Argentinian Military

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#201

I’d llike to pick up on the Dreadnought thing.

Yet again I have a book in a box all about HMS Agincourt ( I think).

The Dreadnought was OK for Germany, the UK, the US and maybe Japan, but in 1904-12 it was a symbol for other countries.

I have always found it amazing that the UK could continue its 2-1 policy and also build these ships for most of the worlds aspiring nations at the same time.

South America got sucked into the Dreadnought super weapon myth, none of the S American countries even had a cause for conflict, but as soon as one of them bought one, they all wanted one.

These things cost an absolute fortune for no reason.

Fair dues to the British shipyards though, who turned them out to order.

We built them for Japan, Chile, Brasil, Turkey and some others…

This was a trully interesting time. Some of the British shipyards could lay down and launch within 7 months.

Yet again I wil have to dig the books out…

#202

Just how much use would one or two Dreadnaughts be anyway? Unless you have enough to make at least one squadron they are of limited use in combat because the enemy will throw everything at it until it is sunk. It might serve as a distraction but it’s a damned expensive one and you could get a lot more destroyers or cruisers for the price and crew of one Dread, and because they can manoevre independently they are more likely to survive long anough to do damage.
Unless of course, you pick a fight with someone who actually has a squadron of battleships, in which case you are always shagged.

#203

A tip: the “Arsenal Esteban de Luca” it’s a unit to maintenance and repotentiation of trucks, (GM), the M113 carrier, and research to improve
all the army material. the military unit name is B Ars 601.
And its side is the TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) assembly plant. I don’t know if this unit was a
private enterprise before. I’m going to investigate it. 8)
Peron chooses the M4 Sherman because the war was over, and USA
selling it a half of a price to produce the Nahuel. Another mistake to non
produce its own design.

#204

I wasn’t talking about a direct war between Argentina and Italy or the US. I was talking about a war where Italy or the US could be on our enemy’s side, as happened in 1982.

The most likely oposition for Argentina in that time was Chile or Brasil not an European power or the US.

I am not in disagree with this.

The hurry in to buy large warships to the US is pretty clear for anyone that know a little history, in that time the Brasilian navy had already received his two first Dreadnaughts the Minas Gerais Class ( Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo), and Chile had ordered two powerful battleships to the UK, the Almirante Latorre class ( Almirante Latorre & Lord Cochrane)

The Minas Gerais can put together 24 x 305 mm guns, and the Latorres 20 x 343 mm guns. So without the solid Oposition of the neat Rivadavia Class any “trigger happy” Brasilian or Chilean admiral could put those ship in range and wiped out any coastal Argentine City.
But no… you want to wait until you have a shipyard capable of build this 190 meters and 29.000 tons ships? Those shipyard dont materialize until 1960.

In agree again. But as long as we were using those foreign weapons, we could be producing own weapons.

And again you fall in the mistake to say that Peron was the mastermind of the arming and the national weapons independence…completely false.
Fray Luis Beltran was making guns for the Liberation Army in the 1800s, General Ricchieri do all the planing for the military equipmente and production in the late 1800s and General Savio was the first to put in production the high grade steel mills to manufacturing goverment small arms and large calibre guns in 1930.

I wasn’t saying that Peron was the pioneer of our arming. I said that Peron was the pioneer of heavy industries ideas on our country, millitary factories and civilian factories.
The producers of millitary weapons that were before Peron, were only simple weapons. Peron prefered to carry to the top to our factories, to compete over the world with the powerfull factories.

In the aircraft industries side The FMA as founded in 1927 not 1947 like many love to think.
The FMA had already make good quality aircraft like the Ae Mb 1:

…and the IA-22 DL with his locally produced 9 cilinder radial.

…even so if Peron really was that protector of the national industry…Why decimate the Pulqui I an II programs ??..Why he bought Gloster Meteors and North American Sabres instead?

First, the AeMb1 Bombi was an awfull aircraft, it only could carry one bomb, and it was so difficult to operate that was so strange to see it flying. The IA-22 “Diente de León” was the first armed airplane of Argentina, but that aircraft was designed after the US asked to Argentina to reinforce itself with armed airplanes… we had to be asked by another country to produce our own armed planes.

The Pulquis were supported in all time by Peron. The story is that when the prototype of Pulqui I was finished, the United Kingdom offered as medium of paid a good number of aircraft Gloster Meteor and Avro Lincoln to pay the large debt that country had with Argentina.
The Meteor was by far a better plane than the IA-29, and they were free-paid. It was a good decision because Peron ordered to produce an aircraft that could exceed the performances of the Meteor in a short-time period, starting the IA-33 Pulqui II to reinforce the Argentine Air Force in 5 years.
When the prototypes of the Pulqui II were actives, the Armed Forces removed the democratic power and then, they cancelled the Pulqui II and bought the F-86 Sabre (it wasn’t peron who bought those aircraft).

As I said, Peron wanted to have first-line products, to compete with all the world powers…

The IA-22DL wasn’t an aircraft that could compete with the best aircraft in the world. The IA-33 was (it had a lot of requests from different nations, those nations leaded by Egypt that requested 200 aircrafts).
The weapons that were produced in Argentina before Peron couldn’t compete with the best factories’ products. The weapons of peron’s era could.

#205

First, the AeMb1 Bombi was an awfull aircraft, it only could carry one bomb, and it was so difficult to operate that was so strange to see it flying. The IA-22 “Diente de León” was the first armed airplane of Argentina, but that aircraft was designed after the US asked to Argentina to reinforce itself with armed airplanes… we had to be asked by another country to produce our own armed planes.

I dont have any info related to this incident.

The Pulquis were supported in all time by Peron. The story is that when the prototype of Pulqui I was finished, the United Kingdom offered as medium of paid a good number of aircraft Gloster Meteor and Avro Lincoln to pay the large debt that country had with Argentina.
The Meteor was by far a better plane than the IA-29, and they were free-paid. It was a good decision because Peron ordered to produce an aircraft that could exceed the performances of the Meteor in a short-time period, starting the IA-33 Pulqui II to reinforce the Argentine Air Force in 5 years.
When the prototypes of the Pulqui II were actives, the Armed Forces removed the democratic power and then, they cancelled the Pulqui II and bought the F-86 Sabre (it wasn’t peron who bought those aircraft).

I know that, but if REALLY had the full support of Peron…why then the proyect delayed so long…? The first prototipe of Pulqui II flew in 1950…for 1955 it could be in production very easily, so there is my point if was such concerned for the natinal industries it should put in mass production looooong before the bloody coup of 1955. And he DID NOT. :evil:

And its side is the TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) assembly plant. I don’t know if this unit was a
private enterprise before. I’m going to investigate it.

No it was not, is a goverment factory

Peron chooses the M4 Sherman because the war was over, and USA
selling it a half of a price to produce the Nahuel

I know that thanks, I just want to opening the eyes of Eagle, to show him that Peron not always choose the “argentine work” :?

We built them for Japan, Chile, Brasil, Turkey and some others…

Actually the only minor navies that had REAL Dreadnaughts where Spain ( tree relative small ships of 16.000 tons) Brasil, Argentina, and Chile.

The brasilian Minas gerais was a 20.000 tons ship but it had a piston engines instead turbines, so it was very slow compared with the Rivadavias. Also the main artillery was L/45 compared with the greater muzzle velocity L/50 than carried the Argentine Battleships. The max armour was 10 inch thick compared with the 12 inch thick Harvey-Nickel-steel of the argentines dreadnaughts.

Aware of that the Brasilian Navy ordered two more powerful ships, that was the "Rio de Janeiro " and the “Riachuelo” with steam turbines and a heavy 14 x 12 inchs guns. They never was deliver because the beginning of WWI, the Royal Navy take over the first and renames “HMS Agincourt”, the second was eventually converted in the carrier HMS Eagle.

Turkey suffered similar fate with his “Reshadie” never was delivered and entered in service with the Royal Navy in 1915,…I think under the name of HMS Erin.

And at last but no at list the chileans had his Almirante Latorre also seized by the British name in 1914 under the name of HMS Canada, but it was finally delivered to Chile in 1920 and entered in service.

The conclutions is that in the period 1914-1920 is no doubt that the couple of Rivadavias where the most powerful ships in the South Atlantic.

#206

Anybody knows the final destiny of the “25 de Mayo” carrier? :arrow:

#207

About the Pulquis II, were delayed because two of the five prototypes fell down without reasons, so the program was reexamined since zero.

About the “Diente de Leon” and the “Bombi”, I must to go now, but I am going to write the story about how the United States asked to Argentina to produce an armed aircraft.

#208

National pride I suppose. Brasil gets 1 the Argentinians want 1, Chile then gets 1, Brasil gets 2. These things cost so much that the whole country sufferred to pay for them. In the end the Brazilians were skint and had to sell one to Turkey, the Agincourt .

#209

It is that called “military balanced zone” 8)

#210

Condor…check this site:

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Portaaviones/25deMayo.htm

#211

thank you, Panzerknacker. Really it could be a shame than the ARA
haven’t a carrier.
With the modernization, it coudn’t be operable for this times?
8)

#212

No…it is too old. :?

I would prefer one of the"Clemenceau" French carriers that was put out the service by the Aeronavale.

Brasil bought one and now it is the A-12 “Sao Paulo”.

#213

The Clamenceu class aircraft carriers, as the Sao Paulo, is not the best solution to Argentina. These kinds of ships are too expensive to have in service.

The 25 de Mayo was dismantled in 1999, in India.

Now, the best posibility of having an aircraft carrier is producing one, in national shipyards, as Domeq Garcia, or in spanish shipyards, as IZAR. Argentina has a fluent relationship with IZAR, and they can do excellent ships.

As far I know, the Argentine Navy asked to IZAR for a new design of convencional aircraft carrier, to operate with convencional aircrafts, as Rafales or Hornets. And of course, that kind of carriers could operate, in a future, with the F-35 JSF, which is very possible to have in our forces in the next tweenty or thirty years.

#214

Can Argentina afford that kind of defence spending at the minute though Eagle (considering that the new carriers Britain are currently ordering are going to cost several billion pounds and the air complement a couple of billion more)?

#215

Thats why I think the used Clemenceau with good refurbishing would be the best option.

#216

don’t forget the aircraft, it have to be of other generation, the
A4 now is for a museum, even modernize that.
Even if there are a few F 14 (with their years), I think it could be fine. 8)

#217

As the US Navy is binning the F-14, you could get a good deal on them I suppose. They would still be expensive to operate though.

#218

Condor, the optimum aircraft would be the Rafale. Not the Tomcat, that is too expensive to mantain, and of course, is very ancient.

A group formed with 10 Super Etendard modernizeds and 18 Rafales would be a dreadful group.

#219

Pretty important fact, Argentina is a rich country, even in money, Argentina is rich,but the Half of the Argentine population is poor,good part of the people,but the government (that spends money in army equipment) has good money.

however kirchner,the fucking leftist is destroying the army.

#220

Why would you need an aircraft carrier? The Argentine military is not as expeditionary as other forces. Yes, they take part in UN ops such as Cyprus and the Balkans but when would a carrier be needed?

It is a very expensive type of vessel to build, maintain, operate, crew and equip. I echo previous comments, as a nation Argentina has far better things to spend their money on than a brand spanking new state of the art carrier with or without JSF (!?).

I disagree with your points about the Clemenceau class. This too would require a lot of cash to maintain. It would also be hugely out of date, the hull being 50 years old and the design being older still!!! The design was authorised in in the late 40s!!! Even if it was a snip at $16million.