Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

[COLDOWN]

Also in 1908 Ansaldo proposed to Argentina a 6*3 12" guns battleship, a design characterized by maybe the worst turrets layout ever conceived.

You were right. Proyecto D was de 18*305mm for Argentina
Found argentine documents. Hard to translate all so i'm working on a table. I will publish it in a couple of hours.
Schemes? There are no schemes in Ar Gen Tina

//
Today i have found a hundred of cruiser, submarines and destroyers proposals from several nations in the 1920s.

There were local madness in the Naval Plans too

Year: 1925.
Type: Heavy Cruiser
Standard Displacement: 10,000 t
Armament: 12 * 8"
Torpedoes: 12*21"
Speed: 30 ks
Range: 14,000 ms
Cost: 2,350,000 L
Looking for more details in the next few weeks. Without much hope.

 

[COLDOWN]

I resume the design of the Ansaldo battleships for Argentina in the period 1908-1909.

The original document is this:

Spoiler

The table I made is the following:

It´s is spanish. I know that some find it difficult to translate or interpret the language so I can make a translation of it, if requested.

It is important that I point out the following:
- The Ansaldo book for Argentina was published in 1909, during the transition of all the Italian proposals and, therefore, it does not represent either the first or the last of the negotiation stages during the tender.
- The book presents PROYECTO A as the baseline of the Italian battleship offers. And this indicates that all other designs must compare to this one.
- The book has technical language but the writing mixes all the designs (undoubtedly to favor PROYECTO A).
- The book refers to Schemes that are not present in it. For this reason and the former, reading the document is difficult when trying to understand each design and the relationship between the designs.
- PROYECTO B (or Progetto 1908) is the most famous and the only one that has lasted over time, that is, it is the only one whose eccentric diagram is preserved, characterized by the distribution of 15 guns in 5 triple towers.

Spoiler

- After this publication, at the beginning of 1910, Argentina required an increase in armor superior to 10 inches and 24 knots of speed at a low price. This technical complexity and loss of economic profitability prevented Ansaldo from winning over Fore River (Bethlehem).

Let me know if you need to expand of details.

Regards

 

[alexi]

Shouldn't that be Project B? Project D have 18 guns, i believe it similar to Ansaldo dreadnoughts offers for Russian navy, anyway the whole table designs pretty messy.

 

[COLDOWN]

Shouldn't that be Project B? Project D have 18 guns, i believe it similar to Ansaldo dreadnoughts offers for Russian navy, anyway the whole table designs pretty messy.

Well I will rewrite it in english. The big problem for me was to transfer all the data without the presence of diagrams or technical sheets. Details are disaggregated in the text.
PROYECTO A, the baseline, covers almost the entire book and from time to time there are mentions of the other types. For example PROYECTO D (18 * 305) and PROYECTO D Bis (same ship but with 12 * 343) are mentioned in a couple of sentences within a 200 page.

Yes, typo! PROYECTO B is the 15*305 and PROYECTO D is the 18*305.

 

[COLDOWN]

Well I can't say this was an original proposal for Argentina, but the american battleship designs #34 and #35 (later New York and Texas) were studied for the final details of the Rivadavia.
These were delivered together with the plans for the 14 "Mark I gun. As soon as they had ordered the two Rivadavia, the Argentines were afraid of the characteristics of the third brazilian battleship in construction (at that time was 12 x14") and they had to choose to stay with the original configuration, modify it with new guns or acquire a third more powerful battleship.


Quote already mentioned in this topic. This time is from: United States congressional serial set. 6105 (1911).

Where can I find those general plans or proposed designs for the #34 & #35?
About #34 & #35 here and here.

Regards

PS: Did imgur fall? I can't load images.

 

[COLDOWN]

Light stuff:

A book entitled "Comparative Study of the South American Naval Power" (Domecq García, 1923) came into my hands, where conflict scenarios are created for Argentina against a South American Coalition (TLTR Brazil & Chile).
What is done for 100 pages is to calculate what the own Navy has (TLTR 2-BB Rivadavia, 4-DD Catamarca) and what their rivals could have (TLTR Brazil 2-BB Minas Geraes, 2-CL Bahia & Chile 1-BB 2-DD Lynch, plus new acquisitions).
Smaller or low-capacity vessels, owned and operated by others (such as the San Martin-class cruisers or the Pará destroyers) are counted and ignored, although I do not remember the submarines (I have not taken additional photographs).
Then a quantity of ships necessary to face them is elaborated. These are the general characteristics of the warships wanted in Argentina in the year 1923.
It reads: Fast-Battleship, Battle-Cruiser, Explorer-Cruiser, again, Flotille-Leader, Submarine, Aircraft-Carrier, etc.

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello there.

Ansaldo 1908-1909 battleships and torpedo proposals here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1W6KWUDXY8zdvEDESdnwpINsUMaK2CrKp?usp=sharing
Ansaldo 1910 proposals are not there, so the proposals that you will read do not correspond to the last tender of the Argentine dreadnoughts and destroyers.

//

Light cruisers budgets for Argentina, 1924-5:

Destroyers budgets for Argentina, 1924-5:

Submarine budgets for Argentina, 1924-5:

I don't think those needs translations.

Regards

 

[COLDOWN]

Light cruisers budgets for Argentina, 1924-5:

I must add (around 1926):
- Loire: 334 p/t.
- Fairfield: 334 p/t.
- Vickers-Armstrong: 214 p/t. Diomede type.
- Orlando: 172 l/t. [Maybe a] Brown previous proposal with 5,925t and 6*190mm.
Source: "Revue Mar. 11/1932" and/or "Marineblad 1932"

I have not yet accessed the Argentine sources, so it is possible that the lists and details will surely be expanded in the future (you will notice that the budgets of Swedish and Dutch shipyards are missing, for example).

 

[Tzoli]

Will check the document

 

[Tzoli]

Some extra nitbit info on the Almirante Latorre: (I know she was a Chilean battleship)

All the World's Battlecruisers-H.M.S. Canada

In late 1918, the Director of Naval Construction compiled two volumes on all the Royal Navy vessels (large and small) that entered service, or were la

www.tapatalk.com

 

[COLDOWN]

Some extra nitbit info on the Almirante Latorre: (I know she was a Chilean battleship)

All the World's Battlecruisers-H.M.S. Canada

In late 1918, the Director of Naval Construction compiled two volumes on all the Royal Navy vessels (large and small) that entered service, or were la

www.tapatalk.com

Maybe we can create a "Chilean topic" or just edit this title as "Argentine plus Chilena topic". Any choice we will like it.

//

The speed of the Latorre has been quite enigmatic.

As far as I recall it is recorded by British usage that during the Great War the ship had reached 24.3 knots (28.0 miles per hour) at forced speed.
But in the postwar period, the ship was incorporated by Chile without maintenance and with the need for machinery work, which made the maximum speed of her be about 21.0 knots (24.2 miles per hour) in 24-hour tests.
In December 1930 she would have reached 20.9 knots (24.0 miles per hour)* with a power of 56,803 shp in 1 hour tests.
Towards the 1940s, I do not remember seeing references to the speed of it exceeding 22.5 / 22.7 knots (if I find it I will edit this comment and point it out in due course).

For comparission the Rivadavia class in the +1915 reached 22.6 knots with 39,750 hp and in the +1926 reached 23.2 knots with 52,370 to 54,000 hp.

*There are authors who assimilate nautical miles per hour and knots as equals. Personally, I do the conversion by calculator. I leave it to the discretion of each one if you want to say "24 knots" or "24 nautical miles".

Sources of information, more or less valid, are:

Chile - Acorazado "Almirante Latorre"

chile-acorazadolatorre.blogspot.com

https://revistamarina.cl/revistas/1988/3/glwoodm.pdf.

Acorazado

www.armada.cl

 

[Tzoli]

So all these Ansaldo projects shows /50 calibre weapons I thought they would use the Armstrong Mk R guns which were /45 calibre.
At the propulsion Alternatives means either VTE or Turbines
while
Alternativas y Turbinas means VTE AND Turbines (ala Normandie?)

 

[Tzoli]

I resume the design of the Ansaldo battleships for Argentina in the period 1908-1909.

The original document is this:

Spoiler

The table I made is the following:

It´s is spanish. I know that some find it difficult to translate or interpret the language so I can make a translation of it, if requested.

It is important that I point out the following:
- The Ansaldo book for Argentina was published in 1909, during the transition of all the Italian proposals and, therefore, it does not represent either the first or the last of the negotiation stages during the tender.
- The book presents PROYECTO A as the baseline of the Italian battleship offers. And this indicates that all other designs must compare to this one.
- The book has technical language but the writing mixes all the designs (undoubtedly to favor PROYECTO A).
- The book refers to Schemes that are not present in it. For this reason and the former, reading the document is difficult when trying to understand each design and the relationship between the designs.
- PROYECTO B (or Progetto 1908) is the most famous and the only one that has lasted over time, that is, it is the only one whose eccentric diagram is preserved, characterized by the distribution of 15 guns in 5 triple towers.

Spoiler

- After this publication, at the beginning of 1910, Argentina required an increase in armor superior to 10 inches and 24 knots of speed at a low price. This technical complexity and loss of economic profitability prevented Ansaldo from winning over Fore River (Bethlehem).

Let me know if you need to expand of details.

Regards

Indeed Project B should be this design that I've made the drawing of:

https://imgur.com/7AsdI2A

View: http://i.imgur.com/7AsdI2A.jpg


But the drawing data page shows 20.000tons and the secondary guns looks like 120mm rather 152mm but will check them later. This drawing should be available somewhere and making a much better photo would provide the necessary missing data. Interesting that the book only gives dimensions for the Project A variants (A1-A5) but not on the other variants yet the drawing shows they are well detailed designs with all the necessary information (Engine, Armament, Armour, Dimensions etc)

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello there. Long time.

We all know the argentine 1913 torpedo-destroyer "San Luis" class.
History:

Spoiler

- In 1910, Argentina defined its Destroyer model: 4 (4xI) 102-millimeter guns, 4 (4xI) 533-millimeter torpedo launchers, displacement of 1000 tons and speed of 32 knots.
- Between 1910 and 1912 in the British shipyards 4 destroyers grouped in the "San Luis" class were manufactured. In parallel, another 4 destroyers were built in Germany and 4 destroyers in France.
- Between the years 1911 and 1912, Chile ordered destroyers in three orders or subclasses ("Almirantes" I, II and III) and battleships ("Santiago" class) that increased the baseline of the requirements that modern explorers and destroyers should meet.
- In 1912 the "San Luis" class is sold to Greece because they did not meet the Argentine requirements of maximum sustained speed.
- In 1913 Argentina applied the budget extension of the original naval program and a new class of 4 destroyers was ordered to replace those not received. For its manufacture, the German houses were used, since they were the only ones that until now had complied with the conditions of the contract (the 4 French-made destroyers had delayed their construction).
- In 1914 the German Empire decided to requisition the 4 destroyers ("San Luis", "Santa Fé", "Santiago del Estero" and "Tucumán") and equip them with their own standards. Cannons, torpedo tubes and boilers were the most prominent modifications.
- In 1915 the 4 destroyers began their service as the "G-101" class.

Technical specifications:

Spoiler

- Main Battery: 4 x 101.6-millimeter 50-caliber guns in single mounts (4×1, 1-1-1-1, 4|4 configuration) with 14.0-kilogram projectiles, muzzle velocity of 914 meters per second and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute.
- Torpedo battery: 8 × 533.4 mm and ~6.4 meter torpedo tubes in double mounts (4×2, 2|2-2|2, 4|4 configuration) with ~1180 kilogram torpedoes, with ~150 charge kilograms and with a speed of 34 knots at 5 kilometers.
- Maximum sustained speed: 33.5 knots.
- Expected engine power: 30,000 horse power.
-Normal displacement: 1,250 long tons.

Pictures:

Spoiler

Argentine construction:

German service:

World of Warships:

Unfortunately I still can't get all details and schematics of the original argentine design.

Some will remember the brazilian 1913 torpedo-destroyer "Vickers 669 design".
History:

Spoiler

- Designer: Vickers (Thursfield).
- Date: 27 May 1913.
- It seems to mirror the functions of the argentine "San Luis/Santiago del Estero" destroyer.
- More, new and big torpedoes than previous cruisers and destroyers in the brazilian fleet.
- Price: £220,000.

Technical characteristics:

Spoiler

- Guns: 2 x 4in, 4 x 6-pounders
- Torps: 6 x 21in (8 torpedoes).
- Feature: 4ft 6in Barr & Stroud rangefinder.
- Speed: Illegible. ~32 ks?
- Machine: 5 boilers, 2 shaft, turbines.
- Range (economical speed and oil fuel): 1750nm.
- Power: Illegible. ~25.000 hp?
- Displacement: 1200 tons
- Size: 315ft × 28ft × 18ft × 8¼ft (96x8,5m)

Image:

Spoiler

Unfortunately I still can't get schematics of the original brazilian design.

And now I will share with you the chilean 1914 torpedo-destroyer "Super-Lynch" (as I call it).
History:
This 1914 kind of destroyer inverts the Chilean doctrine of better gun armament in favor of torpedo armament. The base idea stems from Cunniberti's designs, in which the ship has torpedo launchers distributed in such a way that it can fire volleys in any position

Technical characteristics:
- Standard displacement: 1500-1800t.
- Size: ~110,5m x ~9.9m (supposed as Almirante III subclass).
- Full displacement: ~1900-2200t (supposed with 400-500 carbon+oil as Almirante class).
- Speed: ~31ks (supposed as Almirante class).
- Torpedo launchers: 16 (8x2) 457mm. 24 torpedoes.
- Torpedos: Whitehead Fiume 457mm/5.5m, 100kg, 42kmh@2km, 30kmh@6km, 27kmh@7km.
- Guns: 6 (6x1) 102mm/45 Armstrong Mark S (supposed as Admirals).
Pictures:
Chilean "Super-Lynch" design:

Almirante subclasses illustrations:

Spoiler

Almirante subclasses photographs:

Spoiler

Regards

 

[COLDOWN]

What I don't know is what the circles between of each launchers represent?
Funnels space?
Circulation/clean space?
Operational space?

 

[Tzoli]

I think you meant 8x2 launchers not 4x2.
As for the circles they could be Torpedo director stations or cranes for reloading the launchers.
Quite heavily armed destroyer!

 

[COLDOWN]

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

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.

Found the Maipú argentine class project
year 1902
construction 15 months
dimensions 138x23m
weight 14.850 t
power 25.000 hp
speed 22k
belt 254 mm
turrets 356 mm
batteries 203 mm
turrets 356 mm
deck 102 mm
Guns Vickers Sons, Maxim.
4 (2xII) 305mm
16 (16xI) 190mm
12 (12xI) 102mm
12 (12xI) 76mm
7 mg

 

[Tzoli]

Maipú was the Italian proposal yes?

 

[COLDOWN]

Maipú was the Italian proposal yes?

Yes, it was one of the battleship proposals.

Apparently in 1902 there was a requeriment for two cruisers too:
115x20m, 7280t
14000hp, 20,5k
1x254mm+2x203mm+14x152mm+10x75mm+2x450mm
belt 150mm, batteries 152mm, turrets 152mm, deck ¿152mm?
This proposal was similar to the Mitre/Rivadavia/Kasuga sub-class. No design available.

 

[Tzoli]

Very similar to the KUK Armoured cruisers as well

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello there.

Among the Argentine purchases of Destroyers there are two cases that have controversial technical and historical details and therefore deserve a mention.

First Destroyer: According to von Rauch ("Conflict in the Souther Cone", page 185 and forums) and Arguindeguy ("Apuntes Buques Armada Argentina V" p2285) Argentina between 1901-1902 ordered 6 destroyers of a unique class to be built at the Pattison shipyard in Naples, Italy. But in 1902 this order was canceled due to border treaties with Chile and the destroyers were incorporated into the Italian Navy as the Nembo class (Aquilone, Borea,Espera Nembo, Turbine, and Zeffiro; see http://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_nembo.htm).
Among its features would be:
- Normal displacement: 380 t (according to von Rauch).
- Displacement full: 450 t (according to von Rauch and Arguindeguy).
- Length: 70.0 m (according to von Rauch and Arguindeguy).
- Breadth: 7.0 m (according to von Rauch and Arguindeguy).
- Draft: 1.9 m (according to von Rauch and Arguindeguy).
- No of shafts: 2 (according to author not found).
- Machinery: 2 VTE, 3 Thornycroft boilers (according to author not found).
- Power: 5,200 - 5,350 h. p. (according to von Rauch and 12,000 h. p. according to Arguindeguy).
- Max speed: 30 - 30.5 kts (according to von Rauch and 30 kts according to Arguindeguy).
- Fuel: coal 80 t. (according to von Rauch and 90 t according to Arguindeguy)
- Endurance: 2200 nm (9 kts) (according to author not found).
- Armament: 1 x 1 - 76/40 A, 3 x 1 - 57/43 N, 2 x 1 - 37/27? N, 4 x 1 - 457 TT. (according to author not found and 5 x 102, 2 x 533 according to Arguindeguy)
- Complement: 65 p (according to von Rauch and Arguindeguy).
Unfortunately I don't have the diagrams. And I have lost/forgotten a source of information.

Second Destroyer: According to Arguindeguy ("Apuntes Buques Armada Argentina" Tº5 p2285) prior to 1915 a contract was signed with a shipyard for the purchase of 6 destroyers of a single class to be built in Italy. In these years it would be the fourth contract to acquire destroyers after the German "Catamarca/Córdoba", the British "San Luis" (resold to Greece), the French "San Juan/Mendoza" (requisitioned by this country) and the German "San Luis/Santiago del Estero" (requisitioned by this country and that replaced the English contract). With the Italian entry into the war, records of such ships have been lost.
In this case there are no details of the characteristics of the ships. Let us remember that the "Argentine Type 1910" that were requested from foreign shipyards had a base displacement of 1000 long tons, a maximum speed of 32 knots, four Bethlehem 100/50-millimeter guns and four Whithead 533-millimeter torpedo launchers (only the exception was the "San Luis/Santiago del Estero", which would be an enlarged version of the "Catamarca/Córdoba" and with 8 533mm torpedo launchers).
Unfortunately I don't have the diagrams either. My interpretation is that the historian Arguindeguy has mixed the characteristics of the destroyers of the years 1901/02 with those of the years 1914/15, which is evidenced by the rarity of the characteristics that he gives for "his" Nembo. Continuing with this idea, I believe that in the future we will find that this second type of destroyer was characterized by 5 102-millimeter guns and 2 533-millimeter launchers (a destroyer capable of complementing the "San Luis/Santiago del Estero" and capable of confront the Chilean "Almirante"). And in my opinion, with more or less criteria, it could be assimilated to the Italian "Poerio" class, http://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_poerio.htm.

Regards, ColDown

Edit: Words.

 

[COLDOWN]

Just a detail about the companies that offered battleships designs to argentina in 1909:

• Austria — Stabilimento técnico, Trieste.
• England — Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth C°., Limited; Messers Vickers Sons and Maxim, Limited; Messers John Brown and C°., Limited; Messers. Palmers Shipbuilding and Engineering C°., Limited; Messers. Coronel, Laird C°., Limited; Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering C°., Limited; Messers. Yarrow and C°., Limited; Thames Ironwirks, Shipbuilding and Engineering C°., Limited; Messers. William Beardmore and C°., Limited; Messers. W. Denny and Brothers; Messers. John T. Thornycroft and C°., Limited.
• France — Societé des Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterranée; Societé des Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire; Societé des Ateliers de St. Nazaire; Societé des Chantiers et Ateniers de la Gironde; Messrs. Schneider and C°.; Messers. A. Normand et Cíe.
• Germany — Mr. T. Schichau, Elbig; Fried Krupp Aktiengessellschaft Germaniawerfk; Stettnier Machinenbau Gessellschaft Vulcan; Messers. Blohm and Voos, Hamburgo.
• Italy — Messers. Gio Ansaldo, Armstrong and C°.; Messers. Fratelli Orlando and C°.; Messers. N. Odero fu Alesso and C°.
• Netherlands — Nederlandsche Scheepshouw Maatschappy.
• United States — The New York Shipbuilding C°., Candem Pa; Messers. Cramp and Sons, Ship and Engine Building, C°.; Thi Fore River Shipbuilding C°.*, Fore River, Mass; The The Newport-News, Shipbuilding C°.

This is the tender first stage, March 1909, so the battleships are 20,000 long tons and the destroyers 650 long tons. Later, January 1910, by modifications made to the technical requirements in the last stage of tender, battleships reached 30,000 long tons and destroyers 1,000 long tons**.

There are plenty of designs to reach

* The winner was Bethlehem (company that bought Fore River).
** In practice the maximum displacement of the Rivadavia class was 32,000 long tons (33,600 modernized) and the Catamarca/Córdoba destroyers reached 1,300 long tons.

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

The Dutch shipyard Maatschappij voor Scheeps-en Werktuigbouw Fijenoord, Rotterdam, Netherlands offered in 1922 the Argentinean Navy to built 6 submarines of the German type with a displacement of 550 and 850 tons. In 1923 was a new tender sent and a design for a submarine mine layer. In 1924 still no decision. I shall publish on short notice more details

 

[Tzoli]

Did you find anything more about these elevated twin turrets? The ones offered to Argentina and not Peru?

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello. I have not seen anything new in the publications of the time. In any case, I want to clarify that it was a question of expressions in the Peruvian article that led me to think that. I will take the blame.

Regarding those proposals, between the Argentine and Peruvian articles, the following original source can be identified: "Rivista Maríttima". Year 1907, Month July, Number 1935. Author Lieutenant of Navy "De Feo V.". Print of the "Ministerio de Marina".
Sadly I have no access to it.

---

However, it should be noted that many times these publications coincide at times when there are lobbies for the purchase of certain warships.

For example, this cruiser-submarine project was published in Argentina at the same time that the repowering of the Navy was being budgeted for and the purchase of submarines in Europe was beginning to be negotiated.
It does not appear to be a direct offer to Argentina, as it is part of a publication in the "Revue Maritime" (September, 1925), but there was an effort to publish this in local magazines.

Spoiler

 

[Tzoli]

Hello. I have not seen anything new in the publications of the time. In any case, I want to clarify that it was a question of expressions in the Peruvian article that led me to think that. I will take the blame.

Regarding those proposals, between the Argentine and Peruvian articles, the following original source can be identified: "Rivista Maríttima". Year 1907, Month July, Number 1935. Author Lieutenant of Navy "De Feo V.". Print of the "Ministerio de Marina".
Sadly I have no access to it.

---

However, it should be noted that many times these publications coincide at times when there are lobbies for the purchase of certain warships.

For example, this cruiser-submarine project was published in Argentina at the same time that the repowering of the Navy was being budgeted for and the purchase of submarines in Europe was beginning to be negotiated.
It does not appear to be a direct offer to Argentina, as it is part of a publication in the "Revue Maritime" (September, 1925), but there was an effort to publish this in local magazines.

Spoiler

View attachment 687890

such nice long sleek lines! 2x3 15cm, 2x2 10cm and 6x TT?

As for the Peruvian/Argentinian warship with elevated twin turrets, do you have the original image you cropped that little piece of?

 

[COLDOWN]

such nice long sleek lines! 2x3 15cm, 2x2 10cm and 6x TT?

As for the Peruvian/Argentinian warship with elevated twin turrets, do you have the original image you cropped that little piece of?

And 1 hangar with airplane!

//


Pics, best quality I can get

 

[Hood]

Interesting stuff, but with my Mod hat on could people stop quoting long chains of quotes with masses of pictures, its wasteful scrolling.

 

[Tzoli]

So all of these designs (Are they for Peru or Argentina?) are all 305mm armed yes?

 

[Dilandu]

Regarding those proposals, between the Argentine and Peruvian articles, the following original source can be identified: "Rivista Maríttima". Year 1907, Month July, Number 1935. Author Lieutenant of Navy "De Feo V.". Print of the "Ministerio de Marina".
Sadly I have no access to it.

Hm. Could it be "Revista de Marina"?

Index of /Documentos/BIBLIOTECA/HEMEROTECA/REVISTA DE MARINA

UPD. Yes, it's indeed "Revista de Marina".

 

[Dilandu]

So all of these designs (Are they for Peru or Argentina?) are all 305mm armed yes?

I found this exact issue ("Revista de Marina", issue 3 of 1907):

https://archivohistoricodemarina.mil.pe/Documentos/BIBLIOTECA/HEMEROTECA/REVISTA%20DE%20MARINA/REVISTA%20DE%20MARINA%201907/3.%20revista%20de%20marina%201907%20mes%20junio/3.%20revista%20de%20marina%201907%20mes%20junio.pdf

I hope someone who know Spanish could translate it, but from what I managed to understood - it's indeed, Peruvian bulletin, and the article in question is a theoretical research about modern naval architecture. Author (as far as I could understood) was mainly concerned about the placement of the guns, their ability to train at specific angles, and efficiency of short-range hits against enemy belts if shells impact at narrow angles.

The aforementioned schemes are purely theoretical concepts of "optimal battleship layout" from author's point of view. They doesn't seems to represent any real designs or requirements - just "how the optimal battleship should looks like".

So, those unique dreadnoughts are, indeed, Preuvian, but they are just layout schemes for theoretical research.

 

[COLDOWN]

So all of these designs (Are they for Peru or Argentina?) are all 305mm armed yes?

Yes

Regarding those proposals, between the Argentine and Peruvian articles, the following original source can be identified: "Rivista Maríttima". Year 1907, Month July, Number 1935. Author Lieutenant of Navy "De Feo V.". Print of the "Ministerio de Marina".
Sadly I have no access to it.

Hm. Could it be "Revista de Marina"?

Index of /Documentos/BIBLIOTECA/HEMEROTECA/REVISTA DE MARINA

UPD. Yes, it's indeed "Revista de Marina".

No.
Main source is the italian article from De Feo published in the "Rivista Marittima".
Then you have both peruvian ("Revista de Marina") and argentinian ("Revista de Publicaciones Navales") translations/interpretations.
If I had to award these designs it would be for the Italian Navy.

 

[Dilandu]

No.
Main source is the italian article from De Feo published in the "Rivista Marittima".
Then you have both peruvian ("Revista de Marina") and argentinian ("Revista de Publicaciones Navales") translations/interpretations.
If I had to award these designs it would be for the Italian Navy

Thank you for clarification! Unfortunately, I knew next to zero Spanish, and auto translators aren't good on scanned texts.

 

[COLDOWN]

I made an illustration of how the "Maipú" battleships could have been, based on the research of George von Rauch, who a few months ago created this specific topic to deal with the subject: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...attleships-ara-chacabuco-and-ara-maipü.41085/

 

[COLDOWN]

Well, recently the more details of the 1947 Vickers light cruisers desings for Argentina was found (along with destroyers and aircraft carriers). New documents proved Friedman and Murfin's details to be inaccurate.
Since this is not my investigation, I will only share the main details.

1947 cruisers for Argentina:

• Vickers Design 1124: 12x152mm*; 40mm; 13,000lt; 30.5kn.
• Vickers Design 1124A I-Variant: 4xIIIx152mm*; 6xIIx120mm**; 40mm; 14,000lt; 32.0kn. Like Vickers Design 1124, but enlarged for a better machinery system.
• Vickers Design 1124A II-Variant: 4xIIIx152mm*; 6xIIx120mm**; 40mm; 14,000lt; 32.0kn. Like Vickers Design 1124A I-Variant, but enlarged and with enhanced protection on machinery.
• Vickers Design 1124B I-Variant: 4xIIIx152mm*; 10xIIx88mm***; 40mm; 15,000lt; 32.0kn. Like Vickers Design 1124A I-Variant, but replaced all the secondarie weapons (120mm) and almost all the machine guns (40mm).
• Vickers Design 1124B II-Variant: 4XIIIx152mm*; 10xIIx88mm***; 40mm; 15,000lt; 32kn. Like Vickers Design 1124B I-Variant, but enlarged and with enhanced protection on machinery.

* The Marca W guns (as La Argentina unique cruiser) with better antiaircraft capabilities and 12.0 rounds per minute.
** The Marca IX* guns (as Buenos Aires class destroyers) with better antiaircraft capabilities and 12.0 rounds per minute or more.
*** A new gun design with antiaircraft capabilities.

All the credits must go to Trainspite.

Regards

 

[Dilandu]

Well, recently the more details of the 1947 Vickers light cruisers desings for Argentina was found (along with destroyers and aircraft carriers). New documents proved Friedman and Murfin's details to be inaccurate.
Since this is not my investigation, I will only share the main details.

Extremely interesting!

* The Marca W guns (as La Argentina unique cruiser) with better antiaircraft capabilities and 12.0 rounds per minute.

So they were intended to be a DP guns? But not autoloading?

 

[Tzoli]

6"/50 Mark W guns? Interesting choice.
Yes it was the gun of the La Argentina:

Argentina 6"/50 (15.2 cm) QF Mark W - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

I presume in the DP Mounting intended for the Neptune class? The Mark XXV?

United Kingdom / Britain 6"/50 (15.2 cm) QF Mark N5 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[COLDOWN]

Dilandu​

The 152mm/50cs Marca W were always double porpouse. But the maximum angle elevation of 45 ° had conflics against the WW2 aircrafts.
The projectile flight reached a maximum elevation of 8 km (vertical) & 13 km (horizontal) @ 35 seconds, and the most efficient flight seems to be 4 km (vertical) & 16 km (horizontal) @ 25 s.

Tzoli​

The Marca W Modelo 1937 cannons are the same as in La Argentina, as well as their projectiles (SAP, HE).
The towers are new, standard size with an elevation of 70°.
The loading operation is completely automatic in that the projectile and cartridge after being loaded by hand to the bottom of the turret are automatically transported, loaded, fired and ejected. This arrangement minimized the reload interval and was expected to achieve a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute.

 

[Tzoli]

Sort of improved Mark XXIII turrets I presume, similar to the ones used on the British light cruisers? (From Edinburgh to the Swiftsure class)

 

[COLDOWN]

Honestly with the new information, my interpretation of the armament of this ship has broken and I am trying to rearrange ideas.

Regarding the 194S British 6" turrets i found this:

• Conway's Warship Aº1996 p85 and p91

• Naval Weapons WWT p36

• Navypedia's United Kingdom 6'' Guns

Since I initially used Friedman and Murfin as the basis for understanding the 1124 designs, they assigned a very low displacement to these cruisers. And this made me assume that the towers and all their components turned out to be very light as well. Thus the Mark XXIV appeared as a light mount [Conway's Warship Aº1996 p85], with a rate of fire of 5.0 to 6.0 rounds per minute [Conway's Warship Aº1996 p91]. It was not clear whether the modified Mark XXIII (Belfast type) or the new Mark N5 (Neptune type) were the guns, nor whether the shells were similar to the british (respectively weighing 50.8 kilograms with a speed of 841 meters per second or a weight of 58.9 kilograms with a speed of 768 meters per second). And while the mount, renamed the RP 10 Mark XXIV [Naval Weapons WWT p36], is recorded to have received improvements, increasing the rate of fire to between 6.0 and 8.0 rounds per minute [Navypedia's United Kingdom 6'' Guns], this only could be achieved at the cost of increasing its weight and bulk, which violates the original design of our cruiser (as I said according to the weights that were assimilated in Friedman and Murfin).
Coincidentally when I suggested this design for World of Warships, I resolved this dilemma of maintaining continuity with Argentine technology, so what I decided was to change the barrel to the Mark W and the projectiles to the AP, SAP and HE in Argentine service, with which the combination with the Mark XXIV-Modified mount gave us a dual purpose weapon (and Tier IX competent for Panamerica).
With the new information I think we can now more easily blend the Argentine Marca W guns and British Mark XXIV mounts or even Mark XXV mounts into something newer (at least until more accurate documentation comes to light).