Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

[Tzoli]

Thanks for these, some data I've missed or incorrectly known (For example Design 612 I've set the pp length as oa length. (Friedman rarely states which length is which.... )

Hmm...
4"/45 Tertiary guns...
At this time, 1908-09 neither the RN or Vickers produced such guns.
The first 4"/45 for the RN was the QF Mark V of 1913
For Vickers that was the Mark K from around 1919.
Armstrong at this time had the
Pattern M of /40 calibre (1907)
Pattern P of /50 calibre (1911)
could this /45 gun be actually the 100mm/44 Pattern N (1910)?
There was possibly a Pattern O gun but I have no data about it.

 

[COLDOWN]

Frankly I would not know what exact model of 4 inch cannon.

By January 1910 it was determined that the gun would be the 4 "/ 50 Bethlehem by these characteristics:
- 15 kilogram projectiles, initial velocity of 914 meters per second and rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute.
- The artillery and its ammunition would have to be interchangeable with the 12 (to 16) destroyers to build.

The model purchased is practically identical to the Mark 9 from the United States.

Similar requirements will have been exposed to British houses in previous months.
In Vickers' offering with his Design 428 (before October 1909) the sketch of these guns is exposed.

And according to Friedman it would be semi-automatic.

 

[tallguy]

Tzoli, have you ever done any of the small BB/ armored cruiser designs ie 9.2-10 in single caliber?

 

[Tzoli]

Tzoli, have you ever done any of the small BB/ armored cruiser designs ie 9.2-10 in single caliber?

Which ones?

 

[COLDOWN]

In the case of Argentina, I don't remember battleship designs with those calibers. Since 1902 the position was to have 12 "guns as the main battery. Now the 10" caliber was considered as secondary armament, but although I am not sure the 9.2 "caliber.

I suspect TallGuy i referring to the battleship designs offered to Brazil (188, 188A, 354, 364, 365, 439, 532?).
For example this is the 188A from 1906 with XII 10" guns.

Spoiler

 

[Tzoli]

In the case of Argentina, I don't remember battleship designs with those calibers. Since 1902 the position was to have 12 "guns as the main battery. Now the 10" caliber was considered as secondary armament, but although I am not sure the 9.2 "caliber.

I suspect TallGuy i referring to the battleship designs offered to Brazil (188, 188A, 354, 364, 365, 439, 532?).
For example this is the 188A from 1906 with XII 10" guns.

Spoiler

View attachment 662362

This?:
Vickers:
192 - 12.500tons 6x2 254mm, 14x1 76mm from 1906
but yes the rest are 12" main and 10" secondary armed designs

 

[tallguy]

In the case of Argentina, I don't remember battleship designs with those calibers. Since 1902 the position was to have 12 "guns as the main battery. Now the 10" caliber was considered as secondary armament, but although I am not sure the 9.2 "caliber.

I suspect TallGuy i referring to the battleship designs offered to Brazil (188, 188A, 354, 364, 365, 439, 532?).
For example this is the 188A from 1906 with XII 10" guns.

Spoiler

View attachment 662362

This?:
Vickers:
192 - 12.500tons 6x2 254mm, 14x1 76mm from 1906
but yes the rest are 12" main and 10" secondary armed designs

The Vickers 192 is a good example

 

[biber550]

Vickers:
192 - 12.500tons 6x2 254mm, 14x1 76mm from 1906

Do you have complete project data?

 

[COLDOWN]

There was a Vickers Cruiser-Battleship Design 426 with maybe 9.2in main guns.
Friedman quotes from "British Cruisers of the Victorian Era":

• "In 1897 several navies, like those of Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey, had old second-class ironclads. Replacing them with modern battleships would have been extremely expensive. In its attempt to break into the warship market, Vickers offered what it called ‘cruiser-battleships’ as an alternative. In effect Ansaldo in Italy (which was associated with Vickers) was offering the same thing in the form of cruisers armed with 10in guns, some of which it sold to Argentina and Japan".
• "The Vickers design notebook counts the battleship design as part of the ‘first program’ for an unnamed client. An associated cruiser-battleship (127A) had twelve 9.2in instead of 12in guns, plus fourteen 14pdr QF (the battleship had 22) and twelve 3pdr, with two 18in torpedo tubes, on 14,000 tons (470ft × 73ft × 27ft, 23kts on 27,000 IHP). The ship would have had a 7in belt. These seem to have been the last cruiser-battleships before about 1908, since the next such ship in the file is Design 426, a cruiser-battleship for Argentina. However, Design 151 (‘second program’) was an equivalent ship described as a first-class armoured cruiser (again, for ‘Z.Z.’) armed with twelve 9.2in in twin mounts plus twenty 14pdr QF and four submerged torpedo tubes on 14,750 tons (535ft × 70ft × 26½ft, 24kts on 30,000 IHP with water-tube boilers), with a 7in belt. An alternative first-class armoured cruiser of the same program (Design 153) was armed with two twin 9.2in and four twin 7.5in on 11,200 tons (440ft × 69ft × 24ft, 23.5kts on 22,000 IHP). She would have had a 6in belt. This program included a 2925-ton protected scout (25.5kts). Another first-class armoured cruiser for Z.Z. was Design 164 (twelve 8in, 11,900 tons, 22kts, 6in belt over the machinery, thinner elsewhere)".

Here Friedman's writing confuses me a lot. I don't think I can find something in the argentine files because I wouldn't know where to start.

//

Regarding Pre and Semi Dreadnoughts there was the Vickers Battleship Design 192 with 10in guns.
Friedman quotes from "British Battleships 1906-1946":

• "In 1906 news emerged from Brazil of the dreadnought project armed with 10in guns. Argentina was offered a similar ship, Design 192. The Argentines were clearly not pleased with it, because in May 1906 Vickers offered them Design 211, armed with eight 12in and twenty 4in QF (plus two torpedo tubes) on 14,200 tons. Vickers presumably doubted that the Argentines were wholly converted to the all big-gun ship, because at the same time it also offered them Design 214, armed with the usual four 12in and with twelve 9.2in/50 plus fourteen 4in QF and two torpedo tubes. She would have been about the same size as the all-big-gun Design 211. On 9 May 1906 the Coventry Syndicate offered the Argentines two designs, each for two ships. A new cycle of designs began with the larger Design 229, a semi-dreadnought armed with six 12in and eight 10in guns, as well as twenty 4in QF and four submerged torpedo tubes. This design was offered in June 1906. In 1907 the Argentines formally adopted a three-battleship programme".
• "Design 192 would have been armed with twelve 10in guns, like the initial Brazilian project, plus fourteen 14pdr (anti-torpedo guns) and two submerged tubes; she would have displaced 12,500 tons (455ft x 73ft x 24ft), with 15,000 IHP engines for 20 knots and 700/2000 tons of coal. The belt would have been 9in thick amidships, the protective deck in the citadel and the deck over the citadel both 1in thick. No date or price was given".

Since the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina had light, protected, and armored type cruisers with weapons of 4.7", 6", 8", 8.3" and 10" calibers. Brazil did not have any relevant ships that could face the fleet. Chile, on the other hand, it had ships of similar characteristics and capabilities.
Argentina then set the objective of acquiring battleships with guns of a caliber higher than the previous ones, capable of technologically surpassing the aforementioned cruisers and those necessary weapons were 12-inch guns.
Towards the year 1902, the acquisition of two battleships, the so-called Maipú class (Chacabuco and Maipú semi-dreadnought battleships), was being negotiated with Ansaldo in Italy. They would have carried IV 305mm, VI 203mm and XII 152mm*. But the 1902 Argentine-Chilean treaties prevented the order from being specified (as well with the Moreno and Rivadavia armoured cruisers and the Libertad class battleship), leaving as an anecdote that some equipment for these future battleships began to be manufactured before the contract was formaly signed later were used in the battleship Roma of the class Regina Elena (and even these battleships were offered to Argentina once built).
For all the above, although Design 192 appears in the british records, there is no way it has had any relevance in the naval programs of the Argentine Navy, so finding information about this in local files can only be due to luck.

Regards

Edited/Added:
* This is from Schiffsbau, 1902.
Another publications claim:

• IV 305mm, VI 203mm, XII 190mm and others as Alternative - G. v. Rauch (Conflict in the Southern Cone).
• IV 30cm, XVI 19cm, XII 10cm and others - Revista General de Marina, 1902.
• IV 30,5cm, XIV 15cm and others - Военные флоты, 1903.
• IV 30cm, XVI 20cm, XII10,2cm and others - Arme et Marine, 1902.

 

[Tzoli]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/argentinian-never-were-warship-designs-and-proposals.32632/page-2#post-371444

The modified and lengthened Design 192:

Vickers Export Design 192 for Argentina by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 138,7 (pp) x 22,55 x 7,31m
Displacement: 12.500tons (standard)
Armour: 25mm Deck, 229mm Belt
Engines: 15.000shp, Vertical Triple Expansion Engines, 2 shafts
Speed: 37km/h (20knots)
Armaments:
2x2,8x1 10"/50 (254mm/50) Vickers Mk C Guns,
14x1 3"/50 (76mm/50) Vickers Mk A Guns,
4x1 457mm Underwater Torpedo Tubes

 

[COLDOWN]

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

Add Vickers Cruiser-Battleships Designs 415, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425 and 426, please.
Source: "The British Battleships...", Chapter 8. The Export Market, Note 42. 2015, Norman Friedman.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes they exist but without absolutely no data:

The Vickers notebook has several blank pages marked ‘Battleship for Argentina’ (Designs 415, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425 ‘Cruiser Battleship for Argentina’ but without any data).

426 was not listed

 

[COLDOWN]

Yes they exist but without absolutely no data:

The Vickers notebook has several blank pages marked ‘Battleship for Argentina’ (Designs 415, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425 ‘Cruiser Battleship for Argentina’ but without any data).

426 was not listed

My bad. 426 is from another book.
"Design 426, a cruiser-battleship for Argentina" quoted from "British Cruisers of the Victorian Era, Appendix: Vickers Designs" Friedman N., 2012.

 

[COLDOWN]

Just a couple of destroyer mentions:
- 1908 Italian and Others 450t.
- 1908 Italian and Others 650t.
- 1909 Italian and Others 850t.
- 1909 Italian and Others 1050t.

Spoiler

Third paragraph

"Los Armamentos Navales de 1908" page 20 - 1972 - Etchepareborda R.

And the improved* January 1910 Italian battleship design mention:
- more belt, i suppose 11-12 inches.
- more speed, 23 to 24 knots.
*Improved from this: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...rship-designs-and-proposals.32632/post-369874

Spoiler

Second paragraph

"Los Armamentos Navales de 1908" page 21 - 1972 - Etchepareborda R.

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello. I' m researching official documents from the Argentine Navy.

For those interested in little details...

...the Rivadavia battleships had, after their modernization, a substantial modification in their displacement and mobility:
- Maximum Displacement: 33,590 long tons (34,129 metric tons).
- Normal Displacement: 31,854 long tons (32,365 metric tons).
- Power: 54,000 hp (Rivadavia) and 52,370 hp (Moreno).
- Maximum Speed in Tests: 23.2 knots.
- Fuel: +5,500 tons (in total).

... the Brown heavy cruisers for their part:
- Maximum Displacement: 10.220 tons (Veinticinco de Mayo) and 10.090 tons (Brown).

Regards

 

[Tzoli]

Did you found anything about the guns of the Veinticinco de May class?

 

[Dilandu]

...the Rivadavia battleships had, after their modernization, a substantial modification in their displacement and mobility:
- Maximum Displacement: 33,590 long tons (34,129 metric tons).
- Normal Displacement: 31,854 long tons (32,365 metric tons).
- Power: 54,000 hp (Rivadavia) and 52,370 hp (Moreno).
- Maximum Speed in Tests: 23.2 knots.
- Fuel: +5,500 tons (in total).

Hm! Quite impressive, I say!

 

[COLDOWN]

Did you found anything about the guns of the Veinticinco de May class?

Not yet. Health protocols and schedules do not play in favor. But I am going through all the possible files on the subject.

...the Rivadavia battleships had, after their modernization, a substantial modification in their displacement and mobility:
- Maximum Displacement: 33,590 long tons (34,129 metric tons).
- Normal Displacement: 31,854 long tons (32,365 metric tons).
- Power: 54,000 hp (Rivadavia) and 52,370 hp (Moreno).
- Maximum Speed in Tests: 23.2 knots.
- Fuel: +5,500 tons (in total).

Hm! Quite impressive, I say!

Yes! The last number I was handling was 31,650 long tons.

 

[Dilandu]

Yes! The last number I was handling was 31,650 long tons.

Did not know that their speed increased as well.. almost making them fast battleships.

 

[COLDOWN]

Yes! The last number I was handling was 31,650 long tons.

Did not know that their speed increased as well.. almost making them fast battleships.

The most famous speed tests were carried out in the United States before they were delivered. There the maximum speed was 22.56 knots and without forcing the machines. The American admiral (I don't remember the name) who participated in an inspection of the ships declared that this class was undoubtedly faster than the Wyoming class and hinted that the previous record could be surpassed.
When I come across these statements again, I will edit this comment and quote them.

Spoiler

 

[Tzoli]

My previosu knowledge of the Rivadavia class after Modernization that her engine power increased from 39.500 to 45.000shp while speed and range somehow got reduced to 37km/h from 42 and 15.800km from 20.400.

 

[COLDOWN]

My previosu knowledge of the Rivadavia class after Modernization that her engine power increased from 39.500 to 45.000shp while speed and range somehow got reduced to 37km/h from 42 and 15.800km from 20.400.

Argentina deserves an important review.
Unfortunately, much research has been superficial or misrepresented. Surely the value you refer to (37 kilometers per hour) corresponds to the 1940s, two decades after the modernization and when the battleships were no longer comparable to other modern ones.

---

This misunderstanding also occurs with contemporary Catamarca and Córdoba class destroyers. These were modernized between 1920s and 1930s, changing machinery and fuel (to oil) and also changing their main battery (4 to 3 102/50mm guns) and torpedo launcher (4x1 to 4x2 of 533mm). However, whenever reference is made to these destroyers, they are assigned a maximum speed of 26 knots (from 31-2 knots a decade earlier!) and they are assigned 4 torpedo launchers (that is, 2x2) instead of the corresponding 8 torpedo launchers. In addition to the fact that the 37-millimeter gun present in its initial version are omitted. In the final version I have to confirm the presence of a 76.2 mm anti-aircraft gun (perhaps it is a detail that remained floating by the intention of modernizing the ships in the United States instead of in Argentina). The speed of 26 knots corresponds to the 1940s and 1950s, when these subclasses had more than 30 years of service and were waiting to be replaced by modern destroyers.
Edited 2021/12/18: Speed was around 31-32 knots, and droped to 27-29 knots after modernization. Not big, not good.
Destroyers near Pueyrredón armoured cruiser.

 

[COLDOWN]

Another two ships:

"Modified Cervantes"
A 1942 destroyer bought from Spain which was later canceled and which, however, was incorporated into that fleet as "Liniers".
Dimensions: 97.5/101.2 x 9.7 m.
Power: 42,000 hp.
Speed: 36.0 n.
Armament:
5*I 120/45. Mark E or Mark IX. Semi-piercing, high-capacity, anti-submarine and illuminating grenades.
6 or 8 25.4/70?. Anti-aircraft machine guns. High-capacity grenades.
6*I 7.65. Vickers-Armstrong simile machine guns
2*IV 533.4. Whitehead Fiume 1939.
2*II 241,3. Thornycroft Mortars.
1* Cage launcher of depth-charges.
1* Burney Paravans.
Plating: 12.4mm to 7.5mm.
Schematics were under development at this stage.

Spoiler

"Cervantes Modernization"
A 1958 ante-project for the modification of five destroyers ("Cervantes" and "Mendoza" classes, acquired from Spain and the United Kingdom) that would have been converted into antisubmarine frigates. Modification started but a year later cancelled.
Armament:
1*I Bofors 105/40 or 1xII Bofors 40/60.
3*II Bofors 40/60.
2*I Oerlikon 20/70.
1*IV Vickers 533.
1* Hedgehog.
2*V Simple cages bomb-launchers.
4* Bomb cannons with their screechers.
The rest of the equipment would have received reconditioning or improvements. In addition, the superstructure would have been modified to assimilate it to that of the Buenos Aires class.
The four schemes mentioned are not present :/

Spoiler

 

[Petrus]

Another two ships:

"Modified Cervantes"
A 1942 destroyer bought from Spain which was later canceled and which, however, was incorporated into that fleet as "Liniers".
Dimensions: 97.5/101.2 x 9.7 m.
Power: 42,000 hp.
Speed: 36.0 n.
Armament:
5*I 120/45. Mark E or Mark IX. Semi-piercing, high-capacity, anti-submarine and illuminating grenades.
6 or 8 25.4/70?. Anti-aircraft machine guns. High-capacity grenades.
6*I 7.65. Vickers-Armstrong simile machine guns
2*IV 533.4. Whitehead Fiume 1939.
2*II 241,3. Thornycroft Mortars.
1* Cage launcher of depth-charges.
1* Burney Paravans.
Plating: 12.4mm to 7.5mm.
Schematics were under development at this stage.

It's interesting that Vickers 25.4mm L70 guns were to be mounted on these destroyers. Actually the guns featured only aboard La Argentina training cruisers (to be replaced by L60 Bofors after WW2).

Here is an article by Tony Williams on Vickers 1inch/25.4mm guns:

https://quarryhs.co.uk/Vickers25.4.htm

Btw do you have any sketches of the projects mentioned in the previous post?

Piotr

 

[COLDOWN]

Another two ships:

"Modified Cervantes"
A 1942 destroyer bought from Spain which was later canceled and which, however, was incorporated into that fleet as "Liniers".
Dimensions: 97.5/101.2 x 9.7 m.
Power: 42,000 hp.
Speed: 36.0 n.
Armament:
5*I 120/45. Mark E or Mark IX. Semi-piercing, high-capacity, anti-submarine and illuminating grenades.
6 or 8 25.4/70?. Anti-aircraft machine guns. High-capacity grenades.
6*I 7.65. Vickers-Armstrong simile machine guns
2*IV 533.4. Whitehead Fiume 1939.
2*II 241,3. Thornycroft Mortars.
1* Cage launcher of depth-charges.
1* Burney Paravans.
Plating: 12.4mm to 7.5mm.
Schematics were under development at this stage.

It's interesting that Vickers 25.4mm L70 guns were to be mounted on these destroyers. Actually the guns featured only aboard La Argentina training cruisers (to be replaced by L60 Bofors after WW2).

Here is an article by Tony Williams on Vickers 1inch/25.4mm guns:

https://quarryhs.co.uk/Vickers25.4.htm

Btw do you have any sketches of the projects mentioned in the previous post?

Piotr

I have not found schematics. Just descriptions of how it could have been. However, there are still chances to get information in the argentine documentation and by consulting the Spanish shipyards.

This design "Cervantes Modificado" (which we can also call "Proyecto J 1924 - Modificado") is from 1942. In principle, it would look like a mix between the classes "Cervantes/Churruca" and "Buenos Aires/Gallant".

Other designs (such as "Proyecto 156" and "Proyecto 157") from 1943 and a new "Proyecto" from 1944 are assumed to be destined for Argentina as well. Those designs respond exclusive to the Argentine requirements (mainly related to the motorization, displacement and dimensions of the ship) and are not so similar to the "Churruca/Cervantes" classes. By then Spain was working on a new generation of destroyers; the "Proyecto 155" is the original design of the Spanish "Oquendo" class, elaborated in December 1942 and approved in March 1943. Now, I must clarify, I am not saying that the latest designs destined for Argentina have the same characteristics as the "155", but it was the argentine requirements that prevented the acquisition of the "Cervantes Modificado", which were later reacquired by Spain and delivered as the "Álava" class (with characteristics inferior to those detailed above).

Perhaps fortune will tell us more (and give a design) in time.

 

[COLDOWN]

Well, apparently the 1930s german cruiser designs for argentina are gone.

Subs proposals for argentina 1910s-1920s:

• 1917 "N-4" by Lake Torpedo Boat Company (American).
• 1917 "N-7" by Lake Torpedo Boat Company (American).
• 1920 "U 105/114" by Aktiebologet Oresundsvarvet (Swedish). Acquisition like new. 1 * 105 cannon and 45 cm torpedo launcher.
• 1921 "E" or "E1" by Thornycroft (English). Acquisition as used. Displacement of 600/790 tons.
• 1921 "L" by Armstrong (English). Acquisition like new. Displacement of 460/554 tons.
• 1921 "J.1" by Armstrong (English). Acquisition like new. Displacement of 670/800 tons.
• 1921 "X" by Armstrong (English). Acquisition as rebuilt. Speed of 17.3 / 15.5 knots and Displacement of 975/1164 tons.
• 1921 "254" by Ansaldo San Giorgio (Italian). Acquisition like new. Speed of 17.3 / 15.5 knots and Displacement of 975/1164 tons.

Drawings and technical details are mentioned but not present in the documentation.

 

[Kingpin6100]

Well, apparently the 1930s german cruiser designs for argentina are gone.

 

[COLDOWN]

Let me return to the "Super-Rivadavia".

Today I was reading the letters sent between Argentine Navy leaders, Moneta and Saenz Valiente, during the years 1912 and 1913.
The announcement of the Third Brazilian Dreadnought was scary for them. Moneta states that, before the acquisition of Rio de Janeiro and the Fourth Battleship of Brazil (yes, it was a real thing), Argentina should adquire one or two units of a superior battleship.

Among the proposals are:
- (1912) 14 * 305 mm in 6 towers (4x2+2x3 or III-II-II-II-II-III) in echelon.
- (1912) 14 * 305 mm in center line.
- (1912/3) 14 * 356 mm in 6 towers (4x2+2x3 or III-II-II-II-II-III).
Schematics and studies would be carried out on this (in other words I do not have the diagrams or more details, but i´m still searching).

Spoiler

Regards

 

[Tzoli]

Even the Japanese Yuzuru Hiraga archive have documents on the Almirante Brown class cruisers:

平賀譲デジタルアーカイブ · argentine designs · 東京大学学術資産等アーカイブズ共用サーバ

iiif.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

 

[COLDOWN]

Perfect.

There is the Destroyer "Tipo Argentino" 1910 original design there.

 

[COLDOWN]

Not really a (full) design but...
In 1915, the delegate of the Argentine Naval Commission in Europe (J. Irizar) sent the Argentine Minister of the Navy (J. P. Saenz Valiente) a letter with the an image and references in which he exposes a new concept of torpedo protection.

References:
a- Watertight space.
b- Coal.
c- Circular explosion bulkhead.
d- Flexible screens made of flat steel cables, holding in front a very thin sheet of steel.
e- Vertical explosion bulkhead.
A- Space in which only liquid fuel is put (combustible area?)- Explosion chamber.

At the same time, in this letter he refers to the fact that the new european battleships carry 15-inch guns (and that they will soon carry 16-inch guns). So it can be interpreted that he thus creates the requirements of what a future Argentine battleship should look like (if necessary, of course).

This is the Rivadavia, for comparison:

Spoiler

Source: "Saenz Valiente" Collection, Departamento de Estudios Históricos Navales.

 

[Hood]

Interesting, I wonder where J. Irizar picked up this underwater protective scheme from in Europe?

 

[COLDOWN]

Interesting, I wonder where J. Irizar picked up this underwater protective scheme from in Europe?

In the letter he mentions the secrecy in all European navies, obviously due to the Great War. By August 1915 the Argentine presence had been strong in the United Kingdom (the offices), in France (due to the construction of the "San Juan" -or "Aventurier"- class destroyers) and Germany (due to the construction of the "San Luis" -or "G101"- class destroyers and new torpedoes).
Edited: Words.-

 

[Hood]

Featuring coal bunkers it feels more likely to be German, French or even possibly Italian in origin rather than British.

 

[COLDOWN]

Armstrong 740. Do we know anything else about this ship?

My bet is that it looks like something that Argentina could want.

Those details match:
- Timeline: 1911-1913 when Argentina was in need of a third of fourth dreadnought with caliber upgrade to counter the Rio de Janeiro (first Armstrong 653/45 and, later Armstrong 689A).
- Gun configuration: 14" guns in six dual turrets (6x2 356/45).
- Protection scheme: very similar compared to the Rivadavia itself or the Armstrong 610 in the same publication (page 28).
- Coal & Oil: almost identical to the R. or the A. 610 (page 29).
- Speed: 0,25 knots more than R.
- Secondaries guns: 6 in (plus 4).
- General design: Looks like an upguned american Wyoming (idea that Armstrong could have reformulated to get the contract).

Based? Not based?

Regards

Source: Conway's Warship Aº1997-8 Pages 34-5 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-DwKhpveChCCSYeBfM3UCgtqkqOkvzzo/view?usp=sharing

 

[Tzoli]

No, it was for Japan and it became the Ise class.
Friedman includes a drawing of the same layout though more simplified lines.

Armstrong described Design 740 as a stock design, an improved ‘Beta’, but it appears to have been the company’s bid for what became the Japanese Ise class. It was dated April 1912. (Author’s photograph of drawing in Armstrong Album 3, Brass Foundry)

Design 740 (April 1912) was listed as a stock design, but the drawing in the Armstrong album resembles the Japanese Ise class (with the positions of the two midships turrets reversed). It is marked ‘improved Beta’, but the Armstrong list includes no such design. This ship would have displaced 31,500 tons (650/685ft x 96ft x 28ft/31ft 3in), with the standard Japanese battleship speed of 23 knots.

 

[COLDOWN]

Friedman's expressions do not seem conclusive, but hey, everything points to the fact that it was offered mainly to Japan. :/

 

[Tzoli]

Being a stock design does not mean it did not offered to South America. There are multiple entries in his book mentioning that one design offered to a country and later to a different one.

 

[Tzoli]

Design is clearly British and to my knowledge the shipyards did not adopt any US stye elements for their designs, for example the RN used true armoured casemates with their round gun shields while the USN only had gun ports with a thin metal plate to protect from weather but opened when firing. No cagemast either, though the single polemast seems barely enough for radio?
It is more like indeed an Ise or mix of Ise and Fuso

 

[COLDOWN]

Being a stock design does not mean it did not offered to South America. There are multiple entries in his book mentioning that one design offered to a country and later to a different one.

Please don't think that because I saw it in stock I thought it was for Argentina. The point is that on this site https://myplace.frontier.com/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/Riachuelo_Version1.1.html#sdfootnote5anc they do an interesting analysis of the Ruachuelo and there were designs, like the aforementioned Armstrong 740, that I had not contemplated.
And not because it is stock, but because the characteristics are very similar, it seemed to me that it could be offered to Argentina in the brazilian third and fourth dreadnought era.

Design is clearly British and to my knowledge the shipyards did not adopt any US stye elements for their designs, for example the RN used true armoured casemates with their round gun shields while the USN only had gun ports with a thin metal plate to protect from weather but opened when firing. No cagemast either, though the single polemast seems barely enough for radio?
It is more like indeed an Ise or mix of Ise and Fuso

What I wanted to say is that if Argentina had built its third dreadnought it would have been in the United States. Not only was a naval commission there requesting studies, but the contract for this was already signed (unlike the Brazilian contract, its order was not mandatory). In other words, Argentine requirements with American technology.
So my guess is that the Armstrong house could have responded to this by developing a design similar to what Argentina wanted (as Vickers did with N.428 when it aplied versus Bethlehem on the Rivadavias bidding).
In short, I do not deny that this design, N.740, has been offered to Japan, nor do I demand it for my country or for South America, but the expression of Friedman and Brook still allows this design to have been offered to more than a country, even Poland. In other words, it is not an eccentric practice to show existing or recycled designs.