• 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
1,200
Reaction score
635
I would say the proposal was from 1938/39 when the Italians offered a modified Littorio to the Spanish. And this article is only a comprehension table. This is logical as a battleship construction time is around 4-5 years, for example the 4th Littorio Impero would be finished by late 1943 early 1944 if construction commences as usual.
This would also explain the lack of accurate data on the KGV and North Carolina classes which were still under construction at this time and info on them would be limited. (Note that some of the NC preliminaries did feature triple 5" turrets! though none of the KGV preliminary variants featured 6" Guns! )
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I would say the proposal was from 1938/39 when the Italians offered a modified Littorio to the Spanish. And this article is only a comprehension table. This is logical as a battleship construction time is around 4-5 years, for example the 4th Littorio Impero would be finished by late 1943 early 1944 if construction commences as usual.
This would also explain the lack of accurate data on the KGV and North Carolina classes which were still under construction at this time and info on them would be limited. (Note that some of the NC preliminaries did feature triple 5" turrets! though none of the KGV preliminary variants featured 6" Guns! )
Quite probable explanation!
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
for example the 4th Littorio Impero would be finished by late 1943 early 1944 if construction commences as usual.
Hm, I always though that she was supposed to be finished in 1942, with "Roma", but all those towing from one place to another completely messed the schedule.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Freedman said something about some kind of España class for perú.
Very interesting! Thank you for the tip! ("British battleships", I presume?)
Found it, Design 513.
"Vickers also offered a small battleship to Peru, Design 512 dated 28 February 1911. She would have been armed with four 14in/45, twelve 4.7in/50 and four 14pdr, plus four pom-poms and four 21in submerged torpedo tubes on 11,500 tons (420ft x 69ft x 24ft 3in), with a speed of 21 knots and a 9in belt.
The alternative Design 513 would have been armed with six 14in/45, fourteen 4in/50, two 14pdr, 2 pom-poms and two 21in torpedo tubes on the same tonnage (390ft x 72ft x 24ft 6in, 19 knots on 12,560 SHP) with the same 7in belt.
By 1914 the Peruvians were interested in something much smaller, less powerful than what Scandinavian navies called coast defence battleships (which are not described here); Armstrong offered a ship armed with 8in guns. Design 783P was dated 9 February 1914 for a 7350-ton ship (360ft x 60ft x 20ft) armed with four 8in/50 in twin turrets, six 6in/50 in a battery and two 21in submerged torpedo tubes, with 7in belt armour. Speed would have been 20 knots on twin-screw turbines."

Something something ...
(EDITED)


I have not the magic of Tzoli, sorry.

And sorry for offtopic.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix_jz

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
I would say the proposal was from 1938/39 when the Italians offered a modified Littorio to the Spanish. And this article is only a comprehension table. This is logical as a battleship construction time is around 4-5 years, for example the 4th Littorio Impero would be finished by late 1943 early 1944 if construction commences as usual.
Slight correction - Impero's construction was significantly delayed due to the movement from Genoa in 1940, because of the fear of damage by French bombers (originally intended to go directly to Trieste, ultimately stayed in Brindisi for a significant period of time). However, she had both been laid down four months earlier than Roma (she was actually the third member of the class, while Roma was the fourth), and was built faster (18 months on the slip vs 21). She was launched about seven months before Roma, and of course began fitting out much earlier as a result.

Had Impero not been shifted, she would have been completed around August 1941, and probably become fully operational around December 1941 or January 1942.

For what it's worth, as of the fleet development plan of 14 January 1943, a fourth Littorio would be available in 1944, though as the situation for Italy rapidly deteriorated through 1943 that obviously changed, and by the time the official order to suspend construction came in June, it meant little as work on the battleship had already been suspended since 4 April 1943.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Hello, let me start answering the offtopics and in the next post i will go back with argentine 35.000t battleship proposal

CHILE
They had the intention of modernizing the Latorre in the 1950s (after the fire problem, with excellent dual-purpose weaponry) but it was clearly not carried out.
Do you have any data on those proposed refit?
Latorre modernization would have occurred in the 1950s
The plan would be to take her to the Vickers company shipyard facility at Barrow in Britain. The objective was to carry out a radical reconstruction in the style of Warspite. The idea was to improve the defensive capacity of the ship, especially in the anti-aircraft area (the aforementioned guns, which were later equipped at the Admiral-class destroyers). And improving underwater protection and horizontal armor (Latorre had 2 inches) to resist new types of aviation bombs or weapons were vital (it would have taken 12 inches according to similar 1946 studies in the Lion class).
There is no more information. And the sources have to be checked.

PERÚ
P.S. Side question - do you know about any Peruvian interest in heavy warships? Avalanche Press article mentioned, that before buying "Dupuy de Lome" they expressed interest in French dreadnoughts, and it is known that they have at least brief interest in HMS "Gorgon" in 1920s. I also heard rumors (frankly, I doubt them...), that in 1920s Peru have some interest in ex-Austrian warships in service.
I just published an article about the Peruvian Dreadnoughts. Unfortunately the information is limited. And Peruvian sources are still difficult for me to access, both for concrete and raw information.
If the google translator is not comfortable, do not hesitate to check details by PM.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
So with 513 you went with 3 twins. Friedman only states 6 guns so indeed 3 twins or two triples or like in the Radetzky preliminaries two twins two singles
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
So with 513 you went with 3 twins. Friedman only states 6 guns so indeed 3 twins or two triples or like in the Radetzky preliminaries two twins two singles
Well, I kinda doubt that for such small-scale project Vickers would design a completely new triple turret - and two twins two singles IMHO would not fit - so twins are the most probable.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Wing singles could do the trick. as for triple no new design required Vickers (and Armstrong) already offered 14" triple turreted designs for Chile and triple 12" turreted designs for mostly Russia.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Wing singles could do the trick. as for triple no new design required Vickers (and Armstrong) already offered 14" triple turreted designs for Chile and triple 12" turreted designs for mostly Russia.
Hm! Seems must knowledge was flawed here. Thank you for the information!
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Knowing how wide the hull and how large a turret could help you better place them that is too why I did not went to the Shipbucket style drawings.
As for triple turrets we are talking 1911 here, the Russians, Italians and Austro-Hungarians already building triple turreted battleships and the Italian turrets were based on British designs.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
As for triple turrets we are talking 1911 here, the Russians, Italians and Austro-Hungarians already building triple turreted battleships and the Italian turrets were based on British designs.
That much I knew; I just did not knew that there were 14-inch triple proposals.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Vickers Design 503 or Design R and Armstrong Design 670 or Design H for Chile 2x3,2x2 14"
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Design 670 (H), 27,600 tons (625ft/661ft x 92ft x 26ft), ten 14in (two triple and two twin, in conventional arrangement)
Friedman does not states arrangement for R but as these were sister designs with each other it can safely be assumed the same arrangement.
Armstrong ones:
A,B,C,D,H / Designs 666-670
Vickers ones:
A,B,C,D,E,F,R / Designs 480-83, 501-3
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Battleship proposal to be acquired in November of 1943 (Revolución del 43).
Armament: 9 (3x3, 2/1) 381mm + 12 (6x2) 152mm + 12 (6x2) 89mm + 16 (4x4) 37mm + 16 (4x4) 13mm
Belt: 356mm
Deck: 200mm
Turrets: 381mm
Dimensions: 228m x 31m
Tons: +35,000
Power: 150,000 SHP
Speed: 30kn
Aircrafts: 3-2
Let`s get ready for translation!


Summary of the proposed 35,000-ton Argentine Battleship


REFERENCE YEAR:
Publication November 1943.

However, it is evident that the lack of knowledge of some technical details indicates that this document has been produced since previous years, probably 1,939.

GENERAL DESIGN IDEA:
Similarities with Littorio (1934, homonymous class)
,
_ But with improved protection and with the consequent increase in displacement or with the reduction of the reserve of other characteristics.
_ Other keys: 1st Superiority before Washington Treaty ships, 2nd Cost of 350,000,000 national currency ($ 85,000,000) and Maintenance of 9,000,000 national currency (520,000 pounds), 3rd Resilience to superior armored ships, 4th Need for specialized docks and ports, 5th Defense> Mobility> Artillery.

WEAPON IDEA:
_ Available weight for the whole armament: Approximately 12% of the project.
_ Main armament slightly greater than the maximum shell thickness of probable targets.
_ Secondary weapons for aviation, submarines and destroyers.

MAIN WEAPON:
9 381-millimeter cannons, arranged in 3 triple towers, 2 forward towers and 1 aft tower.

_ Available weight for the main battery: 4,200 tons.
Battery Options: 4x2 (4,000t), 5x2 (5,000t), 3x3 (4,050t), 2x4 (3,520t) or 2x4 + 1x2 (4,520t).
381 millimeters Battery Options: 2x3 + 1x2 (4,350t), 3x3 (4,500t) or, 2x4 (3,840t).
406 millimeters Battery Options: 3x2 (4,260t, not mentioned in the original article) or 2x4 (4,180t).
_ Arrangement of the towers: Towers arranged axially, not on the center line or on the sides of the ship. Discarded triple or quadruple towers for being less manageable, longer loading and supply times and lower fire speed. In addition to generating stress for staff and structure.
_ Guns per tower: Compliments to the double tower, fast supply, maneuverability and direction, with less loss of guns in the event of impact. Criticism of the triple tower, of more difficult supply, complicated internal distribution, special devices for the direction, slower maneuvers and with greater loss of guns in the event of impact. Criticism of the quadruple tower, same negative aspects as the triple, but the split into double towers would facilitate internal supply and distribution, although it would increase its weight.
_ Impact effect: Advantage of the major caliber (greater perforation and greater explosive capacity).
_ Fire velocity coefficient: It favors primarily the 356 millimeter caliber, with 381 millimeters remaining and 406 millimeters last.
_ Number of shots per salvo and visibility: It favors primarily the 356 millimeter caliber.
_ Weight of the facilities: It favors primarily the 356 mm caliber and the 381 mm caliber.
_ Number of probable shots or impacts at the same time: It favors the 356 mm caliber primarily, but it has less capacity to cause practical damage.
_ Firepower: Primarily favors caliber 381 millimeters.
_ Barrel wear: At the same output speed it favors the 356 mm caliber primarily, the larger caliber, 406 mm mainly, generates more wear. If larger calibers, 381 and 406 millimeters, reduce the initial speed and generate less wear on the barrels.
_ Final selection of the barrels: 381 millimeters because it is the right balance between the 356 and 406 millimeters, providing good firepower with reasonable speed.
_ Final location of the towers: 2 forward and 1 aft, favoring their use in any position during combat.

SECONDARY WEAPON:
12 152 mm Anti-Torpedo guns, arranged in 6 double towers.

Final assembly: Medium artillery in double towers, 6 guns of 152 millimeters per band. Rejection of the casemate, due to its negative influence on the shooting ranges.
Final location: Three towers per band (due to the difficulty of mounting them in the center line), located on the deck, in towers arranged symmetrically with respect to the diametrical plane of the ship. Preferably two mounts aft on the main deck, immediately aft of tower III (towards the bow of the ship), two forward in the castle aft of tower II and two aft of the previous ones on a higher deck).
Dual Purpose Rejection (Anti-Torpedo and Anti-Aircraft): Dual-purpose has advantages in facilities, firing range, and weight, but its aft location (Nelson class and Dunkirk class) does not favor deployment of the main battery.

ANTI-AIR WEAPON:
_ Artillery phases: 1st Heavy (> 2,000 meters), Heavy and Automatic (2,000 to 500 meters) and 3rd Automatic (<500 meters).
_ Shooting angle: up to 85 degrees.
_ Shooting height: 2,000 meters above ground, against horizontal bombardment.
Speed of fire: Automatic weapons (machine guns) against fighter jets, dive bombers and torpedo planes.
_ Shooting angle: up to 85 degrees.
_ Assemblies: Independent, easy to maneuver, without delicate or special mechanisms.
_ Reject cannons of 120 millimeters or greater, because they have a reduced rate of fire.
_ Positive evaluation of 100 millimeters when you want to make the offensive ability prevail without power restrictions.
_ Valuation of the barrels between 80 and 90 millimeters, for the dumping time, rate of fire, offensive capacity, shooting performance per unit weight of the installation and power to maneuver. It is possible to move the 90 millimeters by hand, to print the required speed of movement without tiring the pointer. Acceptable balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the different calibers.
_ Reject barrels from 60 to 70 millimeters, because it has a reduced height and low speeds.
_ Valuation of heavy machine guns from 30 to 40 millimeters, against the attack of hunting and dive aircraft, with explosive shells and ultra-sensitive shock-fuzes.
_ Criticism of machine guns from 30 to 40 millimeters, they are only effective at lower levels and up to 3,000 meters.
_ Reject cannons of 20 to 25 half millimeters, because they do not come into action before the enemy aircraft has fired.
_ Valuation of 13 to 15 light millimeters guns, against the attack of hunting and dive aircraft, with explosive shells and ultrasensitive shock-fuzes.
_ Reject 13 to 15 millimeter light machine guns, because they do not come into action before the enemy plane has fired.
12 89 mm Anti-Air guns, arranged in 6 double mounts.
Final assembly: 4 double assemblies.
Final location: Arranged symmetrically with respect to the center line.
16 heavy 37mm machine guns, arranged in quadruple mounts.
Final assembly: 4 quadruple assemblies or 2 eight-fold assemblies, on rotating turrets.
Final location: Center of the ship and elevated, to be able to be operated in any direction and angle. Tip, hangar roof.
16 light 13mm machine guns, arranged in quadruple mounts.
_ Final assembly: 4 quadruple assemblies or 2 eight-fold assemblies, in rotating turrets.
_ Final location: 2 mounts at the bow and 2 at the stern, near the extreme towers.

TORPEDERO ARMAMENT:
_ Rejected for liner ships.
_ Underwater monopolize large spaces in vulnerable points and surface ones have explosive heads exposed to combat.
_ Its range is less than the main and even secondary battery.


Part II Incoming.


Let me know your doubts or failures in the translation.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
DEFENSE IDEA:
_ Armour, Compartments and Bulges; against Artillery, Bombs, Torpedoes and Mines.
_ Additional protection on bridges, outside the combat tower.
_ Protection weight of around 40%, that is, for 37,000 tons 41.8%.
_ The larger the caliber, the less need to dedicate efforts to defense installations, because these ensure a greater range of fire.

ARMOR:
356 mm thick belt:

_ Compliments to the vertical armor of the types King George V (1937, homonymous class).
200 millimeters thick deck:
_ With horizontal resistance to projectiles of 330 millimeters with 534 kilograms at 545 meters per second from 28,000 meters and 406 millimeters with 1,116 kilograms at 500 meters per second from 35,300 meters. With horizontal resistance to 800 kilogram drilling pumps at a speed of 280 meters per second from 6,800 meters high and 2,000 kilograms from 4,000 meters high. Compliments to the horizontal armor of the types Jean Bart (1936, class Richelieu) and Washington (1937, class North Carolina).
Towers 381 millimeters thick.
Gunship anti-aircraft weapons:

_ Complete protection of the weapon and its servants, 50-60 millimeters thick.
_ Protection for regular-sized bombs and splinters and machine-gun fire.
Machine Gun Anti-Aircraft Armament:
_ Protection only for regular sized bombs and splinters and machine gun fire.
_ Protection against slippage, if installed near the main battery.
_ Shooting directors and anti-aircraft observation posts better protected.
_ Praise for the protection of King George V (1937, homonymous class)

MOBILITY IDEA:
_ Speed to keep it in the square, 30 knots minimum and 35 the ideal.
_ The larger the caliber, the less need to dedicate efforts to the machine installations, because these ensure a greater range of fire and a need for lower high speeds.

DIMENSIONS:
Length of 228 meters:

_ With a relative speed equal to 2 it results in a length of 225 meters, modified by the cuirass it increases to 228 meters.
31 meter beam:
_ The beam length ratio is taken at 7.3: 1, which is equivalent to 31 meters.

DISPLACEMENT:
35,000 to 37,000 tons of normal displacement:

_ In the first case, it is required primarily to reduce the shielding and change the characteristics of everything here exposed.

MACHINERY:
High speed turbines with reduction gear, superheated steam:

_ Boilers: Oil as fuel from generators with small diameter pipes and reduced water volume.
_ Turbines: High rotation speed with gear reducers and small dimensions.
_ Auxiliary machines: Rotary to turbines and electrics of reduced weight and volume, with closed feeding system.
_ Performance: High steam pressures (16 to 35 kilograms) and overheating (385 degrees celcius).
_ Weight of the motor apparatus: 10 to 12% with respect to the standard displacement.
_ Rejection of the diesel engine because they cannot yet replace the modern turbines of the liner ships. Example: the “Deutschland” project.
_ Rejection of turbo-electric propulsion due to its excessive initial cost, maintenance, weight and performance in favor of reduction gear turbines. Example New Mexico battleship and Lexington aircraft carrier.

SPEED:
30 knots:

_ Supporting squad cruises requires a minimum speed of 30 knots.
_ Maximum speed during combat. The resistance speed, continuously maintained, must reach 75% of the maximum.
_ Rejection at high speeds, such as 35 knots, because it would require installing 250,000 horsepower (C.V.) motors

POWER:
150,000 H.P.:

_ Compliments to the Littorio (1,934, homonymous class), with a power of 150,000 horsepower (C.V.) and a power expressed as a function of speed of 3.5 V.

AUTONOMY:
At 12 knots.

_ Reduced consumption at endurance speed, which is lower than cruising speed.

AIRCRAFT:
3 aircraft with 2 catapults.

Compliments to Jean Bart (1936, Richelieu class) and Littorio (1934, homonymous class) Washington (1937, North Carolina class).


The End.


Let me know your doubts or failures in the translation.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
If you allow me, I leave the link to an article that a colleague wrote about this proposal.

I still have my reservations about the design that he has presented, but it is still a work of art.

I support the creation of two versions:
_ 35,000 tons and 356 millimeter cannons. With Italian (or British) hull and superstructure. And with Czechoslovakian weapons (or German, Spanish, Swedish or local - 75-mm anti-aircraft guns or 13-mm machine guns). This is more in line with Argentina's trade relations in the 1920s-30s.
_ 37,000 tons and 381 millimeter cannons. With British (or Italian) hull and superstructure. And with Swedish (or American, British, Spanish, Italian, or Swedish) weapons. This is more in line with Argentina's trade relations in the 1930s-40s.

Hopefully Tzoli you can give us your own interpretation and delight us with your art.

Regards
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Something something ...
(EDITED)
Could I use this pictures - with credentials, of course! - to illustrate my Russian article about Preuvian naval projects?
Of course you can. Send me the link to read that topic!

So with 513 you went with 3 twins. Friedman only states 6 guns so indeed 3 twins or two triples or like in the Radetzky preliminaries two twins two singles
Yeah, 513 was smaller than 512, so one doble turret went up :p
I did something wrong, i did not use the LATORRE turrets so i musf fix those images.

View attachment 634070

My attempt to visualize Project 513 (sorry for a very poor artwork, I have little time... :( )
Love it
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Do you have the original text for this battleship you translated? (So many error I had difficulty reading it, like really??? Casemated idea in 1939??? )
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Do you have the original text for this battleship you translated? (So many error I had difficulty reading it, like really??? Casemated idea in 1939??? )
Yes, i do, let me upload.

¡" Rejection of the casemate"!
 
Last edited:

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Can you re-upload them?
Many of the important pages are missing!
For example anything before 532.

But by based on the other pages this is a generic naval history article showing the evolution of warships mostly discussing British ones with mentions of French and German ones.

But if I understand correctly multiple calibres were proposed:
4x2 / 3x3 / 2x4 / 2x4,1x2 356mm
2x3,1x2 / 3x3 / 2x4 381mm
2x4 406mm
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Can you re-upload them?
Many of the important pages are missing!
For example anything before 532.

But by based on the other pages this is a generic naval history article showing the evolution of warships mostly discussing British ones with mentions of French and German ones.

But if I understand correctly multiple calibres were proposed:
4x2 / 3x3 / 2x4 / 2x4,1x2 356mm
2x3,1x2 / 3x3 / 2x4 381mm
2x4 406mm
Not proposed, evaluated.
I´m pretty sure this team of engineers have received crucial information from Italian intelligence, in addition to the traditional means of information.

This was annoying. Imgur didnt fix the presentation
Check pages here:
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
I don't remember a cruiser with 3-2-3 arrangement and Town class turrets for Argentina
 

able

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
49
Reaction score
58
I don't remember a cruiser with 3-2-3 arrangement and Town class turrets for Argentina
I like your line draw very much ,I even make this battleship with turrets come from VIRIBUS UNITIS and Elena


P1050707M.JPG
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
Here we go again:

This Anti-Aircraft Cruiser was proposed in the Argentine Naval Bulletin of 1938.

The design has two variants depending on the weapon configuration:
1) The first variant has sixteen 90-millimeter guns in simple mounts. This sketch can be seen at the top of the image and belongs to the authors of the proposal. An assimilable cannon is the "90 mm/50 (3.5") Ansaldo Model 1939 mm/50 (3.5") OTO Model 1939" http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_35-50_m1939.php with “Projectile Types and Weights HE: 22.5 lbs. (10.1 kg)”, “Muzzle Velocity 2,822 fps (860 mps)” and “Rate Of Fire 12 rounds per minute”.
2) The second variant has fourteen 100-millimeter guns (or greater, oscillating between 100 and 127 millimeters) in double mounts. This sketch, made by me from the copy and modification of the original, can be viewed at the bottom of the image. An assimilable cannon is the "4"/50 (10.2 cm) QF Vickers Armstrong Mark P" http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNARG_4-50_VA.php with “Projectile Types and Weights HE: 31 lbs. (14.1 kg)”, “Muzzle Velocity 3,000 fps (914 mps)” and “Rate Of Fire 10 - 12 rounds per minute”.

The armament would have been arranged in the center line, allowing a greater firing range. It was intended that the bow batteries could shoot aft and at a convenient elevation and vice versa. The cannons would be stabilized, carry personnel protection, and be serviced and controlled by stations, automatically. The proposed firing stations would be independent and so elastic in organization that they would allow any one of them to control any one battery and even all batteries when that volume of fire is required.

It also envisaged the possibility of using a battery of 20-mm anti-aircraft machine guns in 6 double mounts, located in the center of the ship, intended for defense against assault aircraft.

The superstructures would have been reduced to a minimum (low funnel and bridge). As it did not need rigging or high observation posts to direct the anti-aircraft shot, it was proposed to present a reduced silhouette, convenient to hinder its sighting and to be beaten by the enemy from great distances.

Finally, and not least, it is a 4,000-ton cruiser with a speed of at least 35 knots.

Do you like this weirdo?

Regards, Coldown
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,024
Reaction score
995
Here we go again:

This Anti-Aircraft Cruiser was proposed in the Argentine Naval Bulletin of 1938.

The design has two variants depending on the weapon configuration:
1) The first variant has sixteen 90-millimeter guns in simple mounts. This sketch can be seen at the top of the image and belongs to the authors of the proposal. An assimilable cannon is the "90 mm/50 (3.5") Ansaldo Model 1939 mm/50 (3.5") OTO Model 1939" http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_35-50_m1939.php with “Projectile Types and Weights HE: 22.5 lbs. (10.1 kg)”, “Muzzle Velocity 2,822 fps (860 mps)” and “Rate Of Fire 12 rounds per minute”.
2) The second variant has fourteen 100-millimeter guns (or greater, oscillating between 100 and 127 millimeters) in double mounts. This sketch, made by me from the copy and modification of the original, can be viewed at the bottom of the image. An assimilable cannon is the "4"/50 (10.2 cm) QF Vickers Armstrong Mark P" http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNARG_4-50_VA.php with “Projectile Types and Weights HE: 31 lbs. (14.1 kg)”, “Muzzle Velocity 3,000 fps (914 mps)” and “Rate Of Fire 10 - 12 rounds per minute”.

The armament would have been arranged in the center line, allowing a greater firing range. It was intended that the bow batteries could shoot aft and at a convenient elevation and vice versa. The cannons would be stabilized, carry personnel protection, and be serviced and controlled by stations, automatically. The proposed firing stations would be independent and so elastic in organization that they would allow any one of them to control any one battery and even all batteries when that volume of fire is required.

It also envisaged the possibility of using a battery of 20-mm anti-aircraft machine guns in 6 double mounts, located in the center of the ship, intended for defense against assault aircraft.

The superstructures would have been reduced to a minimum (low funnel and bridge). As it did not need rigging or high observation posts to direct the anti-aircraft shot, it was proposed to present a reduced silhouette, convenient to hinder its sighting and to be beaten by the enemy from great distances.

Finally, and not least, it is a 4,000-ton cruiser with a speed of at least 35 knots.

Do you like this weirdo?

Regards, Coldown
Are the hull shapes accurate or just for turret arrangement? These look like remarkably narrow ships.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Very reminiscent of the the Bolzano conversion proposals
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
1,058
That AA cruiser seems an odd choice for Argentina, the local aircraft threat was pretty low. Brazil didn't have a powerful airforce at that time, neither did Chile.
I wonder if it was pure dream speculation on future trends or even Ansaldo pitching an export concept to sell gun mounts?

I have always admired the looks of the La Argentina. Has those British lines of her Arethusa cousins but somehow looks more workmanlike. Shows what might have been possible had the triple turret been adopted earlier the the 1930s for British light cruisers.
 

COLDOWN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
90
Reaction score
68
(Edited)

Are the hull shapes accurate or just for turret arrangement? These look like remarkably narrow ships.
There is no more info in Ba Sing Se.

I did some kind of Scheme

It is based on the japanese Tenryu class. Just to visualize it :oops:

Very reminiscent of the the Bolzano conversion proposals
o_O
You mean something like this

(Argentina had a Brown class heavy cruiser reconversion project in 1953, maybe an italian engineer involved, lol).
I will bring these cruiser text scans as soon as i can.

That AA cruiser seems an odd choice for Argentina, the local aircraft threat was pretty low. Brazil didn't have a powerful airforce at that time, neither did Chile.
I wonder if it was pure dream speculation on future trends or even Ansaldo pitching an export concept to sell gun mounts?
The archives said they need 3 of those ships. But it was 1938-9, argentina got the money for a bigger fleet but there was no seller.
 
Last edited:
Top