.
Where are you from? Let me know if in the future you need where to stay in Argentina.

 

[MayoAuzl]

As you say, the cultural relationship between Argentines and Italians has been strong since the late 19th century.
This favored the accelerated purchase of the Italian armored cruisers. In Argentina the class of cruisers was informally called "Los Generales" or "Los Garibaldi". This last denomination was a tribute to the Italian people for accessing and accelerating the acquisitions of the first of the six ships. But in no way "Garibaldi" is a representative figure of Argentine history, neither equal nor superior to the figures of "San Martín" or "Belgrano", who more formally gave the name to the class of armored cruisers.
Regarding the economic sanctions against Argentina, there was the prohibition of temporary / definitive migration from Italy at harvest time. And others that at this time I do not remember or do not have immediate access to the bibliography. Those were years when political figures were more relevant than government institutions, so they took all this as personal offenses.
Where are you from? Let me know if in the future you need where to stay in Argentina.

Gracias por la explicación
That sanctions doesn't seem to be very severe lol
Anyway, Argentina still chose heavy cruisers built in Italy years later and the 25 DE MAYO must be the best cruiser in Latin America at the time
And talk about the 25 DE MAYO why ARA installed a British catapult in refit？they think the Italian design block the guns in front deck？or just the huge waves in the antarctic made the bow catapult unsafe? I know they made a cruise around south america and Pass through the Drake Channel(or Strait of Magellan idk the Specific route）Is the cold environment unsuitable for ships designed and built in warm Mediterranean countries? I lost the HQ version but I found LQ version in my social media record , it shows ..well kinda singular .The sailor seemed interested in snow and cliffs，and big portholes in coning tower definitely be a problem in Antarctica.
oh as for where im.im in China，basically on the opposite side of the earth lol (right about the blue sign）Maybe I can dig a tunnel down in my garage and jump out of Chaco province Thank you for your kindness and hospitality Argentino.But maybe I can't go in these few years, because of the epidemic it is a llitle difficult for me to find job. My Major and family business is cross-border logistics, which is one of the few industries that have suffered devastating blows in China

 

[COLDOWN]

At the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina had one of the largest agro-livestock systems in the world, which required these Italian temporary workers. Without workers in the harvests their products could not be exported (mainly to the United Kingdom) which was a crisis for the economic system. This issue was so relevant that the first international migration regulations also took place in those years.
As soon as I return home (I am with health problems resting in another house) I will send you a couple of names of those involved in the Italian and Argentine negotiations.

Yes, the Browns arrived as the most modern cruise ships in South America. Unfortunately its general design was more oriented towards the Mediterranean navigation and not towards the navigation of the South Atlantic Seas, but as experience and the beautiful photography that you have shared shows in no way can rude criticism like the ones that have been published in Jane ´s and others referring to these ships as faults.
The transfer of the aircraft to the central part was mainly for a general modernization issue. The waves of the Argentine Sea and the need to modernize the launch system (which was more than a decade old) seem key to me. The forward firing block could be affected in the event of an immediate engagement, but in more versatile conditions the aircraft on deck could take off or be deposited in the forward hangar.

 

[uk 75]

Another fascinating thread. Using my Weyers Fleets books to look back over the last half century, Chile seems to have built up the most modern and capable array of ships, Brasil has a carrier and its excellent but largely ageing escorts, while Argentina and Peru rather lag behind.
Have you thought of a wider South American unbuilt projects thread?
On a positive note the navies above have so far never fought one another over the last half century.

 

[MayoAuzl]

At the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina had one of the largest agro-livestock systems in the world, which required these Italian temporary workers. Without workers in the harvests their products could not be exported (mainly to the United Kingdom) which was a crisis for the economic system. This issue was so relevant that the first international migration regulations also took place in those years.
As soon as I return home (I am with health problems resting in another house) I will send you a couple of names of those involved in the Italian and Argentine negotiations.

That is something I never heard before, thanks for your explanation,and further details. And best wish for your health

no way can rude criticism like the ones that have been published in Jane ´s and others referring to these ships as faults.

that is my bad.big sorry to you .I really shouldn’t use a photo to infer the actual performance of the ship
And another correction, “my major is logistics” not “my profession” Misuse of the word witch may make you guys think that I am a smuggler LOL

 

[MayoAuzl]

Another fascinating thread. Using my Weyers Fleets books to look back over the last half century, Chile seems to have built up the most modern and capable array of ships, Brasil has a carrier and its excellent but largely ageing escorts, while Argentina and Peru rather lag behind.
Have you thought of a wider South American unbuilt projects thread?
On a positive note the navies above have so far never fought one another over the last half century.

South American countries now seem to be more inclined to buy second-hand warships after WW2 ,There are relatively few ships were ordered or self-built
Therefore unbuilt projects as far as i know is Argentina type42 Plans to build four and finally just two were served in ARA. Brazil may have some but I don’t know the Brazilian navy very well

 

[COLDOWN]

Another fascinating thread. Using my Weyers Fleets books to look back over the last half century, Chile seems to have built up the most modern and capable array of ships, Brasil has a carrier and its excellent but largely ageing escorts, while Argentina and Peru rather lag behind.
Have you thought of a wider South American unbuilt projects thread?
On a positive note the navies above have so far never fought one another over the last half century.

I have high regard for Weyer's publications, although they are not exempt from errors.

Using displacement data from Navypedia I made this graph that allows us to understand in broadly the relevance of each South American fleet from 1900s to 1970s. Although it only considers displacement over time, the graph allows us to infer that when one value is greater than another there is an associated technology that differentiates the capacities of one fleet from another.

Of course nothing says about a given battle scenario, or whether the personnel are trained or well paid, whether ammunition is available, etc. Argentine regional supremacy for 3/4 of the 20th century was associated with its "1:2:1" policy, that is, to have the weapons potential (air, naval and land) capable of simultaneously confronting Brazil and Chile. Here I made a bigger breakdown.
Still Navypedia have not shared the data for the last decades of the 20th century (+ 1970s). However, we know that the fall of Argentina at the end of the century is evident (after the "Malvinas/Falklands War" and poor economic management of decades) and the sustained growth of Brazil (with a certain "destiny for a regional superpower") and Chile (with a strong presence military in their society). I do not share the observation about Peru, which since the 1950s has shown growth, not at the level of the previous ones, but with the capacity to acquire cruisers and destroyers of a not despicable quality.

Fortunately, the fleets did not fight each other
Unfortunately, the fleets always participated in coups and other internal armed conflicts

 

[awhalen61]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

 

[COLDOWN]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

Knowing my country, this information was deliberately burned or stolen.
For specific cases: documentation of the Nahuel tank has been burned and the original plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale years ago.
But hey, let's hope that some love of the country has survived in some corner of argentinean institutions and that we can find information like the one you mention.

 

[MayoAuzl]

Another fascinating thread. Using my Weyers Fleets books to look back over the last half century, Chile seems to have built up the most modern and capable array of ships, Brasil has a carrier and its excellent but largely ageing escorts, while Argentina and Peru rather lag behind.
Have you thought of a wider South American unbuilt projects thread?
On a positive note the navies above have so far never fought one another over the last half century.

South American countries now seem to be more inclined to buy second-hand warships after WW2 ,There are relatively few ships were ordered or self-built
Therefore unbuilt projects as far as i know is Argentina type42 Plans to build four and finally just two were served in ARA. Brazil may have some but I don’t know the Brazilian navy very well

It suddenly occurred to me that when Argentina was in the Cristina administration, about 2014 to 2015.Argentina had planned to purchase corvette from China which like the nigerian P18N class
IDK the reason why ARA give it up，This is a Chinese ship after all, And really really cheap just about forty million dollars
Maybe this will affect the relationship between Argentina and the EE. UU. But this is just a small warship that replaced minesweepers and gunboats in Chinese Navy after all.Not the missiles that Soviets gave to Cuba
Or maybe Chinese media reported something inaccurate

 

[MayoAuzl]

plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale

Oh no When did these things happen ?When the Junta fell?

 

[awhalen61]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

Knowing my country, this information was deliberately burned or stolen.
For specific cases: documentation of the Nahuel tank has been burned and the original plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale years ago.
But hey, let's hope that some love of the country has survived in some corner of argentinean institutions and that we can find information like the one you mention.

Shhhh.... let me dream

 

[COLDOWN]

plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale

Oh no When did these things happen ?When the Junta fell?

No, the Junta you are referring to is the one that fell in 1983. The documentation I mention is from 1910/11 and was published years ago on a blog by a descendant of someone involved in the purchase of the Rivadavia class.

Another fascinating thread. Using my Weyers Fleets books to look back over the last half century, Chile seems to have built up the most modern and capable array of ships, Brasil has a carrier and its excellent but largely ageing escorts, while Argentina and Peru rather lag behind.
Have you thought of a wider South American unbuilt projects thread?
On a positive note the navies above have so far never fought one another over the last half century.

South American countries now seem to be more inclined to buy second-hand warships after WW2 ,There are relatively few ships were ordered or self-built
Therefore unbuilt projects as far as i know is Argentina type42 Plans to build four and finally just two were served in ARA. Brazil may have some but I don’t know the Brazilian navy very well

It suddenly occurred to me that when Argentina was in the Cristina administration, about 2014 to 2015.Argentina had planned to purchase corvette from China which like the nigerian P18N class View attachment 650271
IDK the reason why ARA give it up，This is a Chinese ship after all, And really really cheap just about forty million dollars
Maybe this will affect the relationship between Argentina and the EE. UU. But this is just a small warship that replaced minesweepers and gunboats in Chinese Navy after all.Not the missiles that Soviets gave to Cuba
Or maybe Chinese media reported something inaccurate

"Cristina", No surname? hahah
I do not know exactly this case. I tend to ignore current news because I prefer the "dead history". The truth is that the offers of vehicles and equipment to unarmed countries like Argentina are constant (In recent weeks, Russian offerings have been fashionable).

 

[COLDOWN]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

Knowing my country, this information was deliberately burned or stolen.
For specific cases: documentation of the Nahuel tank has been burned and the original plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale years ago.
But hey, let's hope that some love of the country has survived in some corner of argentinean institutions and that we can find information like the one you mention.

Shhhh.... let me dream

Did you read this article?

Spoiler

"Due to the much more modest size than that of the prototype, the Argentine ships could not really be armed with a sufficient number of 203-mm guns. The choice was made in favor of an unusual caliber 190 mm. It should be noted that it is thanks to the weapons, on a purely formal basis, that these ships are classified as heavy cruisers. Initially, it was planned to install 9 guns on the cruisers in three-gun turrets, but it quickly became clear that this would entail a serious additional load on the hull structures (traditionally weak in Italian shipbuilding) and a general overload. Therefore, in the end, they decided to limit themselves to six guns in twin mounts. Unfortunately, very little is known about the guns themselves. According to the Italian historian Maurizio Bresha (magazine "Storia Militare", No. 9-2007), no documents on them have been preserved in the historical archives of the "OTO-Melara" company. Another Italian historian, Achille Rastelli, suggests that these guns were developed by the Odero-Terni for the large cruisers expected to be built shortly after the end of the First World War, but after the Washington Conference, which raised the maximum permitted caliber of cruisers' artillery to 203 mm, they turned out to be unclaimed ... The version that the Argentine ships were equipped with 190-mm cannons of the Vickers-Armstrong system with a barrel length of 45 klb., Similar to the guns of the Italian armored cruisers of the Pisa and San Giorgio types, built in 1905-1909 years., should be considered insolvent. Almirante Brown and 25 de Mayo each received six 190-mm Odero-Terni guns with a barrel length of 52 klb., Which was a forced version of the 190-mm / 45 Mk.VI cannon of the Vickers company, which was on the British cruisers Hawkins type. Apart from these two cruisers, this model was not installed on any other ship. For the gun, there were two types of shells: armor-piercing weighing 90.9 kg and high-explosive weighing 90.05 kg. The initial speed reached 959 m / s. With a high degree of probability, we can say that the survivability of the barrels of these fairly forced guns was rather low. Fortunately, they didn't have to fire on a real enemy. The towers of the Argentine cruisers were designed on the basis of the Trento towers. The diameter of the barbette is 5.4 m. The turret rotation drives are hydraulic, the horizontal guidance angles were 150 ″ per side. The guns in them were installed in a common cradle, the distance between the axes of the barrels was only 81 cm. The vertical aiming angles were from -7 to + 45 °, loading could be carried out in the range of elevation angles 0 ... 12 °. Practical rate of fire - up to 3.2 rounds per minute. Maximum firing range up to 27300 m. The ammunition load consisted of 120 rounds per barrel. The ammunition cellars were equipped with a refrigeration system. To control the fire of the main caliber, two command and rangefinder posts with 5-meter rangefinders served, in general, similar to those installed on Italian heavy cruisers. The reserve fire control post was located on the stern superstructure. Each tower was also equipped with its own 8-meter rangefinder."

TLTR:
Initial Ship Design: 3x3 190 mm.*
Final Ship Design: 2x2 190 mm.
Calibers: 190,5/52 mm (7,5 i).
AP Projectile: 90,9 kg.
HE Projectile: 90,05 kg.
Projectile Speed: 959 m/s.
Horizontal Angle: 150 º.
Vertical Angle: -7 º to +45 º.
Loading Angle: 0 º to 12 º.
Range: 27.300 m.
Rate of Fire: 3,2 r/min.**

*Other Ship Design: 3x2 203 mm with smaller Trento turret, in another sauces. No schemes of course.
**theorical 5 r/min, in another sauces.

Edit: words.

 

[MayoAuzl]

The truth is that the offers of vehicles and equipment to unarmed countries like Argentina are constant (In recent weeks, Russian offerings have been fashionable).

If a Agentino don’t know, it can only show that the progress of the offers was not that far. Chinese media reported that inaccurate they even said the first ship will name by Malvinas
But talk about the Russian offer ,ARA Islas Malvinas which serve in ARA was a russian tugboat (I know that because of the ship name lol )

"Cristina", No surname? hahah

official translate is “克里斯蒂娜”（means cristina） I just use it lol and maybe Argentino don’t call this lady that way lol

 

[Tzoli]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

Knowing my country, this information was deliberately burned or stolen.
For specific cases: documentation of the Nahuel tank has been burned and the original plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale years ago.
But hey, let's hope that some love of the country has survived in some corner of argentinean institutions and that we can find information like the one you mention.

Shhhh.... let me dream

Did you read this article?

Spoiler

"Due to the much more modest size than that of the prototype, the Argentine ships could not really be armed with a sufficient number of 203-mm guns. The choice was made in favor of an unusual caliber 190 mm. It should be noted that it is thanks to the weapons, on a purely formal basis, that these ships are classified as heavy cruisers. Initially, it was planned to install 9 guns on the cruisers in three-gun turrets, but it quickly became clear that this would entail a serious additional load on the hull structures (traditionally weak in Italian shipbuilding) and a general overload. Therefore, in the end, they decided to limit themselves to six guns in twin mounts. Unfortunately, very little is known about the guns themselves. According to the Italian historian Maurizio Bresha (magazine "Storia Militare", No. 9-2007), no documents on them have been preserved in the historical archives of the "OTO-Melara" company. Another Italian historian, Achille Rastelli, suggests that these guns were developed by the Odero-Terni for the large cruisers expected to be built shortly after the end of the First World War, but after the Washington Conference, which raised the maximum permitted caliber of cruisers' artillery to 203 mm, they turned out to be unclaimed ... The version that the Argentine ships were equipped with 190-mm cannons of the Vickers-Armstrong system with a barrel length of 45 klb., Similar to the guns of the Italian armored cruisers of the Pisa and San Giorgio types, built in 1905-1909 years., should be considered insolvent. Almirante Brown and 25 de Mayo each received six 190-mm Odero-Terni guns with a barrel length of 52 klb., Which was a forced version of the 190-mm / 45 Mk.VI cannon of the Vickers company, which was on the British cruisers Hawkins type. Apart from these two cruisers, this model was not installed on any other ship. For the gun, there were two types of shells: armor-piercing weighing 90.9 kg and high-explosive weighing 90.05 kg. The initial speed reached 959 m / s. With a high degree of probability, we can say that the survivability of the barrels of these fairly forced guns was rather low. Fortunately, they didn't have to fire on a real enemy. The towers of the Argentine cruisers were designed on the basis of the Trento towers. The diameter of the barbette is 5.4 m. The turret rotation drives are hydraulic, the horizontal guidance angles were 150 ″ per side. The guns in them were installed in a common cradle, the distance between the axes of the barrels was only 81 cm. The vertical aiming angles were from -7 to + 45 °, loading could be carried out in the range of elevation angles 0 ... 12 °. Practical rate of fire - up to 3.2 rounds per minute. Maximum firing range up to 27300 m. The ammunition load consisted of 120 rounds per barrel. The ammunition cellars were equipped with a refrigeration system. To control the fire of the main caliber, two command and rangefinder posts with 5-meter rangefinders served, in general, similar to those installed on Italian heavy cruisers. The reserve fire control post was located on the stern superstructure. Each tower was also equipped with its own 8-meter rangefinder."

TLTR:
Initial Ship Design: 3x3 190 mm.*
Final Ship Design: 2x2 190 mm.
Calibers: 190,5/52 mm (7,5 i).
AP Projectile: 90,9 kg.
HE Projectile: 90,05 kg.
Projectile Speed: 959 m/s.
Horizontal Angle: 150 º.
Vertical Angle: -7 º to +45 º.
Loading Angle: 0 º to 12 º.
Range: 27.300 m.
Rate of Fire: 3,2 r/min.**

*Other Ship Design: 3x2 203 mm with smaller Trento turret, in another sauces. No schemes of course.
**theorical 5 r/min, in another sauces.

Edit: words.

Remember that the Vickers offer for Argentina too was specified with 190mm weaponry: (According to Norman Friedman)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/argentinian-never-were-warship-designs-and-proposals.32632/#post-369307

 

[COLDOWN]

This thread gives me hope that one day the mystery of the 190mm guns of the Almirante Brown class can be put to rest

Knowing my country, this information was deliberately burned or stolen.
For specific cases: documentation of the Nahuel tank has been burned and the original plans of the battleship Rivadavia have been put up for sale years ago.
But hey, let's hope that some love of the country has survived in some corner of argentinean institutions and that we can find information like the one you mention.

Shhhh.... let me dream

Did you read this article?

Spoiler

"Due to the much more modest size than that of the prototype, the Argentine ships could not really be armed with a sufficient number of 203-mm guns. The choice was made in favor of an unusual caliber 190 mm. It should be noted that it is thanks to the weapons, on a purely formal basis, that these ships are classified as heavy cruisers. Initially, it was planned to install 9 guns on the cruisers in three-gun turrets, but it quickly became clear that this would entail a serious additional load on the hull structures (traditionally weak in Italian shipbuilding) and a general overload. Therefore, in the end, they decided to limit themselves to six guns in twin mounts. Unfortunately, very little is known about the guns themselves. According to the Italian historian Maurizio Bresha (magazine "Storia Militare", No. 9-2007), no documents on them have been preserved in the historical archives of the "OTO-Melara" company. Another Italian historian, Achille Rastelli, suggests that these guns were developed by the Odero-Terni for the large cruisers expected to be built shortly after the end of the First World War, but after the Washington Conference, which raised the maximum permitted caliber of cruisers' artillery to 203 mm, they turned out to be unclaimed ... The version that the Argentine ships were equipped with 190-mm cannons of the Vickers-Armstrong system with a barrel length of 45 klb., Similar to the guns of the Italian armored cruisers of the Pisa and San Giorgio types, built in 1905-1909 years., should be considered insolvent. Almirante Brown and 25 de Mayo each received six 190-mm Odero-Terni guns with a barrel length of 52 klb., Which was a forced version of the 190-mm / 45 Mk.VI cannon of the Vickers company, which was on the British cruisers Hawkins type. Apart from these two cruisers, this model was not installed on any other ship. For the gun, there were two types of shells: armor-piercing weighing 90.9 kg and high-explosive weighing 90.05 kg. The initial speed reached 959 m / s. With a high degree of probability, we can say that the survivability of the barrels of these fairly forced guns was rather low. Fortunately, they didn't have to fire on a real enemy. The towers of the Argentine cruisers were designed on the basis of the Trento towers. The diameter of the barbette is 5.4 m. The turret rotation drives are hydraulic, the horizontal guidance angles were 150 ″ per side. The guns in them were installed in a common cradle, the distance between the axes of the barrels was only 81 cm. The vertical aiming angles were from -7 to + 45 °, loading could be carried out in the range of elevation angles 0 ... 12 °. Practical rate of fire - up to 3.2 rounds per minute. Maximum firing range up to 27300 m. The ammunition load consisted of 120 rounds per barrel. The ammunition cellars were equipped with a refrigeration system. To control the fire of the main caliber, two command and rangefinder posts with 5-meter rangefinders served, in general, similar to those installed on Italian heavy cruisers. The reserve fire control post was located on the stern superstructure. Each tower was also equipped with its own 8-meter rangefinder."

TLTR:
Initial Ship Design: 3x3 190 mm.*
Final Ship Design: 2x2 190 mm.
Calibers: 190,5/52 mm (7,5 i).
AP Projectile: 90,9 kg.
HE Projectile: 90,05 kg.
Projectile Speed: 959 m/s.
Horizontal Angle: 150 º.
Vertical Angle: -7 º to +45 º.
Loading Angle: 0 º to 12 º.
Range: 27.300 m.
Rate of Fire: 3,2 r/min.**

*Other Ship Design: 3x2 203 mm with smaller Trento turret, in another sauces. No schemes of course.
**theorical 5 r/min, in another sauces.

Edit: words.

Remember that the Vickers offer for Argentina too was specified with 190mm weaponry: (According to Norman Friedman)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/argentinian-never-were-warship-designs-and-proposals.32632/#post-369307

On page 92 of "Marineblad jrg 48, 1933 [volgno 2]" it is mentioned the American cruiser proposal for Argentina as an alternative to the italian desing (aka the Brown/Veinticinco de Mayo).
It is described as "Alvorens het ontwerp van Orlando, dat gekozen was, werd uitbesteed, werd prijsopgave gevraagd aan verschillende scheepswerven van het vasteland en aan de Bethlehem shipbuilding Cy., in de Ver. Staten. Deze laatste verklaarde, dat de gevraagde snelheid van 33.5 mijl tenminste 3 schroeven zou vergen, in plaats van 2. Verder zou de hoofdbewapening gereduceerd moeten worden tot kns van 17 8 cm, het 10 5 cm anti-luchtgeschut door 7.5 cm dito en de prijs kwam dan op 1.167 000 £".
I interpret:

• 6.000 tons
• 33.5 knots
• 3 propellers
• 6? x 178mm
• 12? x 75mm

Any idea?

 

[Tzoli]

The large number of secondary / DP-AA Guns seems like a strict requirment as both the finished ship, the Vickers offer, and this American offer had large number of them.
178mm...weird choice especially from USA though they might had some excess 7"/45 Mark 2 guns from the old Connecticut and Mississippi classes? I would had gone with 3x3 or 4x2 6" if I were Bethlehem, using the 6"/53 guns put on the Omahas, or if there were still enough barrels from the Rivadavia and Salamis order of Bethlehem type 6"/50 or 6"/44 guns

 

[COLDOWN]

Santiago class Destroyers of 1913 (Finished as G101 for Germany)

Any chance to get the original schemes?*
Configured as 4(4x1)102/50 + 2(2x1)37/40 + 8(4x2)533.
Something like this:

*Argentine institutions still closed.

 

[COLDOWN]

The truth is that the offers of vehicles and equipment to unarmed countries like Argentina are constant (In recent weeks, Russian offerings have been fashionable).

If a Agentino don’t know, it can only show that the progress of the offers was not that far. Chinese media reported that inaccurate they even said the first ship will name by Malvinas
But talk about the Russian offer ,ARA Islas Malvinas which serve in ARA was a russian tugboat (I know that because of the ship name lol )

"Cristina", No surname? hahah

official translate is “克里斯蒂娜”（means cristina） I just use it lol and maybe Argentino don’t call this lady that way lol

Watch the Chinese jump!

 

[Tzoli]

Nope My German never were designs are quite limited.

 

[COLDOWN]

Source: Warship 1997-8.