MR_Barbarossa

Yes realy nice. Thanks for posting. I never hear about this projects.

Thanks for posting. :great: I just dont know how will German CAs tech tree ever get tier 10 carrier. It seems that all this ships had (planed) only a very limmited number of aircrafts. Compared ti Japanesse or American...? :sceptic:

Smederevac94, on 30 September 2013 - 10:10 PM, said: Q:5.Do you have hitpoint numbers decided yet? Can you give us an example for, say, the Yamato? A:Yes. Yamato - about 25000 HP for now. Yeah. I know about this. I just wanted to say that speculating if this is enought EXP or not is still to early since we didnt see the game yet.

He he what u talking about. You didnt even see the game to know how much is apropriate HP. We dont want to have unsinkable ships do we? :trollface:

Here are some other interesting pictures: Dzerzhinskiy after conversion to AA missle cruiser. Note: one of the aft turrets was replaced with armys SA-2 missile louncher Admiral Ushakov in 1981 Mikhail Kutuzov before modernization in 1970s Zhdanov (in the middle) after conversion to command ship. No.3 turret was replaced by command spaces, with a pop up SA-N-4 missile louncher. Admiral Senyavin (same conversion to command ship) also lost no.4 turret and had a helicopter hangar aft. On the starboard side of Zhdanov is Bezzavetnyy, Krivak class frigate, on port side Magomed Gadzhiev, Don class submarine tender.

King George V(1940) Type: Fast Bettleship Completed: 1940-42 Number in class: 5 Displacement: 38,031 tons (1940) Standard 42,237 (1940) to 44,460 tons (1944) at Full Load Length: 745 ft (227.1 m) Beam: 103 ft (31.4 m) Draught: 32.6 ft (9.9 m) Installed power: 128,000–134,000 shp achieved in service Propulsion: 4 shafts 4 Parsons geared turbines 8 Admiralty three-drum water-tube boilers Speed: 28.0 knots at 111,700 shp (1941 trials) Range: 5,400+ nm at 18 knots (11.9 tons/hour fuel burn) Complement: 1,314 to 1,631 Armament: 2 × 4, 1 × 2 – BL 14-inch Mk VII guns 8 × 2 – QF 5.25-inch Mk I guns 4 × 8 – QF 2-pounder "pom-pom" guns Armour: Belt: 5.4–14.7 inches (137–373 mm) Deck: 5.88 inches (149 mm) Turrets: 12.75 inches (324 mm) Barbettes: 12.75 inches (324 mm) Aircraft carried: 4 Supermarine Walrus seaplane Aviation facilities: 1 double-ended catapult Design The King George V class was the result of a design process that began in 1928. Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, a "holiday" from building capital ships was placed in force through 1931. The battleships of the British Navy consisted of only those old battleships that had been kept after the end of World War I, plus the two new but slow Nelson-class battleships. In 1928, the Royal Navy started considering the requirements for the warships that it expected to start building in 1931. The First London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended the "shipbuilding holiday" through 1937. In 1934 the British started to design a new class of battleships to be laid down in 1936. The design of the King George V class battleships began in the period of uncertainty when the inter-war naval treaties were coming to an end, but when there was no clear direction on the future for naval arms limitation. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited all of the number, displacement, and armaments of warships built following its ratification, and this was extended by the First London Naval Treaty but these treaties were due to expire in 1936. Main Armament Admiralty was faced with a stark choice concerning the all-important main armament: either 14in (356mm), as allowed by the 1936 London Naval Treaty, or 16in (406mm), which would be possible if one or more of the treaty signatories failed to ratify. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that the order for the guns had to be placed by mid- 1936 if they were to be ready for the first two hulls, which were due to be commissioned in 1940, by which time, as the signs are beginning to indicate, Britain might well be at war with Germany. The Admiralty decided on the safer course of staying with the 14in (356mm) gun. This was also in line with the British diplomatic moves intended to result in a 14 inch limitation on all new capital ships. These negotiations had broken down by 1937, however the guns had to be ordered in mid-1936, and the six or 12 month delay entailed in changing the design was considered to be grossly unacceptable. The initial intention was to mount twelve guns in three quadruple turrets. However, it was also decided to provide protection against 16in (406mm) shells, which meant that increased armour was required, for which weight savings had to be found elsewhere (to remain within the 35,000 ton treaty limitations), as a result of which one turret had to be reduced from four tom two guns. The end result was a quadruple turret in "A" and "X" positions and a superfiring twin turret in "B" position. This had an elevation of 40 deg. In service, the quad turrets proved to be less reliable than was hoped for. Wartime haste in building, insufficient clearance between the rotating and fixed structure of the turret, insufficient full calibre firing exercises and extensive arrangements to prevent flash from reaching the magazines made it mechanically complex, leading to problems during prolonged actions. Improved clearances, improved mechanical linkages, and better training led to greater reliability in the quadruple turrets but they remained controversial. Secondary Armament In selecting the secondary armament the British followed the French example of fitting dual HA/LA (high angle / low angle) secondary guns, in stead of the traditional separate secondary guns for surface targets and smaller tertiary guns for air targets (as the Germans and Italians were doing). This had the advantage of giving more guns for either air defence or surface defence, provided that both were not required at the same time. A new design of 5.25 inch (140 mm) gun was chosen, with 16 guns fitted in eight power-operated turrets (four on each side). The QF 5.25in Mark I dual purpose gun has been dogged with controversy as well. The RN Gunnery Pocket Book published in 1945 states that: "The maximum rate of fire should be 10–12 rounds per minute.". Wartime experience revealed that the maximum weight which the loading numbers could handle comfortably was much lower than 80–90 lb, and the weight of the 5.25-inch ammunition caused serious difficulties, allowing them to manage only 7–8 rpm instead of the designed 10–12 rpm. The mount had a maximum elevation of +70 degrees. The slow elevating and training speeds of the mounts were inadequate for engaging modern high-speed aircraft. Despite these issues, Prince of Wales was credited with several 5.25-inch kills during Operation Halberd, and damaged 10 of 16 high level bombers in two formations during her last engagement, two of which subsequently crash landed. Anson had her 5.25-inch turrets upgraded to RP10 control which increased training and elevating speeds to 20 degrees per second. These ships were equipped with the HACS AA fire control system and the Admiralty Fire Control clock for surface fire control of the secondary armament. Anti-Aircraft Defence Close-range anti-aircraft defence was light, in common with most ships at that time. The eight-barrelled pom-pom was chosen as the primary close-range weapon, and six were fitted to the first two ships in the class. This was increased to eight in subsequent vessels. Finally, several UP (unrifled projector) rocket mounts were fitted in the first two ships, which fired an explosive charge attached to a parachute and a line. As these were clearly useless the subsequent ships replaced them with 20 mm (0.8 inch) machineguns. The AA armament was considerably increased as the war progressed. HMS Howe Protection Protection was on the "all-or-nothing" principle as in the Nelson class, but whereas the Nelsons had a sloping internal belt the King George V class had a vertical external belt, which was also 1.0in (25mm) thicker over the magazines as well as much depper below the waterline. Armour protection gave the ships a theoretical immunity zone of 17,200 yards to 32,000 yards (15,727 m to 29,261 m) against 15 inch (381 mm) shells, meaning that at ranges below 17,200 yards a 15inch shell could be expected to penetrate the side armour, and above 32,000 yards a 15 inch shell could be expected to penetrate the deck armour. It must be stressed that this is a theoretical calculation, as in practice several factors (particularly the sea state) affect the actual resistance to shells at the instant they hit, and the immunity zone is constantly changing as the ship heaves, rolls and pitches. There was no external bulge for anti-torpedo protection, but extensive internal arrangements were made to provide equivalent protection. Units The first ship of the class, King George V, was laid down at the Walker Navy Yard, Newcastle-upon-Tyne by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd. Originally, she was to have been named HMS King George VI following the tradition of naming the first capital ship of a new reign after the monarch. The King requested that the ship be named in honour of his late father, King George V, after whom an earlier class of battleships had been named in 1911. A later member of this class of battleship was named HMS Duke of York in honour of the King instead. Another 3 were named Prince of Wales, Anson and Howe. (ships service history) Conclusion These ships gave magnificent service, and had a profound influence on the war (for example, the Prince of Wales caused the damage that caused the Bismarck sortie to be aborted, the King George V helped destroy the Bismarck in the final engagement, and the Duke of York caused the damage that forced the Scharnhorst to slow and be caught). Nevertheless, there were problems with the main guns (the new design had an unacceptable number of stoppages) and the bow design (with spray affecting A and B turret rangefinders, and sometimes causing water to enter A turret). These problems were caused or exacerbated by the naval position that Britain found herself in as, for example, the problems with the guns were identified during design but could not be fixed due to the need to have the ships in service to counter German warships. In the final analysis, they were able to fulfil their defined role despite their shortcomings, and proved to be equal to the task of containing the enemy surface threat.

Smederevac94, on 30 September 2013 - 03:30 PM, said: GJ man :honoring: +1 from me :medal: Thanks mate. :honoring:

Yes Mr_Mistery there are a lot of nice pics of this class on internet. Specialy from Mikhail Kutusov. On second picture is M.Kutusov in dry dock, prepearing to become museum ship. I didnt want to put to many pictures to my article, so great that you posted some more. Thanks for contribution :honoring:

He he I said around 15. october. Looks like i was preety close. If this is reliable info of course. :eyesup:

Hein_Bloed, on 27 September 2013 - 02:00 PM, said: Mostly we discussing here figures and conclusions from 1930-40's. They do not know exatly at this time how exactly a projectile penetrate the amour. Which factors are also take place. Also the thickness of the amour is not the one and only messurement. What kind of steel is used, which quality and alloys used, is it spaced amour, and so one. Also different kind of projectiles are also have a big influens. Yes, but I was talking also about battleships build after 1940 when some expirience from war were already included in the new designs. If KG V battleships were underprotected because British " penetration expectation seemingly contain a significant optimism in favour of armor" as Toddyx said, than I would expect greater belt thicknes (or at least same or close to this one with better steel quality) on later designs, but that is not the case. KG V remain battleship with one of the thickest belt armor. Leter British Vanguard class had thiner belt not to mention American battleships which all had signifficantly thiner belt armor. Now I would expect from Toddyx to say that "You need to read more carefully" :trollface: since he didnt say that KG V BBs were underprotected. Yes he didnt say in this words but I dont know what other word can u use if you vipe out theoretical imunity zone of the ship with your "proved" balistic tests. And one another thing. I grab a litle deeper to find exactly what is the case with this impact velocitys etc. I found out, that original 4crh AP shell of 15" mark 1 gun didnt had striking velocity 1440 fps at 20 kyards, as Toddyx claim, but 1377 fps at 20 kyards and of course droping with distance. Velocitys over 1400 fps at 20 k yards refer only to later (used on some ships after modernization) 6crh AP shells with standard and super charges used. 4crh APc shells penetrate only 279mm thick belt at 19 700 yard (AP shells nothing better) , while 6crh penetrate 356mm thick belt at 17200 yards (thats the point when theoretical immunity zone in my article begins) and again penetration is droping by distance. Since KG V max belt armor is 373mm (some say even 381mm) I think everything is clear. There was no "underestimating the performance of the own 15 " projectile" and "british penetration expectation seemingly contain a significant optimism in favour of armor". At least when we talking about 15" mark 1, which was the base for tactical immunity calculations. If we take German guns in account its totaly different story, and here is Toddyx right. German 38cm/52 SK C/34 mounted on Bismarck had better velocity and penetration.

I somehow missed this post and didn`t saw the video so thnx for posting. :honoring:

great video. Thanx :medal:

haha great :teethhappy:

nice post +1 from me :honoring:

Thoddyx, on 22 September 2013 - 01:27 PM, said: For my part I presented only informations and fixed facts from primary technical documentation and tests of naval/ballistic authorities. If your books or whatever you take as source of your knowledge disagree to primary documentation, your source has to present the information or correction to what extent the primary source is wrong. Second time I am going to tell you the same thing: be serious :teethhappy: . You are so full of your self that you could seriously get a medal in this category. First of all: naval tehnology is my hobby for almost 20 years now, and in this time I learned some things together with gathering a documentation for a small library. Nevertheless I would never be so full of my self to claim that people who write specialized naval books and that people who designed this multi mil. pound worth battleships are wrong, because I went to National Archive and find some papers there which (I believe) tell different story. "Ohh yeah, I have primary source." Maybe u have, but people who write this books have more knowledge of this things than u and me together, not to mention that when they wrote this they didnt use only one pice of paper from archive for their source. This documents dont lie of course, but you cant just take one piece of data and claim this is the fact and whole picture. I know that u waving with same documents on other forums too and that you are the smartest of all there too, frequently using "they underastimate this" "they didnt consider that" when u talking about different projects. Sry I just cant take you seriously. And one more thing. Thats another post where u tell me to read more carefully. I need to inform you that I read very well.

Thoddyx, on 21 September 2013 - 11:36 PM, said: I neglect roll pitch and so on the british estimate regarding immunity seems greatly underestimaterd the pöerformance of the own 15 " projectile wich penetrates a 560# plate = 13,8 " = 349 mm at 30degrees obliquity at 1440 fs. The velocity of 1440 fs refers to impact conditions at a distance of greater than 20 kyard considering inclinmation of the belt of about 16 degrees, so one has to conclude that the british pentration expectation seemingly contain a significant optimism in favour of armor. Belt of King George V class had one of the thickest armours of all WW2 batteships. Even latter designs of American battleships didn`t have belt armor so thick. Are you suggesting that ALL navies "underastimated the performance of the 15" projectile" and that their penetration expectations contained a "significant optimism in favor of armor"? I also don`t believe they all simply said:"Ok we know we dont have good enought protection against battleships but, what the hell, its more than good enought for protecting against cruisers". :trollface: You clearly underastimate the British if u think that they didn`t know what they BL 15" Mark I gun is capable to do. Specialy because this was one of the best guns at the time and was not something new; they used it since 1915. Also, we are not talking here about how shell from 15" gun can`t penetrate the battleship but about battleships "theoretical immunity zone". This is middle range zone where because of angle of impact, ships protection and other factors shells ding off the ship or simply don`t penetrate. Pitching and rolling of the ship are very important factors in this zone, so neglecting this factors I just can`t take seriously. Since this is second time we don`t agree about armour, I would realy like to know what are your sources. Can you please write here exact name of the book , publication, what ever you using? Thanks in advance. :honoring:

BlackOpsTuga, on 19 September 2013 - 03:46 PM, said: one more great post :medal:. thanks for sharing :honoring: Thanks, np :honoring:

BlackOpsTuga, on 19 September 2013 - 03:31 PM, said: Very interesting ship :medal:. Thanks for posting :great: No problem :honoring:

Chapayev class (Project 68) Type: light cruiser Number in class: 5 Displacement: 11,450 t standard, 15,000 full load (app. since info differs from source to source) Length: 201 m (659 ft) Beam: 19.7 m (65 ft) Draught: 6.4 m (21 ft) Propulsion: 2 shaft geared steam turbines, 6 boilers, 124,000 shp (92,000 kW) Speed: 33.5 kn (62.0 km/h; 38.6 mph) Range: 7,000 nmi (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph) Complement: 840 Armament: 12 × 152 mm (5.9in /57) cal B-38 in 4x3 Mk5-bis turrets, 8 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/56 cal Model 1934 in 4x2 SM-5-1 mounts 24×37 mm (1.5 in) AA (12x2) 6×533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes (later removed) Armour: Belt: 100 mm (3.9 in) Conning tower: 150 mm (5.9 in) Deck: 50 mm Turrets: 75 mm (3.0 in) Aircraft carried: 2 seaplanes planned (later removed) Aviation facilities: 1 catapult (later removed) Design . Under the third Five Year Plan, a new class of cruisers was projected that was to be a development of the previous Project 26/26a, the Kirov/ Maksim Gorky class ships. For various reasons the Kirov class proved disappointing in service. The new class were to ship four triple turrets so their displacement had to be increased accordingly. The final design, Project 68, showed a longer hull with much increased beam compared with the Project 26 ships. The standard displacement rose by nearly 40 per cent. However, increased displacement did not lead to any increase in the power output of the plant, resulting in a loss of 1 knot in speed. Compared with the Kirov class they had taller funnels and, with their greater freeboard and extra lenght, were probably better seaboats in consequence. Construction History . Seventeen ships were planned for the 1938-42 Five Year Plan (five to be laid down in 1939, one in 1940, six in 1941, and five in 1942). However, the effect of the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939, was to curtail the ambitious plan that Stalin had set for his navy, since operations on land would take precedence and the available resources would be directed to that end. Seven ships were actualy laid down, but due to shortage of steel construction work on all this cruisers was suspended in July 1941 when the hulls were about 20% complete. Immediately afterwards, the German invasion stopped the programme completely. In addition, as a result of the capture of the yards at Nikolaiev, the two units under completion on the slips there were wrecked and later broken up. The remaining five ships were completed postwar to a revised design (project 68K) which incorporated much captured German gunnery and fire control technology. It is conceivable that the cancelled ships, or at least some of the materials for their construction, eventually emerged as the Project 68bis or Sverdlov class in the early 1950s. Armament . During the early stages of design, 7.1in (180 mm) guns were probably decided upon as the main armament, but to make the main armament more dual purpose the calibre was reduced to 5.9in (152mm) with 50 deg elevation. Compared to Kirov class additional tripple turret was added in aft. . Secondary armament consisted of eight new enclosed 3.9 in (100mm) guns. Twelwe twin 1.5in (37mm) repleaced the six twin open mounts of the earlier type on Kirov class. There were also two triple banks of torpedo tubes and two sea planes planned but were letter removed. Protection . Their protection scheme was an improved version of that in the Project 26 ships. Side armour was doubled to 100mm; deck armour remained at 50 mm. Turrets and conning tower protection also stayed the same as in Project 26 ships. Evolution . Early design stage predicted that standard displacement would be limited to 8300 tons and that trial speed would be at least 35 knots. After the sketch design was reviewed, a fourth triple 152 mm turret was added, at a cost of endurance and protection. The tehnical design approved on 13 July 1939, called for a standard displacement of 10 620 tons and a trial speed of 33,5 knots. . Project 68-I (imported) was an abortive 1939 version with German 150mm guns. This idea was abandoned when the Russians decided their own gun was better. . Project 68-S was a version with Skoda guns. This project was stopped in 1940 when the Germans stopped work. . Ships were completed postwar to a "corected" design (Project 68-K) with radar and better AA guns (37mm water cooled rather then air cooled) as part of the 1946-55 Ten Year Plan. Aircraft and torpedo tubes were eliminated. The standard displacement rose to 11 450 tons; speed fell to 32,6 knots. Conclusion . Chapayev class ships together with Kirov/ Maksim Gorky and later Sverdlov class formed a back bone of the soviet crusiers in the first postwar years. They were one of the last conventional Soviet cruisers armed with only guns as their main armament. That makes them also very interesting ships for WoWs and good candidates for high/top tier cruisers in the future Soviet tech tree. Sources: Text: Conways All the world fighting ships 1922-1946 Conways All the world fighting ships 1947-1995 M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of the world war two j.Meister, Soviet warships of the second world war Wikipedia Pics: links from different sites

Thoddyx, on 19 September 2013 - 04:17 PM, said: I wouldnt consider informations that have been written in books or internet sites as source, as long as they did not reference to primary source data, such as technical drawings, USN SHIP HANDBOOKS Oh please, be serious! :teethhappy: Ok I can agree about websites but this books are not every day newspapper reading and are not written by Miki Mouse. You actualy just confirmed what i wrote. Its some kind of composite protection. Be awere that deck in naval term is not walking surface like 1st and 2nd floor but constructional term so they can tehnicaly be very close to each other or far away. Because we talking here about more than one plate and more than one deck protection its now more logical why different sources have different data.

Welcome mate. :honoring: Just look to the link in second post. Thats all we know for now so thats it.You can also ask questions to developers here, just be awere that only American and Japanesse ships will be in game at the begining and you will not get any answer about some other nations tech trees, simply because its not decided yet. read the forum drom time to time and you will find things.

BlackOpsTuga, on 19 September 2013 - 03:41 PM, said: Thank you :veryhappy: for posting :great:. MR_Barbarossa you are a naval library :veryhappy: Thank you. :honoring: I know something about ships, thats true, but I am no library LOL :teethhappy: Im using different sources to present a ships that i believe are interesting and can be in game one day. So its no chance for me to write this without sources I`m using. Oh, usualy I write which source I used but It seems I forgot here :hiding:

Veinticinco de Mayo Displacement:6,800 tons (standard) 9,000 tons (full load) Length:171 m (561 ft 0 in) Beam:17.82 m (58 ft 6 in) Draught:4.66 m (15 ft 3 in) Propulsion:2 shaft Parsons turbines, 6 oil-fired boilers, 85,000 hp Speed:32 knots (59 km/h) Range:8,030 nautical miles (14,870 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h) Complement:780 Armament:6 × 190 mm (7.5 inch)/ 52 caliber guns (3 × 2) 12 × 102 mm (4 inch)/ 40 caliber DP guns (6 × 2) 6 × Vickers-Terni 40/39 mm AA guns 6 × 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes Armour:70 mm (2.75 inch) inch belt 25 mm (1 inch) deck 50 mm (2 inch) turrets 60 mm (2.3 inch) conning tower Aircraft carried:2 × Grumman J2F Duck aircraft Aviation facilities: Catapult launcher Design Argentina had a long-standing competition with Brazil and Chile, the three of them usualy being known in naval circles as "ABC powers". To the mid-1920s Argentina had the most numerous Navy on continent, however its cruiser forces hopelessly become outdated. The ten years Naval program accepted in 1926 with total cost of 75 million peso, provided building of three heavy cruisers. Only two were actualy ordered. This two ships, "Veinticinco de Mayo" and "Almirante Brown", were ordered in 1926, build by Italian company Odero Terni Orlando (OTO), and completed in July 1931. The Veinticinco de Mayo design was derived from the Italian Trento class, but differed by decreased dimensions, main guns calibre, protection and machinery structure. The ships were smaller than the original, and carried significantly less armour. They had a clean and simple design, with a length-width ratio of almost 10:1. The Argentine ships were lightly build, lightly protected, but fast. Armament The main armament consisted of six guns in three twin turrets in "A", "B" and "Y" positions. They were were mounted with an elevation of 46 degrees for firing. The main 190 mm (7.5 inch) guns were designed especially for this class for greater stability (the Trento-class carried 203 mm (8 inch) guns).The calibre was an unusual choice, since the only other known use was in two classes of British cruisers (Devonshire and Hawkins class). Nevertheless, the Argentine guns had a very respectable range: 29,856yd (27,300m). The secondary armament was also a new design, similar to standard 100–102 mm guns of the time. It consisted of twelve 102 mm (4 inch) guns, firing a 13.5 kg (30 lb) shell, all in twin mounts. This was an unusual arrangement for Italian heavy cruisers, which generally carried only four to eight of these weapons. However to counter the additional weight, gun shields were removed, which adversely affected their operability in bad weather conditions. Unusually, the torpedo tubes were in fixed mounts amidships firing abeam, which caused problems in aiming effectively. Light anti-aircraft artillery consisted of six Vickers-Terni 40/39 mm guns, all in single mounts, on the aft part of the superstructure. These guns were among the first automatic heavy weapons, firing 100-130 rounds per minute, but were of poor reliability. Though single mounts were simpler and more reliable, they offered poorer fire concentration. The Royal Navy used similar weapons in quad or even octuple mounts. Finally, a catapult launcher for seaplanes was placed over the fore deck. Armour Protection scheme as a whole repeated Trento, differing in smaller thickness of horizontal protection. Armour was within the standard for light rather than heavy cruisers. A 70 mm (2.75 inch) armoured belt was fitted from the first to the last main turret. 60 mm (2.33 in) was used for the command turret. 50 mm (2 in) was used for turrets and barbettes. Only 25 mm (1 inch) was provided for armoured deck and above aft machinery. Post-war refit After World War II the ships were modified to improve their stability by reducing weight. The powerful twin 102 mm gun batteries were replaced with six Bofors 40mm guns, one for each twin mount, drastically reducing the secondary armament. Another four Bofors replaced the six Vickers AA guns. US Mk.53 radar directors were also installed to improve the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire. The gain in stability, with several tons removed for each 102 mm gun, was somewhat offset by the addition of radar installations to the superstructure and masts. The aircraft catapult launcher was moved from the fore deck to mid-ships. Conclusion These handsome and powerful ships put Argentina well ahead of their two rivals in the cruiser category in the 1930s and 40s. European and American naval experts considered that the designers of these ships had tried to cram too manyweapons onto too light a hull, but they were well thought of in Argentine Navy, which they served well, until being scrapped in 1960 (Veinticinco de Mayo) and 1961 (Almirante Brown).

jeffw, on 06 September 2013 - 07:21 PM, said: 7200 ton Frigate.....that is huge. Most Destroyers are not that large, Type 45 Destroyers are 8000 Tonnes while the Type 23 Frigates are only 4900 tonnes. Yeah surely way too much for a fregate. Also speed only 20kn, 26 kn max??? Isn`t this strangely slow. Are you sure you have correct data for this ship Jann ?

Thanks for sharing. :honoring: