• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Do you guys know any other never-weres or proposed warships for the Argentinian Navy?

I know only these so far:

TR-1400 class Submarines from the 1980's

San Luis class Destroyers of 1910 (British built, finished as Aetos class for Greece)
Mendoza class Destroyers of 1910 (Finished as Aventurier class for France)
Santiago class Destroyers of 1913 (Finished as G101 for Germany)
Thornycroft-White-Yarrow Destroyer design 2.705tons 3x2 120mm of 1947 (Enlarged L class)

Vickers Light Cruiser Designs 758/758A 7.000ton 5x1 / 4x2 152mm of 1919

Bernardino Rivadavia class Armoured Cruisers of 1901 (Finished as Kasuga class for Japan)
Armstrong Armoured Cruiser Design 482 of 6.500ton 5unknown armament of 1906

Vickers Heavy Cruiser Design 1287 8.500ton 3x2 190mm (Vickers's rejected proposal for the Almirante Brown ) of 1927

Ansaldo Battleship Design of 20.000ton 5x3 305mm of 1908

Number of Vickers Battleship designs of 1906:
191 - 12.000tons 2x1 305mm, 6x2 190mm
192 - 12.500tons 6x2 254mm, 14x1 76mm
211 - 14.200tons 4x2 305mm, 20x1 102mm
211A - 14.500tons 4x2 305mm, 6x2,8x1 120mm
211B - 15.200tons 4x2 305mm, 6x2,8x1 120mm
214 - 14.500tons 2x2 305mm, 6x2 190mm, 14x1 102mm
216 - 14.500tons 2x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 2x2,16x1 120mm
229 - 16.500tons 3x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 20x1 102mm
230 - 15.750tons 2x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 28x1 120mm
248 - 17.250tons 2x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 24x1 120mm
249 - 17.600tons 2x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 24x1 120mm
Designs of 1907:
265 - 19.000tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 24x1 120mm
266 - 17.900tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 20x1 120mm
282 - 18.500tons 6x2 305mm, 24x1 120mm
283 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm, 20x1 120mm
286 - ???tons 6x2 305mm
286B - 20.000tons 2x3,4x2 305mm, 4x2,16x1 120mm
287 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm
288 - ???tons 6x2 305mm
289 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm
290 - ???tons 6x2 305mm
291 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm
292 - ???tons 6x2 305mm
293 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 4x2 254mm
312 - 21.600tons 2x3,4x2 305mm, 4x2,16x1 120mm
332 - ???tons 4x2 343mm, 16x1 152mm
335 - 20.500tons 2x3,4x2 305mm
350 - 19.800tons 6x2 305mm, 16x1 152mm
351 - 19.600tons 4x3 305mm, 16x1 152mm
354 - 21.200tons 4x3,2x2 305mm, 22x1 120mm
355 - 21.350tons 2x2 343mm, 2x3,2x2 305mm
356 - 19.300tons 6x2 305mm, 22x1 120mm
357 - 21.200tons 4x3 305mm, 10x2 152mm
361 - 20.100tons 4x3 305mm, 10x2 152mm
362 - 21.000tons 3x2 343mm, 2x3 305mm, 10x2 152mm
Designs of 1908:
382 - 17.800tons 4x2 305mm, 12x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
383 - 19.100tons 2x3,2x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
384 - ???tons 5x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
388 - 18.400tons 4x2 305mm, 16x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
389 - 19.500tons 4x3 305mm, 16x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
392 - ???tons 4x2 305mm, 16x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
400 - 20.400tons 4x3 305mm, 18x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
401A - 20.500tons 6x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
401B - 20.850tons 6x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
402A - 20.400tons 6x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
402B - 20.750tons 6x2 305mm, 14x1 152mm, 8x1 76mm
Designs of 1909:
428 - 27.250tons 6x2 305mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm
429 - 23.350tons 6x2 305mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm
441 - ???tons 6x2 305mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm

Number of Armstrong Battleship designs of 1906:
483 - 14.950tons armament unknown
Designs of 1909:
20.500tons 4x3 305mm, 16x1 152mm
Designs of 1910:
610 - 20.500tons 6x2 356mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm
611 - 20.500tons 5x2 305mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm
612 - 20.500tons 6x2 356mm, 12x1 152mm, 12x1 102mm


Well due to missing data I will not be able to draw all of them but I will try
 
Last edited:

NoBarrelRolls

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
49
Website
nobarrelrolls.blogspot.com
Hi Tzoli, I would add to that list the TR1700, which only 2 were build of the 6 that were originally proposed.
Those were the ARA San Juan (lost in 2017 with her crew in an accident) and the ARA Santa Cruz (this one is out of service and waiting for a refit/modernization).

The new two ARA Santa Fe and ARA Santiago del Estero were left abandoned in different states of completion in the Domeq-Garcia shipshard. Santa Fe is completed to a 70% and the Santiago del Estero at a 30%.

The ARA San Luis at the right is a Type 209, which is out of service and waiting for funds for a refit/modernization program

 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Yes I know about the ships which were ordered but not (yet) delivered:
6x Santa Cruz (Type 209/1100) class Submariens of only 2 were delivered
4x Murature class Frigattes of which only 2 were delivered
6x Almirante Brown (MEKO 360H2) class Destroyers of only 4 were delivered
6x General Garibaldi class Armoured Cruisers of only 4 were delivered
3x Almirante Brown class Heavy Cruisers of only 2 were delivered
3x Rivadavia class Battleships of only 2 were delivered

But I'm interested in whose which aren't begun or never delivered.
 

natewillcome4you

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
108
Reaction score
58
Was there ever a design intended to be a follow on to the Rivadavia class?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
No because the principal enemy, Brazil did not got it's Riachuelo and hence no new battleship to counter.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Here are the two drawings so far:
Thornycroft-White-Yarrow Destroyer Design of 1947:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 121,31(wl) 126,18 (oa) x 12,95m x 4,14m
Displacement: 2.705tons (Standard)
Engines: 58.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 2 shafts, UNIT Machinery
Speed: 65km/h (35knots)
Armaments:
3x2 4,7"/50 (120mm/50) QF Mk XI Guns,
2x2 Mk X (STAAG) 40mm/56 AA Guns,
4x2 20mm Oerlikon AA guns,
1x5 533mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensor suite:
3x Type 262 Fire-control Radar one for each CRBFD and twin 40mm STAAG mounts
2x Type 275 Fire-control Radar on the main armament director/rangefinder
1x Type 291 Air-warning Radar on top of the mast above and behind the Type 293M
1x Type 293M Surface search Radar on top of the mast
1x Type 960 Air-warning Radar on top of the mast above the Type 291


Original sketch drawing:

And Vickers Export Design 758A:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 160m (pp) x 15,7m x 4,72m
Displacement: 7.000ons (Standard)
Engines: 43.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 3 shafts
Speed: 54km/h (29knots)
Armour: Unknown, probably same as the Emerald class of 76mm Belt (51mm at machinery) 51mm Deck
Armaments:
4x2 6"/50 (152mm/50) Vickers Mk T Guns,
2x1 4"/45 (102mm/45) Vickers Mk L AA Guns,
2x1 40mm/39 QF Mk II Pom-Pom AA Guns,
4x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
 
Last edited:

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Tzoli, hello.
Excellent designs.
I am investigating Argentine ships.
So this weekend I will leave you some comments about ships that the Argentine Navy wanted to acquire, design or modify.
Regards

PS: Argentinian Tech Tree for WoWs
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
80
Not exactly never-were, but I have come across talk of a refit for the 25 de Mayo in the late 80s ~ early 90s that would have significantly changed and improved the ship.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
854
Some Argentine cancelled ships were:

Submarines:
French Design: 3 ordered early 1930s but cancelled in favour of Italian-built Santa Fe class
Oberon class: 2 planned 1968 but never ordered (partly due to British political opposition)
TR-1400 class: 2 subs: planned alongside TR-1700 deal, cancelled in favour of 2 additional TR-1700

Aircraft Carriers
1 ship: 1945-46 discussions from United Kingdom, never ordered
1 ship: 1955 discussions for US Saipan class or Liberty Ship conversion, never ordered

Destroyers
Churruca class: 2 ships of modified design ordered 1942, cancelled 1944, eventually built for Spain as Alava and Liniers

Frigates
Leander class: 4 ships planned 1960-62 but never ordered due to economic issues
Tridente Programme/MEKO-200: 4 ships planned under joint Chilean-Argentine programme, programme cancelled 2002


Mine Warfare Vessels
Ton class: 6 boats, planned 1960-62 but never ordered due to economic issues

Landing Ship Tank Programme: 1 ship ordered from South Korea 1982 but cancelled before construction began
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
I've just reading Norman Friedman's US Carriers and it did not mention Argentinian interest in one of the Saipan's
What do you know about the French design?
Also is there a site of comprehensive text about the various MEKO designs?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Here is the next drawing, Vickers faield bid for what become the Veinticio de Mayo class Heavy Cruisers:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 173,74m (pp), 184,4m (oa) x 17,17m x 5,03m
Displacement: 8.500ons (Standard)
Engines: 80.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 62km/h (33,5knots)
Armour: Unknown, probably similar to York so, 38mm Deck over Machinery, 76mm over Magazines, 76mm Belt over Machinery and 111mm over Magazines
Armaments:
3x2 7,5"/52 (190mm/52) OTO Modello 1927 Guns
7x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk V DP-AA Guns,
4x1 40mm/39 QF Mk VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns,
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
1x floatplane (I choose Supermarine Seagull)
 
Last edited:

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
854
I've just reading Norman Friedman's US Carriers and it did not mention Argentinian interest in one of the Saipan's
What do you know about the French design?
Also is there a site of comprehensive text about the various MEKO designs?
I will dig out the sources on the sub and carrier, I think the Saipan claim was in a Warship article.
I also have some Vickers export subs to add to the list.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
854
Pre-1945 Vickers export submarines offered to Argentina:

Design 783 – minelayer submarine
Design 831
Design 833 – also offered to Greece
Design 851 – October 1921, 640 tons (surf), 777 tons (sub), 197ft (pp) x 21ft 6in, 1,200hp for 14kts (surf), 4,300nm at 10kts, 4x 21in bow & 2x2 trainable tubes, 1x 4in
Design 855 – 1924-25, 656 tons (surf), 913 tons (sub), 204ft 6in x 21ft 6in, 2x 800hp Vickers HO diesels for 14.5kts (surf), 8,800nm at 8kts, 8kts (sub), 4x 21in bow & 1x stern tubes, 1x 4/45in & 2x MGs
Design 941 – December 1921, 21in bow & stern tubes, 2x1 6in
Design 1084 – minelayer submarine
Design 1086 – March 1924, 610 tons (surf), 745 tons (sub), 200ft x 18ft 6in, 14kts (surf), 8,000nm at 8kts, 8kts (sub), 4x 21in bow & 1x stern tubes (10x torpedoes), 1x 4in & 2x MGs,
Design 1087 – March 1924, 910 tons (surf), 1,100 tons (sub), 226ft x 21ft 3in, 16kts (surf), 8kts (sub), 4x 21in bow & 1x stern tubes (10x torpedoes), 1x 4in & 2x MGs
Design 1088 – March 1924, minelayer, 1,200 tons (surf), 1,550 tons (sub), 260ft x 24ft, 15kts (surf), 10,000nm at 8kts, 7kts (sub), 4x 21in bow tubes & 2x mine ejectors (40x mines), 1x 4in & 2x MGs
Design 1125 – probably different from Design 1125 offered to Turkey in 1924
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
651
Also in 1908 Ansaldo proposed to Argentina a 6*3 12" guns battleship, a design characterized by maybe the worst turrets layout ever conceived.
Yeah, that's just nuts. Once you've accepted superfiring turrets, why would you only use them at one end? I think there may be a few angles where this arrangement might bring more guns to bear than two pairs of superfiring turrets, but not many.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Sorry but that is for Russia not for Argentina.

Ansaldo's proposal for Argentina was this design:
 

Akaloso Dudu

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
8
Congratulations for the work.
Some more possible designs.
In Friedman's 'British Cruisers of the Victorian Era' there's a reference to more three argentinean cruisers developed from Vickers in 1912:
Design Design 580 - 9,000 tons, 560ft x 56ft x 28ft. 27 knots on 55,000 SHP. Eight 6in, ten 4in and four TT; Design 586 - 6,800 tons, 475ft x 47 1/2ft x 18ft. 27 knots. Five 6in and four 4in. 3in belt and Design 588 - 9,000 tons, 560ft x 56ft x 28ft. 27 knots on 55,000 SHP. Ten 6in and six 4in.
Friedman's 'British Cruisers: Two world wars and after' also indicates the existence of the cruiser Design 1124A with twelve 6in and twelve 4,7in.
Finally in 'The British Battleships 1906-1946' some Vickers 1901-1902 designs for Pre-Dreadnoughts Battleships:
Design 70 - 12,000 tons, 410ft x 74ft x 24ft. 19 knots on 13,500 IHP. Two 12in, twelve 7,5in (twin turrets), ten 6in, sixteen 14pdr and two submerged TT. 8in belt and Design 77 - 16,000 tons, 445ft x 76ft 6in x 27ft. 21 knots on 22,000 IHP. Four 12in, twelve 7,5in, twenty 14pdr and two TT. 9in belt.
I hope it could help this discussion.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
I know about these designs but at that time and as too Friedman written it some designs are offered for multiple countries. Friedman often mentions a design for one country then somewhat later mentioning the same for a different one.
I do not know these Vickers designs (580,86,88) so can you tell me more? I do not have Vickers numbers as low as these for cruisers (My lowest number is Design 20C an armoured cruiser of 8600tons, 2x1 9,2", 12x1 6" of 1899/1900)

Design 1124A was described as a "Stock Cruiser" no pontental buyar stated but yes it was possible it was offered to a variety of navies, but indeed Friedman mentions a Design 1124 as an Argentina Cruiser but no other Data mentioned.

Similarly Design 70 and 77 was offered for Chile as well:
"The earliest Argentine project in the Vickers design book is Design 191,
described as a modified version of an earlier Design 70, a 1901 project not
tied to any one customer, but probably intended for Chile (in 1901
Argentina was buying Italian-designed armoured cruisers rather than
battleships and Design 70 was a cruiser-killer)."

"At about the same time Vickers produced a
series of larger ships designated Design 77: 16,000 tons (445ft x 76ft 6in x 27ft,
22,000 IHP for 21 knots) with similar armament (four 12in, twelve 7.5in, twenty
14pdr, two torpedo tubes and 9in belt armour). Designs 70 to 70C had 8in belts, but
70D had 10in belt armour over 130ft of her length)."
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Yes I know about the ships which were ordered but not (yet) delivered:
6x Santa Cruz (Type 209/1100) class Submariens of only 2 were delivered
4x Murature class Frigattes of which only 2 were delivered
6x Almirante Brown (MEKO 360H2) class Destroyers of only 4 were delivered
6x General Garibaldi class Armoured Cruisers of only 4 were delivered
3x Almirante Brown class Heavy Cruisers of only 2 were delivered
3x Rivadavia class Battleships of only 2 were delivered
But I'm interested in whose which aren't begun or never delivered.
- Murature: 4 ships produced. Split in two classes (Murature and king & Azopardo and Piedra Buena).
- Garibaldi: The last 2 were adquired (as Mitre and Roca) but they were resold (Kasuga and Nisshin).
- Brown: HC, the third one was just an option. "Forums" said that there were proyects with 4 turrets/2 guns/152mm, 3 turrets/3 guns/152mm ... and 3 turrets/3 guns/190mm (I will share that later).
- Rivdavia: The third one was just an option.

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
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Was there ever a design intended to be a follow on to the Rivadavia class?
There were several intentions:
- 1920. Argentina considers the acquisition of the super-dreadnought Francesco Caracciolo of the Marine Regia but this proposal does not prosper.
- 1929. Three proyects to modernize the Rivadavia class (OP 305mm and 350mm)
- 1935-1938. Argentina contacts Germany to acquire modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the Scharnhorst class.
- 1940. Argentina in its Congress appropriates a budget to acquire 2 modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the North Carolina class or even South Dakota.
Obviously the Argentine problem was not to take a position in the Second World War, but the lack of an arms supplier that would allow it to be a level above Brazil. Although in general, it always had a better fleet than that country.

If you are interested in the Arms Race in South America, I have made this article. In case you find translation failures with google, do not hesitate to consult me.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Some Argentine cancelled ships were:
Aircraft Carriers
1 ship: 1945-46 discussions from United Kingdom, never ordered
1 ship: 1955 discussions for US Saipan class or Liberty Ship conversion, never ordered
About Aircraft Carriers:
-1926: "Naval Material Renewal Law", 1 projected, but not acquired.
-1938: Intentions to 1 aircraft carrier from the United States, but not acquired.
-1943: Budget decree for the purchase of 1 or 2 units, but not acquired.
-1947: Letter to the Shipyard Division of the Bethlehem Steel Company for the purchase of 1 aircraft carrier, but not acquired.
-1949: "Mutual Defense Aid Act of 1949", demand of 1 aircraft carrier from the United States, but not acquired.
-1953: Heavy Cruiser Brown (C-2) reconversion, 1 projected, but not modified.
-1953: Conversion of the Artillero cargo ship (ex HMS Smiter), 1 projected, but not modified.
-1955: Demand of 1 aircraft carrier from the United States, but not acquired.
-1955-60: Saipan, offer rejected.
-1956: "Naval Plan of the Argentine Republic", for the purchase of 1 or 2 units, but not acquired.
-1957: A UK Majestic (Magnificient) offer, rejected.
-1957: A UK Illustrious (Indefatigable) offer, rejected.
-1958: A Colossus class adquired, Warrior, 1 unit renamed INDEPENDENCIA.
-1968: A Colossus class adquired, 1 unit (plus Warrior 1 year), renamed VEINTICINCO DE MAYO.
-1985: A proyect for a 30k tons for 1992.
My english sux, sorry xD
 

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
49
Reaction score
27
Sorry but that is for Russia not for Argentina.

Ansaldo's proposal for Argentina was this design:
Rarely private shipbuilding company make design for only one tender, a similar design was offered to Argentina just like a design with the very same configuration of that you posted was offered to Russia.
 

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
49
Reaction score
27
Was there ever a design intended to be a follow on to the Rivadavia class?
There were several intentions:
- 1920. Argentina considers the acquisition of the super-dreadnought Francesco Caracciolo of the Marine Regia but this proposal does not prosper.
- 1929. Three proyects to modernize the Rivadavia class (OP 305mm and 350mm)
- 1935-1938. Argentina contacts Germany to acquire modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the Scharnhorst class.
- 1940. Argentina in its Congress appropriates a budget to acquire 2 modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the North Carolina class or even South Dakota.
Obviously the Argentine problem was not to take a position in the Second World War, but the lack of an arms supplier that would allow it to be a level above Brazil. Although in general, it always had a better fleet than that country.

If you are interested in the Arms Race in South America, I have made this article. In case you find translation failures with google, do not hesitate to consult me.
I find some of this proposals not very likely: in 1920 Caracciolo was both object of a strong interest by Regia Marina and very much incompleted, making a sale unlikely by the Italian side and unconvenient for the Argentinian side. Also it was clearly an obsolescent design making unwise to prefer Carracciolo to the many battleships and Battlecruisers of the same generation but fully completed and much cheaper that RN had as a surplus. Germany in '30 had absolutely no shipbuilding capabilities to spare in foreign sale, much like USA in 1940.
 
Last edited:

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Was there ever a design intended to be a follow on to the Rivadavia class?
There were several intentions:
- 1920. Argentina considers the acquisition of the super-dreadnought Francesco Caracciolo of the Marine Regia but this proposal does not prosper.
- 1929. Three proyects to modernize the Rivadavia class (OP 305mm and 350mm)
- 1935-1938. Argentina contacts Germany to acquire modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the Scharnhorst class.
- 1940. Argentina in its Congress appropriates a budget to acquire 2 modern battleships. We can imagine that they would be like the North Carolina class or even South Dakota.
Obviously the Argentine problem was not to take a position in the Second World War, but the lack of an arms supplier that would allow it to be a level above Brazil. Although in general, it always had a better fleet than that country.

If you are interested in the Arms Race in South America, I have made this article. In case you find translation failures with google, do not hesitate to consult me.
I find some of this proposals not very likely: in 1920 Caracciolo was both object of a strong interest by Regia Marina and very much incompleted, making a sale unlikely by the Italian side and unconvenient for the Argentinian side. Also it was clearly an obsolescent design making unwise to prefer Carracciolo to the many battleships and Battlecruisers of the same generation but fully completed and much cheaper that RN had as a surplus. Germany in '30 had absolutely no shipbuilding capabilities to spare in foreign sale, much like USA in 1940.

I hope to clarify the previous points:

The 1920 proposal was based on that premise, Italy wanted but could not build the battleship and Argentina would have paid its completion, but this proposal did not exceed the Argentine Congress.

For those years it was not so much the interest of the United Kingdom to supply capital ships to the countries of South America f.e. Rio do Janeiro) or at least not of the last generation.

The projets to modernize the Rivadavia class was made in Germany. Even in 1938 minor (optical) improvements were made in that country.

The interests of renting German and American ships were based on local needs. At that time the country had money left over, but it lacked industry or offers.
Regards
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
What you described is almost all: wishes and semi-official requests or like in the case of Polish Navy, Admirality dreams. What I'm interested in are more concrete information, like what kind of Modernization would the Rivadavia get? Why in Germany when it was a US built ship? (I know there were good connections with Germany)
How serious was the conversion into a CVL of the ARA Almirante Brown?

Ceccherini, that is FOR Russia. It shows quite their requests of maximum firepower on a shallower draft, that layout offers excellent forward and angled forward firepower, though a modified Fuso would had been better

Hood: Thanks for those designs, I will add to my database..
Akaloso Dudu: Are those lengths pp, wl or oa? For the cruiser designs? Are you sure Design 580 had 28ft, 8,5m draft?? That draft is enough for a battleship! Isn't it more like total hull height?
 
Last edited:

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
The latest designs that competed in the tender to build the Rivadavia class.
Among the base features should have: 12 x 305 mm., 12 x 150 mm., 12 x 100 mm., 254 mm., And 22 kns.

I don't have images of the designs, I'm sorry.
Regards
 

Attachments

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
No dimensions or arrangement sketches?
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
There are no major descriptions.

I only saw another document in which Ansaldo is asked to improve, by 1909, the armour of the design already proposed (my speculation that refers to Progetto 1908).

Does anyone have a better image of the Progetto Ansaldo 1908 design? I can't read certain features.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Sadly no, I've got it from my late Italian friend Stefano Sappino, and he too said that time he had only in this resolution. I've began to draw it scaling the turrets to British 12" turrets. What I could actually decipher is the armament: XV 305mm, XX 102mm, and one digit X or V 76mm though the drawing shows at least 7! (3 on turret tops, 4 in casemates at the ship ends.
I've asked the Ansaldo archives:
but no answer arrived yet...
 
Last edited:

MJBurmaster

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
7
Just catching up couldn't miss noticing on the two Vickers designs the mainmast is located AFT of the rear rangefinders! Indeed, the design 758a has the "C" turret blanked aft, decidedly not in keeping with cruiser practice.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Actually it is, I've used the York and County class as a basis and they have their aft mast between the rangefinders and turrets:



For the 758A design for which I've used the Emerald class as a basis I had to think of not too modern design so the 3rd turret placed in Kongo style, yet I still had to place the aft mast somewhere, but making a not perfect design actually making it more realistic (many Vickers and other preliminary designs has one error or another) (I just did not wanted an 1919 era Leander class that is.... )
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
I've finished the Armstrong Armoured Cruiser Design 482 of 1906:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 97,54m (pp) x 18,29m
Displacement: 6.500ons (Standard)
Engines: unknown, probably 15.000shp Vertical Triple Expansion Engines, 2 shafts
Speed: unknown, probably 37km/h (20knots)
Range unknown, probably 9.300km at 19km/h (5.000nm at 10knots)
Armour: Unknown, probably 203mm Belt, 38mm Deck
Armaments unknown, possible layout:
2x2 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) Armstrong Mk J Cannons,
4x1 7,5"/45 (190mm/45) Armstrong Mk C Guns,
8x1 4"/50 (102mm/50) Armstrong Mk H Casemated Guns,
8x1 47mm/40 3pdr QF Mk IV Guns
2x1 457mm Underwater Torpedo Tubes
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
My next Drawing the Ansaldo proposal of 1908:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: unreadable probably around 168,5m (wl) x 25,4m x 8,8m
Displacement: 20.000ons (Standard)
Engines: unreadable probably around 30-35.000shp 4 shaft Steam Turbines
Speed: 41km/h (22knots)
Range unreadable probably around 8.300km at 19km/h (4500nm at 10knots)
Armour: unreadable probably around 250mm Belt and 50mm Deck
Armaments:
5x3 305mm/45 Armstrong Modello 1908 / Armstrong Mk R Cannons,
20x1 120mm/45 Armstrong Modello 1908 / Armstrong Mk DD Casemated Guns,

10x1 76mm/40 Armstrong Modello 1897 Guns.
4x1 450mm Underwater Torpedo Tubes
 

Akaloso Dudu

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
8
Mr. Tzoli,

The text of the mentioned source says:
"In March 1912 Vickers offered Design 586 to Argentina, a conventional fast (27-knots) cruiser: 6,800 tons (475ft x 47 1/2ft x 18ft) armed with five 6in and four 4in guns with a 3in belt. This was broadly what the Royal Navy built during the First World War, but with less efficient (hence much heavier) machinery. Alternative Design 580 was larger (9,000 tons, 560ft x 56ft x 28ft) with the same speed (55,000 SHP) and a heavier armament (eight 6in, ten 4in and four torpedo tubes). Design 588 was the same ship with ten 6in and six 4in guns."
Thats all I have.
Perhaps they looked like the Weymouths and Chatchams Classes for the same years.
I hope it can help you and your work.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Mr. Tzoli,

The text of the mentioned source says:
"In March 1912 Vickers offered Design 586 to Argentina, a conventional fast (27-knots) cruiser: 6,800 tons (475ft x 47 1/2ft x 18ft) armed with five 6in and four 4in guns with a 3in belt. This was broadly what the Royal Navy built during the First World War, but with less efficient (hence much heavier) machinery. Alternative Design 580 was larger (9,000 tons, 560ft x 56ft x 28ft) with the same speed (55,000 SHP) and a heavier armament (eight 6in, ten 4in and four torpedo tubes). Design 588 was the same ship with ten 6in and six 4in guns."
Thats all I have.
Perhaps they looked like the Weymouths and Chatchams Classes for the same years.
I hope it can help you and your work.
Yes I thought about the C or Town class as a basis, just these tonnage and hull is very large for these designs as Chatham has the the same armament minus the 4"-es on a 30m shorter hull.
What length Friedman use in that section of the book? Perpendiculars, waterline or overall?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Next is the Vickers Design 580, the Super Town / Super Arethusa:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 170,69m (pp) x 17,07m
Displacement: 9.000ons (Standard)
Engines: 55.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 50km/h (27knots)
Range unknown, probably around 14.000km at 33km/h (7500nm at 18knots)
Armour: unknown, on this tonnage, very thick armour for such ship could be installed, so probably around 203mm belt and 51mm deck
Armaments:
8x1 6"/50 (152mm/50) Vickers Mk R Guns,
10x1 4"/45 (102mm/45) Vickers Mk K Guns,
1x1 3"/45 (76mm/45) QF HA Mk II AA Guns,
2x2 533mm Torpedo Tubes
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
62
Reaction score
53
Another awesome work.

¿Can you imagine design 426?
426.png
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
Is it Vickers or Armstrong proposal?
And I cannot draw it as it only mentions the buyer and design number and nothing else. (Design 151 looks like a very similar design to 127A)
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
And here is the modified version, Design 588:


The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 170,69m (pp) x 17,07m
Displacement: 9.000ons (Standard)
Engines: 55.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 50km/h (27knots)
Range unknown, probably around 14.000km at 33km/h (7500nm at 18knots)
Armour: unknown, on this tonnage, very thick armour for such ship could be installed, so probably around 203mm belt and 51mm deck
Armaments:
10x1 6"/50 (152mm/50) Vickers Mk R Guns,
6x1 4"/45 (102mm/45) Vickers Mk K Guns,
1x1 3"/45 (76mm/45) QF HA Mk II AA Guns,
2x2 533mm Torpedo Tubes
 
Top