# The good old ships of the Argentine Armada



## CharlesBronson (Jul 5, 2005)

A pictorial collection of the major ships in the Argentine Navy between 1914-1960.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 5, 2005)

*Battleship "Rivadavia"*

Builder: Fore River, Quincy 

Laid down: 25.5.1910

Launched: 26.8.1911

Commissioned: 27.8.1914

Rivadavia at her builders' yard, shortly before trials, ca. 1914. Note she is still under US flag.






Rivadavia on trials, ca. 1914.





The Rivadavia class was authorised in 1908 primarily as a response to the Minas Gerais class being constructed in Brazil. An intense internal debate took place in Argentina concerning the need to purchase two such expensive dreadnoughts, costing £2.2 million each. Argentina's recent border Controversies with Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay helped win the day for those in favour.

The Argentine method for acquiring the best possible design stirred controversy among the building nations. In 1908 Rear-Admiral Onofre Betbeder set up office in London and requested all interested patties to submit plans for the construction of two dreadnoughts with the option to build a third. The guidelines were sketchy to allow the bidders to develop the best possible plans. Fifteen companies submitted plans. The Argentinians reviewed the submissions, chose the best features from each and gave the revised guidelines to the competing firms. This process was then repeated. The competitors were in a furore and considered this as a looting of their trade secrets.

The contract was awarded to Fore River Shipbuilding Corporation of Quincy, Massachusetts, at a saving of over £224.000 per ship over the nearest competitor. European builders were shocked because the United States, which then lagged far behind Great Britain and Germany in the dreadnought race, was not considered to be a serious competitor.

The Rivadavia class closely paralleled American battleships in appearance and design. The machinery was placed amidships with the boilers grouped in separate rooms equally forward and abaft the engine room. This arrangement reduced trimming problems and separated machinery vitals into three separate compartments. 

The 'en echelon' 12in amidships turrets could in theory fire on a 180-degree arc on the side of the ship were located and 100 degrees on the opposite side. The secondary 6in guns were mounted on the upper deck behind 6in armour. The 16 x 4in QF guns were for protection against torpedo attack; 8 of these guns were mounted in the between decks, 4 on the gun deck aft, and 4 on the upper deck forward. The 8 remaining guns were located on the-weather deck 6 on the superstructure deck and 2 on the upper deck aft. The 4in guns were not protected by armour. Two submerged side-loading TT were located in the torpedo room forward, firing broadside. The ships' magazines stowed 120 rounds of 12in shell per gun, 300 rounds for each 6in, 350 rounds per 4in gun and 16 Whitehead torpedoes.

The ships were initially fitted with two 15ft Barr Stroud rangefinders mounted in revolving armoured towers above the forward and after CT for controlling the 12in guns. Two 9ft Barr Stroud were mounted on the platform on top of the king posts for the boat booms.

Typical of American-built dreadnoughts, protection received special attention. The main belt was 12in amidships tapering to 5in and 4in at the stem and stern respectively. The belt extended 5ft above and 6ft below the normal waterline. The turret armour was 12in on the face, 9in on the sides, 9.5in on the rear and 4in on the top. The forward and aft CT were 12 and 9in respectively. The protective deck extended the ship's length 24in above the waterline amidships, sloping down to the lower edge of the main belt armour. The protective deck varied from 20lb medium steel to 80lb of nickel steel. The inner bottom extended most of the length of the ships. An inner skin was fitted around the magazines, boilers, and machinery. This was for added protection against mines and torpedoes.

The electrical plant consisted of 4375kW turbogenerators located under the midship magazines forward and aft of the engine rooms. Two 75kW generators run off of diesel engines provided electricity when the boilers were cold. An 8kW Telefunken radio had an optimum range of 1500km.

The USN Board of Inspection and Survey for Ships made the following observations concerning Rivadavia on 21 October 1913. "On the high speed runs the vessel made the exact contract speed, 22,5 knots; but it is believed that she can do a little better She . . . handles remarkably well . . . The Board prefers our adopted centerline arrangement of turrets [Wyoming class]. While theoretically the Rivadavia has an ahead and asteru fire of six guns, this is not so in reality, as it is almost certain that the blast from the walst turret guns would dish in the smokepipes and damage the uptakes... The Bethlehem Steel Company designed and made special [12in guns] breech-blocks, all of which were rejected and the regular US Navy type of breech-block was finally made and installed. With comparatively minor modifications the vessel would practically meet the requirements of our own vessels."

A third dreadnought was authorised in 1912 in response to Brazil's third dreadnought, the Rio de Janeiro. Since neither this ship nor the Brazilian Riachuelo ever materialised, Argentina's third dreadnought was never laid down.







Rivadavia en 1935.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 6, 2005)

*Battleship Moreno:*

Same class as Rivadavia; 23.000 tn 12 x 12 inch guns (305mm) and 12 inch belt armour.

In 1918






In 1937.







In 1942.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 17, 2005)

*ALMIRANTE BROWN Class(1931)*


This heavy cruiser is probably one of the most slender and good looking watercraft ever surfaced the south atlantic.

These two ships ( almirante Brown and 25 de Mayo) were the most important result of the 75 million Gold Peso naval programme authorised in 1926, which formulated the requirements of the Argentine Navy for the following ten years. The contract for the two cruisers (a third was authorised but not proceeded with) was won by the Italian Odero Terni Orlando company with a design reputedly based upon the Royal Italian Navy's new Washington Treaty heavy cruiser, Trento. This ship had herself only been laid down in February 1925 and was to be followed on the same slipway at Livorno by one of the Argentine vessels, Veinticinco de Mayo. Her sister was the last vessel to be built at the La Foce yard. In fact, there appears to be little resemblance between the two designs, as the Italian ship was longer, beamier and more heavily protected than the Argentine ship. There were also differences in armament, machinery and layout. Just about all that they had in common was that both conformed to contemporary Italian design practice in that they were fast, lightly built and weakly protected, although these features were partly the result of the Treaty constraints.

Under the agreements of the Washington Treaty, all ships with guns above 8in were classed as 'Heavy Cruisers' and the Argentine ships fell into that classification, being the first and in fact only examples in any South American Navy. Argentina acquired Heavy Cruisers before several of the more recognised naval powers, and her possession of these two ships gave her a leading position amongst the 'ABC' powers on the subcontinent.


The main armament, 190mm (7.5in)/52 calibre, was unusual, only the British Hawkins class (q.v.) having the same weapon calibre as designed. These were carried in twin turrets, with two forward, having 46º elevation. Maximum range was 27.300m. 


150rpg was the ship's book oufit. Secondary armament consisted of six twin 102mm (4in) O-T guns disposed on the forecastle deck amidships. These guns had a maximum elevation of 80º in the AA role. A total of 3.000 rounds was allowed for. Twelve torpedoes were carried. As built, the aircraft installation consisted of a Gagnotto fixed catapult on the forecastle in accordance with current Italian designs, with a hangar for two aircraft below. The aircraft were initially Vought Corsair O2Us, then Grumman G5s, these being replaced by the Supermarine Walrus and finally, the Grumman J2F.


*25 de Mayo*

25 De Mayo arrived at Alicante on 22nd August 1936 to protect Argentinian interests during the Spanish civil war and returned home on 14 December. In the late 1940s, a British radar set was fitted.

*ARA 25 de Mayo in 1934*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 30, 2007)

For the guy who asked me about the Argentine cruisers this is the topic. Ill put some more information later.

*ARA 9 de Julio.*


----------



## timshatz (May 1, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> *Battleship Moreno:*
> 
> Same class as Rivadavia; 23.000 tn 12 x 12 inch guns (305mm) and 12 inch belt armour.
> 
> ...




Looks roughly like the USS New York. Same size armaments.


----------



## timshatz (May 1, 2007)

Always like the lines on the Italian Cruisers. Streamlined, nice looking ships.


----------



## mkloby (May 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Always like the lines on the Italian Cruisers. Streamlined, nice looking ships.



Many Regia Marina ships were very good looking... 
I love the Argentina's old armored cruisers of the General Garibaldi class, another Italian product.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 2, 2007)

More images of the Almirante Brow class:















*Alte Brown in NY:*







Changing the tubes on the 190 mm main guns.


----------



## lf12pconline (May 2, 2007)

thank u ! 

Are the 25 de Mayo class cruisers' 7.5 in guns desgin by italy?


----------



## mkloby (May 2, 2007)

lf12pconline said:


> thank u !
> 
> Are the 25 de Mayo class cruisers' 7.5 in guns desgin by italy?



Yes. The Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo were built in Italy. Note the closeness of the barrels, a common trait in Italian cruisers.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2007)

Yeap, those are italian guns.

*La Argentina class:*






Class: 2 ship proposed (La Argentina, Heroina) one actually delivered.

Commissioned: 31st January 1939 


Builders: Vickers, Barrow, United Kingdom 

Dimensions: 540' 10" x 56' 6" x 16' 6" / 164.89m x 17.22m x 5.03m 

Displacement: 6604 tons std / 7620 tons max 

Complement: 800 







Armament: 9 x 6" Mk W guns in triple turrets

4 x 4"/50 Vickers guns in single mountings

2 x 1" Vickers guns in twin mountings

6 x 21" torpedo tubes in two triple mountings 


Aircraft Facilities: A hangar for a single Walrus seaplane was fitted along with a catapult. 

Armour: 
Belt: 3"" (76mm)
Conning Tower: 3" 
Turrets: 2" (51mm)
Deck: 2" 

Powerplant: Six Yarrow boilers were fitted with four Parsons steam turbines providing a total of 54000shp on four shafts. 

Maximum speed was 30kts and range at 12kts was 10000NM. Fuel load was 1480 tons oil


----------



## timshatz (May 4, 2007)

Nice shots CB.


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

I show that La Argentina was designed to hold 2 A/C, although only usually carried a single bird. Main armament was 6"/50 cal.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2007)

Bet with that force you should have gone for the Malvinas in July 40 . great info


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Bet with that force you should have gone for the Malvinas in July 40 . great info



Hmmm - if Britain sent even a small task force including a carrier, a dreadnought or two, a couple cruisers, along with destroyers, the Argentines would've been outgunned.

The British 15"/42 lobbing 1938lb shells are far superior to the Rivadavias 12"/50 guns firing 870lb projectiles.

On the other hand, would britain have diverted the naval assets, as well as ground troops, to take back the islands.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2007)

Lets not forget supplying same force I don't think Ascenion would have been much help. An interesting scenario


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Lets not forget supplying same force I don't think Ascenion would have been much help. An interesting scenario



For sure.

Hey CB - does Argentina have any of her old ships as memorials/museums?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 4, 2007)

> Bet with that force you should have gone for the Malvinas in July 40 . great info



Hehe, actually I think there was an proposition to help in the recovery of the islands made to the President A. P Justo l in 1942 by the German ambassador. 

The Army was clearly pro-german but the navy was not so I guess it would be some conflict in there. 



> Hey CB - does Argentina have any of her old ships as memorials/museums?



Yes but is not a battleship but an old armored frigate, the Sarmiento.

http://www.ara.mil.ar/multimedia/imagenes_video/mups.asf






It is anchored in a expensive neirborghood a few meters from the Bs As Downtown. The only remaining of the bigger ships was the 12" ,10" and 7,5 guns in another museum.


----------



## lf12pconline (May 6, 2007)

Thanks 

Is there a room for the seaplane under the main deck before the A turret,just like Italy navy's heavy cruisers


----------



## lf12pconline (May 6, 2007)

hehe by the way I want to have the larger one of this pic


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 6, 2007)

That is a post card, let me see if I can found it..again.


*25,4mm antiaircraft guns in "La Argentina Class"*

*by Tony Williams:*

_This article is a compilation of material published in the May and June issues of 'The Cartridge Researcher', the Bulletin of the European Cartridge Research Association_

I recently came across description of the Argentinian light cruiser ‘La Argentina’, which was built between 1936 and 1939 by Vickers of Barrow. A brief mention was made that the ship was armed with one-inch Vickers AA guns. I was puzzled by this, as the only Vickers one-inch guns I knew were produced during WW1 and were low-velocity aircraft weapons which would have been of little use in the AA role by the 1930s. So I made some enquiries via the ECRA network, and details of an almost forgotten weapon gradually emerged.



The Gun

The gun is referred to as the ‘Vickers 25.4 mm’, presumably to distinguish it from the earlier Vickers 1 inch. It appears to have been developed in the early to mid-1930s specifically as a naval gun, and was only ever produced in a fixed twin mounting. I am unaware of any other application of this gun apart from ‘La Argentina’, which had six of these mountings. One gun (without mounting) still survives in the MoD Pattern Room at Leeds. The mountings were removed from ‘La Argentina’ in 1949 and replaced by six single 40mm Bofors mountings. None of the mountings appears to have survived, although there is a mystery concerning the ammunition production dates which will be referred to later. 






A low-resolution photo of the mounting is included (below left), from the Barrow Museum in Cumbria, which contains much material concerning Vickers (for a long time the town's biggest employer). 







They have six different high-resolution photos of this mounting available for purchase as photographic prints: they may be viewed on-line and ordered from: Vickers Photographic Archive (enter 25.4mm in the 'search' box). 

The photo of the cruiser was kindly supplied by A.A.C.A.M. (see credits at the end of the article) and shows two of the 25.4 mm twin mountings, barrels pointing skywards; one on each side of the bridge, under the bridge overhang. The entire starboard mounting can be seen, but only the barrels of the port mounting. The photo of the gun is courtesy of the MoD Pattern Room.








The guns look very different from the traditional Vickers large-calibre automatic guns of the period, which were belt-fed, water-cooled and recoil-operated. They are obviously air-cooled, almost certainly gas-operated, and are fed by box magazines above the breech. Since Vickers was offering the gas-operated, magazine-fed Vickers-Berthier .303 LMG at that time (it was used by the Indian Army instead of the Bren), and the Vickers K or VGO aircraft gun derived from it, it seems reasonable to theorise that the 25.4 mm gun used a scaled-up version of this mechanism. No information has been found concerning the the mounting, the magazine capacity, or the rate of fire. However, some rounds of ammunition have survived.


The Ammunition

The cartridge for the 25.4mm gun is a slender, rimless, bottleneck type with a case length of 189mm. Two different types of projectile are known; an APC (loaded into the cartridge examined) and an HE shell for which information and illustrations have been provided by A.A.C.A.M.






The APC projectile (below centre) is painted black apart from the copper driving band and weighs 250g. The nose-fuzed HE projectile (below left) is in worse condition, but retains traces of red paint. According to an official drawing, it weighs 260g.







In the Projectiles and Grenades Catalogue of the Ammunition and War Chemistry Commission (Navy Material General Directorate), A.A.C.A.M. have found a blueprint of the HE projectile (shown below) and comment as follows: 






“In the A.A.C.A.M. own reference collection, we have: one cartridge that was obtained from a retired navy non commissioned officer, who worked in the naval museum, and as he told us, some years ago he got some cartridges from crates of ammunition that were to be dumped at sea. It bears the headstamp: VA AR (Argentine marking that means “ARMADA” – navy -) 1938 LOT 8 25.4 M/M. Markings were at 12-3-6 and 9 position. The projectile bears in the fuze the marking: L10 1939, and in the body 25.4 M/M VAD 1939. The projectile has traces of red paint, we presume this is the original paint.

The explosive seems to be Trotyl, because the denomination found in this blueprint A.E.A.T. means: GranadA Explosiva Antiaerea Trotyl.

According to the blueprint 3.8 % of the projectile weight (without fuze) is explosive material.

Also, one case was obtained from the “Fray Luis Beltran” ammunition factory. Unconfirmed reports said that was there for fatigue material testing, it bears the headstamp VA AR 1938 LOT 3 25.4 M/M, and most interesting is the primer (Argentine made) with the following markings: A.A.M.Z. /57 PP-21, meaning that it was made by the Arsenal Artilleria de Marina Zarate (Zarate Navy Artillery Arsenal) probably in 1957. Our speculation is that once the supply of British made ammunition was exhausted, the navy maybe tried to reload it with Argentine-made components. Whether other components (beside primers) i.e. projectiles, were made in Argentina is still matter of investigation.

This fact is very interesting, because if the MGs were replaced in 1949, and in the year 1957, A.A.M.Z. was making primers, this means that somebody was still using the MGs: who, where and when is still a mystery to us. 

The AR marking denotes Argentine navy property.”



The following information concerns an example of the cartridge with an APC projectile, which was examined in detail. 

The cartridge case is brass, with a dark coating or patina, the primer also brass but much brighter.

The dimensions of the cartridge in millimetres are as follows:

Lengths:

· Case: 189

· To shoulder: 164

· Neck: 18

· Rim: 2.5

· Extractor groove: 2 (level) + 3 (angled)

Widths: 

· Rim: 34.8

· Extractor groove 32.3

· Body above extractor groove: 34.3

· Body at shoulder 30.3

· Body at neck: 26.0

· Primer diameter: 20.2

APC Projectile

· Length visible above case: 68.0

· Overall length: 86.0

· Length of driving band: 10.0

· Diameter of driving band: 26.0

· Diameter of projectile body: 25.3

Weights:

· Overall: 560 g

· Projectile: 250 g



Headstamp: 25.4m/m VA 1936 LOT



Primer: No.5 IIN (WD arrow in diamond) VAD 11/35 VAD



Projectile: VAD 25.4m/m P. 25443 GL



Other sources

No official statistics have been found concerning the muzzle velocity or range of the cartridge. However, in "Spitfire, the History" by Morgan and Shacklady (Key Publishing Ltd, 1987) there is on page 61 a table of alternative armaments proposed for the Spitfire during its design/development phase. Included in these (rather surprisingly) is the 25.4mm Vickers. This is credited with a shell weight of .551 lbs (250 g) which is accurate for the AP projectile, and a muzzle velocity of 3,000 fps (914 m/s), which looks about right given the size of the cartridge case. This develops a muzzle energy of 104,400 J; it is probable that the same round-figure muzzle velocity would have been quoted for the HE shell, giving an energy of 108,600 J. 

This source also credits the gun with using a 30-round drum, but that may have been specifically for the aircraft application where reloading would not have been possible. The book gives a gun weight of 127 kg and a length of 259 cm.

What does not look right in the Morgan/Shacklady book is the quoted "weight of shells per minute (max lbs)" which is given as 55 lb (25 kg). This is only equivalent to 100 rpm, which appears far too low given that the contemporary Bofors 25mm fired at 160-180 rpm and the 25mm Hotchkiss at 200-250 rpm. 



Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Vickers Museum, Barrow, to Martin Golland, for the loan of his 25.4 mm cartridge for measurement and photography, to Richard Jones of the Pattern Room, to Bill Woodin of the Woodin Laboratory, and to members of the Argentinian cartridge collectors’ association (A.A.C.A.M.) for providing much of the material, as follows: 

Dr. Horacio A. Tomas (A.A.C.A.M. current President)

Rear Admiral Oscar C. Albino (A.A.C.A.M. former President)

Mr. Federio Graziano (A.A.C.A.M. voting member, and a true authority in the ammunitions field)

Mr. Osvaldo Bonsignori (A.A.C.A.M. Librarian)

Dr. Javier M. Ramallo (A.A.C.A.M. voting member) 


THE VICKERS 25


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 7, 2007)

lf12pconline said:


> hehe by the way I want to have the larger one of this pic



Here you got. Postal card of 1942.






Obviously the word Acorazado (battleship) is not correct, she was a cruiser. The name of the ship is after a irish inmigrant who was the first Commander of the newly created argentine Navy in 1812.


----------



## mkloby (May 7, 2007)

Awesome post on the 25.4mm guns CB - I had never known. I thought that the 40mm mounts were bolted on originally.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 7, 2007)

Yes, but remember that is made by Tony Williams.



> I thought that the 40mm mounts were bolted on originally.



No, actually in 1939 (when the ship became operative) there was no such mountings at list not bofors ones.


----------



## mkloby (May 7, 2007)

Yup - but I would have never read his piece if you didn't post it here. Right, I got that from reading it, which I didn't previously know - that the 40mm guns replaced the 25.4mm mounts.


----------



## lf12pconline (May 8, 2007)

who know that?


25 de mayo class had "a third was authorised but not proceeded with" , why? had no maney?


----------



## lf12pconline (May 8, 2007)

lf12pconline said:


> Is there a room for the seaplane under the main deck before the A turret,just like Italy navy's heavy cruisers



who know  


hehe, do u have the large pic of this?

thanks


----------



## lf12pconline (May 8, 2007)

I am very intersting in the ARA cruisers.

I have some questions of them

The 25 de mayo class's OTO 100mm/47 gun are the M1928 or the M1924(just like trento class)

The trento class have 12 boilers in 3 bolier rooms,four 4 turbines in 2 engine room, 8 boliers in 2 bolier room---forward engine room---4 boliers in a bolier room---after engine room are the 25 De Mayo class cruisers' main machinery disposed on the unit system? 25 de mayo class has 6 boliers and 2 turbines


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 8, 2007)

> 25 de mayo class had "a third was authorised but not proceeded with" , why? had no maney?



I think it was because that. quite sad.



> The 25 de mayo class's OTO 100mm/47 gun are the M1928 or the M1924(just like trento class)



M1928.








> The trento class have 12 boilers in 3 bolier rooms,four 4 turbines in 2 engine room, 8 boliers in 2 bolier room---forward engine room---4 boliers in a bolier room---after engine room are the 25 De Mayo class cruisers' main machinery disposed on the unit system? 25 de mayo class has 6 boliers and 2 turbines



I found no more info about, I just know she had 6 boilers.



> hehe, do u have the large pic of this?



I dont. But check this page.

FlotadeMar


----------



## lf12pconline (May 10, 2007)

thank u I have some pics from there


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 23, 2009)

Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. Launching of the Argentine destroyers Corrientes, Entre Rios y Buenos Aires 1937.

British Pathe - TRIPLE LAUNCH AT BARROW-IN-FURNESS


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 23, 2009)

Very cool CB. Are there any battleships/cruisers preserved as museums in Argentina?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 24, 2009)

Sadly no, all the big ships went to scrap, only the big guns were rescued for the naval museums.

_ ( edited to add this) Actually there were plans to preservate the Brooklyn class ARA General Belgrano, unfortinately that ship went to the bottom in 1982.

Buenos Aires class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*-Destroyers Entre Rios, Buenos aires and San juan, 1940.*

*- the ARA Buenos Aires in 1942.*


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 24, 2009)

That's a shame. I always liked their battleships.


----------

