In war there is no substitute for victory
- Feb 26, 2015
- Reaction score
Hello.Actually Italian Navy's archives are open for public and completly free, you just have to take an appointment. The prospect of finding there private export proposals is quite slim but for official RM projects (like the discussed AA conversion proposals) it's where you want to go. http://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/storia/ufficiostorico/Pagine/default.aspx
Hello, sorry I can't help you with the search engine, I think integral volumes can only be consulted in situ.Hello.Actually Italian Navy's archives are open for public and completly free, you just have to take an appointment. The prospect of finding there private export proposals is quite slim but for official RM projects (like the discussed AA conversion proposals) it's where you want to go. http://www.marina.difesa.it/noi-siamo-la-marina/storia/ufficiostorico/Pagine/default.aspx
Thanks for the link, but unfortunately I did not have good results when finding information.
Do you have a more direct link to the Rivista Marittima search engine?
By the way, does the United States or the United Kingdom have a similar search engine for their boletins/newsletter/magazines?
I don't quite understand how they are handled in other places, but here in South America we have the documents digitized and with access to the public (in relative quality and quantity).
According to the American and English analysis, the Rivadavia surpassed the Wyoming in attributes (there are statements by referents from the USN and publications by The Engineer). The North Americans would not have allowed their technology to be sold abroad (the offers were abundant and considerables), but neither would they have incorporated it due to the echelon configuration that was not a North American standard.The Rivadavia's had been surpassed by Super Dreadnoughts. By mid-1914, Brazil has begun the Riachuelo with 8-15" and Chile has her 2 10-14" armed ships on the way (actually a heavier broadside than 8-15"). A third ship for Argentina would be looking at 14" guns or bigger. An interesting scenario would be for Argentina to sell one of the Rivadavia's and buy 2 new 34,000ton super Dreadnoughts leaving Argentina with the most powerful battleline.
This looks incredible.
As far as I remember the author is neither one nor the other. I mean, they shouldn't be turrets (as Bruno has exaggerated) but they shouldn't be clean mounts either. It is specified that there must be protection for users.This looks incredible.Another interpretation of the 35/37.000 tons battleship
My only issue- the 90mm guns would likely not have been in the incredibly complicated Italian quadriaxilly stabilized mount. Instead it would likely be the same as the Regina Marina's simple 90mm gun mount for land based AA defense:
The article ‘Torpedoschlachtschiffe’ is probably from the semi-official Austrian naval journal ‘Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiete des Seewesens’.
I will check the exact date of publication.
Younger A-H naval officers were encouraged to present their technical and tactical ideas under a pseudonym.
The author uses ‘Tiburón’ – Is this a Hungarian word?
The article from ‘Scientific American’ is quite in the same science fiction mood as the one from ‘Tiburón’.
We all know that the idea of fighting a battleship-battle with mass-salvoes of torpedoes never became practical – even the Japanese which tried doctrine this in WW II (Guadalcanal) failed.
And for 335:By this time both Armstrong (Elswick) and Vickers had designed triple turrets for the Royal Navy. Vickers offered the Argentines Design 312, armed with no fewer than fourteen 12in/50 (two triples at the ends plus four twin turrets) and twenty-four 4.7in QF (eight in twin mounts in deck barbettes, sixteen in casemates), displacing 21,600 tons.41
Dimensions of Design 312 were 525ft x 87ft 6in x 25ft 6in; speed was 21 knots (27,500 IHP). Armour thickness was not given. A price was quoted by telegram on 24 May 1909, but the position of the design in the Vickers notebook suggests that it was first offered in 1907.
From this I assume 312 had 3-2-2-3 arrangement with twin wing turrets while 335 had 2-2-2-2 and the triples being on the wingsDesign 335 offered fourteen 12in guns (two triple and four twin mounts) on 20,500 tons (510ft x 85ft 6in x 25ft) and 21 knots on about 25,500 IHP, with 10in belt armour amidships. Presumably two turrets would have been superimposed at each end and two more mounted in wing positions, something like those the Argentines eventually adopted.
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.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
Scan of source:So..
6x2+4x1 190mm or 4x2+8x1?
That deck is more like 35 or 38mm eg 1,5inch not 35cm same for the casemates
AS the Italian arms industry was basically non existent at that time these were going to be all British Guns except maybe the 76mm which I can think of the 76mm/40 Armstrong-Ansaldo Modello 1897
Probably British guns:
12"/40 BL Mk IX, Armstrong Mk H or I
7,5"/45 BL Mk I
4"/40 QF Mk I and II, Armstrong Mk D or /49 Mk E
3"/40 12pdr 12cwt QF Mk I