• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by MateDow
That is 10 Para-class destroyers in two divisions.

No doubt it is, but I meant the length of the string fitting the interface. Sorry for not making it clear. :eek:

BTW, altough this is not related to the subject of this thread, could someone volunteer to provide me with information about Portugal's turn-of-the-century cruiser force? If the names are needed, they were the 'Adamastor', 'São Gabriel', 'São Rafael', 'Dom Carlos I' (later 'Almirante Reis'), and 'Rainha Dona Amélia' (later 'República'). The last one seems to have been built in Portugal, so maybe I can find something to bug MDow about... :D ;)
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
BTW, altough this is not related to the subject of this thread, could someone volunteer to provide me with information about Portugal's turn-of-the-century cruiser force? If the names are needed, they were the 'Adamastor', 'São Gabriel', 'São Rafael', 'Dom Carlos I' (later 'Almirante Reis'), and 'Rainha Dona Amélia' (later 'República'). The last one seems to have been built in Portugal, so maybe I can find something to bug MDow about... :D ;)

What sort of information are you looking for? I have a copy of Conway's floating around, so I can dig out some technical information for you if that is what you are after.
 
I noticed something about the tech "Large Cruiser Conversions" (converting battlecruiser hulls into aircraft carriers). Wouldn't it be logical if you were forced to be actually be able to build battlecruisers before you could convert them? I was playing, and I think I didn't even have protected cruiser tech, and yet I was able to research cruiser conversions...

Oh, and I checked the length of the "divisão de contratorpedeiros", and it is definitely too long. Not quite as good, but it's probably better to change them to "1a Divisão de Destróieres", "2a Divisão de Destróieres", etc... I don't like it very much, but it looks weird when the division name clashes with the scrollbar.
 
Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
What sort of information are you looking for? I have a copy of Conway's floating around, so I can dig out some technical information for you if that is what you are after.

Yes, technical data on those ships is pretty much what I was looking for. Displacement, armament, engines, armour (if any), shipbuilders... (And you could also tell me if they were really cruisers, given the portuguese tendency to overrate things)

As a matter of fact, the only things I know about them is their names and the dates of commissioning and scrapping, so any information is very welcome.

I just don't know if we should be cluttering the thread with this... :eek:

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by MateDow
That is pretty easy to fix. I took the Acorzados from the Argentine Navy website, but I can't say one way or the other. Generalisimo? Any opinions?
they mispelled it, it is "Acorazados", "Acorzados" doesn't exist in spanish. ;)


Originally posted by MateDow
That makes sense to me. I will go with the Fuerza... unless someone has any better idea.
"1a Destructor División"
obviously that is not correct in spanish... if you want to write that, it should be:
"1ra División de Destructores"... but the "Fuerza de Destructores Nro. 1" sounds better... :D
 
Last edited:
Re: Chilean Naval OOB Review

About Chile:

division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 102 }
name = "Almirante Latorre"
type = battleship
model = 1
}
FOTO-00336.jpg

In the occasion of the Centenary of Independence, the law of 06 of 1910 July was approved, that granted 400 thousand pounds sterling annual "in order that the country always has in construction a ship military of first class". The law authorized the construction of two armored ones of 28,000 tons, six destroyers of 1,500 tons and two submarines of 340 tons.
The battleships would receive the names of "Valparaiso" and "Santiago".
Constructed in the shipyards Armstrong Whithworth and Co of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. Its keel was put the 27 of November of 1911 in Elswick.
Because the 09 of 1912 July passed away Admiral Juan Jose Latorre Benavente, the government solved to change the name of the most advanced battleship in construction, that was "Valparaiso", denominating it "Admiral Latorre". This brought the consequence that was also wanted to pay a tribute to the English Lord that gave to Chile the sea superiority in the War of Independence, so "Admiral Cochrane" was the new denomination to the other called battleship "Santiago".
It was the first battleship of the world that was constructed with 14"tubes.
Sent to the sea the 27 of November of 1913.
Confiscated by England during its construction by the end of September of 1914, it participated in the World war with the name of H.M.S "Canada" and fought in the battle of Jutlandia to the orders of Admiral Sir John Jellicoe the 31 of May of 1916. Thanks to the managements of the Minister of Chile in London, Don Agustín Edwards, supported by the Rear admiral Luis Gomez Carreño, acquired the battleship again along with the torpedo-boat destroyers "Admiral Riveros", "Admiral Williams" and "Admiral Uribe" and the Tugboat "Sibbald". The price of all these ships represented a sum of around a third of the original price of the battleship.
Reaconditionated and modernized in its system of fire control and reinforcing of armors. It arrived at Valparaiso the 20 of February of 1921.
After active duty of eight years, plus the years served during World War I, a modernization was needed of its antiaircraft artillery and a change necessary of its boilers of coal to petroleum. The 19 of November of 1928 a commission was named that evaluated the necessary works in naval construction, machines, boilers, armament, communications, navigation and other positions, to be put in knowledge of British experts.
Later, the 15 of May of 1929, weighed anchor from Valparaiso to Devenport, England to the control of the Captain Calixto Rogers, saturating in Balboa, crossing the Panama Canal the 24, continuing the 28 to Spain Port, in Trinidad, to supply itself of coal. It went to Islas Azores, from where it weighed anchor the 19 of June to go to Plymouth, arriving the 24. On the following day it went to Devenport where the repairs and transformations to their coal boilers began to petroleum, installation of a system of air defense armament, improved its protection to anti-torpedo, diminishing its openwork in 4 feet, and a catapult for launching of hydroplanes was settled to it.
Also a top in the mainmast was settled to him to direct the artillery.
It remained in England until the 05 of March of 1931, day in which weighed anchor to Chile under the control of the Captain Abel Fields, touching such ports in its trip to Europe. It returned to Chile the 12 of April of 1931, bringing in his covers to the tugboats of 33 tons "Intrepid" and "Moctezuma".
It was terminated by D.S. Nº371 of 27 of sold February of 1958 and to the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Ltd. of Japan in the sum of U$S 881.110, in conformity to Law N 12,867 the 12 of February of 1958.

# Really Old Cruisers
division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 103 }
name = "Chacabuco"
type = cruiser
model = 2
}
FOTO-00567.jpg

Ex- USS."Nashville ", ex- C.L. "Capitan Prat". Was named "Chacabuco" after the arrival of the Destroyer "Capitan Prat".

division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 104 }
name = "O'Higgins"
type = cruiser
model = 2
}
}
FOTO-00412.jpg

It is the first ship of an extensive line of constructed light cruises in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York. Sent to the water the 30 of November of 1936. Finished the 18 of July of 1938 in Brooklyn.
During World War II it participated in both military Theaters, but it was distinguished in its operations in the Mediterranean sea. Later it participated in the Korean War.
It took 4 Kingfisher airplanes.
It was "reaconditionated" in 1944.


i could try to look for all their destroyers if you want... :D

(sorry for errors during the translation, but some words are really difficult to translate... :D )
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Chilean Naval OOB Review

Originally posted by Generalisimo
About Chile:

division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 102 }
name = "Almirante Latorre"
type = battleship
model = 1
}


# Really Old Cruisers
division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 103 }
name = "Chacabuco"
type = cruiser
model = 2
}
FOTO-00567.jpg

Ex- USS."Nashville ", ex- C.L. "Capitan Prat". Was named "Chacabuco" after the arrival of the Destroyer "Capitan Prat".

division = {
id = { type = 30055 id = 104 }
name = "O'Higgins"
type = cruiser
model = 2
}
}
FOTO-00412.jpg


I like the pictures, but those are the wrong O'Higgins and Chacabuco. I don't have the stats in front of me, but these were two pre-WWI armored cruisers that were a part of the Chilean navy in 1936. These would have been completed sometime around 1900.

Did you find anything in your research about how combat ready the Libertad and Indepencia were in the time period that we are discussing? I realize that they were very old at that point, but a lot of the South American navies had vessels that were built during the 1800's, so it is hard to tell. I gave the Chileans the benifit of the doubt because they have a reputation for maintaining their ships in good condition. I don't know about the Argentines. MDow
 
Chilean naval OOB for 1936:

BBs:
Huascar (1865-1130tons)
Capitan Prat (1874-discarded in 1936-6901tons)
Almirante Latorre (1913-28000tons)

Cruisers:
Blanco Encalada (1893-4420tons)
Chacabuco (1898-4300tons)
O'Higgins (1898-8500tons)

DDs:
Almirante Lynch Class (2 in class- 1430 tons)
Serrano Class (6 in class-1430 tons-all 1928 vintage)

SNs:
6 400ton WW1 Era subs
3 Capitan O'Brien Class (modified Brit O class Subs)

Plus they received some River and Flower class Frigates and Corvettes, purchased from the RCN 1945/46.
 
SUbmarine Tech Question

I am working on the submarine tech tree (in addition to everything for 0.6) and figured I would get y'alls opinion on some things...

Do you consider Aircraft Carrying Submarines as something that you would like to see in the game? They would have a detection bonus over other subs, but would be slow and not have as good attack ratings.

Would you prefer a more detailed model structure similar to what we have developed for the naval and armor trees?

Does anyone actually use mini-subs or are they just a waste of IC to research? I am trying to make sure that my experiences are not unique. Should they stay in a new tree?

I have a rough draft of the tree mostly complete and will post it when it is done for your review and comment before I start coding it up. I will say that is more detailed than the current tree, but not as large as the armor or naval trees. MDow
 
Re: Re: Re: Chilean Naval OOB Review

Originally posted by MateDow
I like the pictures, but those are the wrong O'Higgins and Chacabuco. I don't have the stats in front of me, but these were two pre-WWI armored cruisers that were a part of the Chilean navy in 1936. These would have been completed sometime around 1900.

Did you find anything in your research about how combat ready the Libertad and Indepencia were in the time period that we are discussing? I realize that they were very old at that point, but a lot of the South American navies had vessels that were built during the 1800's, so it is hard to tell. I gave the Chileans the benifit of the doubt because they have a reputation for maintaining their ships in good condition. I don't know about the Argentines. MDow
i was in doubt that you want to include the previous Chacabuco, that's why i included that ;)

Here it is the 3rd Chacabuco (the one i posted later was the 4th one):
FOTO-00294.jpg

Year 1897.
4.300 tn.

and this is the 3rd O'Higgings (the one i posted was the 4th one too):
FOTO-00272.jpg

Year 1896.
8.500 tn.


I can post full description of those ships if you want later like I did with the previous ships, just let me know.

At least the others are usefull for your Naval Events. ;)


About the argentinian ships, I am trying to look more info about that... :(
 
Re: SUbmarine Tech Question

Originally posted by MateDow
Do you consider Aircraft Carrying Submarines as something that you would like to see in the game? They would have a detection bonus over other subs, but would be slow and not have as good attack ratings.

Would you prefer a more detailed model structure similar to what we have developed for the naval and armor trees?

Does anyone actually use mini-subs or are they just a waste of IC to research? I am trying to make sure that my experiences are not unique. Should they stay in a new tree?

Were ACS ever deployed in significant numbers? If not, make it a tech bonus rather than a model.

Detailed model - yes.

Minisubs - nice flavour but waste of R&D effort AFAIK. Perhaps it could be tested - what happens if you increase the bonus to +50 and run a BB vs BB engagement (repeat 5-10 times, check that it's clear weather and take notes on losses by hour with and without the tech bonus for one side). If the modifier turns out to have no effect we should strip the techs out, if it works then keep them :)


EDIT: Don't forget to check your pm box ;)
 
Re: SUbmarine Tech Question

Originally posted by MateDow
I am working on the submarine tech tree (in addition to everything for 0.6) and figured I would get y'alls opinion on some things...

Do you consider Aircraft Carrying Submarines as something that you would like to see in the game? They would have a detection bonus over other subs, but would be slow and not have as good attack ratings.

Would you prefer a more detailed model structure similar to what we have developed for the naval and armor trees?

Does anyone actually use mini-subs or are they just a waste of IC to research? I am trying to make sure that my experiences are not unique. Should they stay in a new tree?

I have a rough draft of the tree mostly complete and will post it when it is done for your review and comment before I start coding it up. I will say that is more detailed than the current tree, but not as large as the armor or naval trees. MDow

Here's some background about japanese subs: Japan built 41 submarines that could carry one or more aircraft, while the vast submarine fleets of the United States, Britain, and Germany included not one submarine so capable.

To sum up some facts about japanese subs:
- They built the biggest (3000 tons, 52 of 56 in the whole world ) subs
- which had the largest range (65 submarines with ranges exceeding 20,000 miles at ten knots)
- all 39 of the world's diesel-electric submarines.
-They built submarines with the fastest underwater speeds of any nation's combat submarines.
-They employed 78 midget submarines capable of 18.5 to 19 knots submerged, and built 110 others capable of 16 knots.
-Some advanced medium-size subs had 19 knots submerged speed.
-They had the best torpedoes available during WW2.

However: they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. And therefore accomplished very little. Maybe here is an idea for a sub doctrine?

Also: Japan's huge boats were relatively easy to sight visually and with radar, slow to dive, hard to maneuver underwater, easy to track on sonar, and easy to hit. Japanese hulls were also not as strong as those of German boats, and therefore could not dive as deeply nor survive such rough treatment. Also, they lacked radar until the first sets were installed in June 1944.

So there you have it only japs used aircraft carrying subs and they maybe were not so useful.

Go ahead and do more detailed model tree. It should prolly be based on hull size and/or engine types.

At the moment minisubs are waste of IC. You need to change that or remove/replace the tech.

Also can we somehow simulate the torpedo crisis of several countries had during the war?
 
Aircraft Subs

I don't know, I'd have to disagree with limiting them to the Japanese. Kamikaze's are rather different in that no other nation would have been able to convince their armed forces to enact that type of policy but the aircraft subs could have been built by others if they had found a need for/wanted to spend the resources. I think techs should only be limited to countries when they are used to represent or are caused by a mentality that few if any other countries could duplicated.

Perhaps one way to solve it would be to have them as a expensive tech for everyone and give the Japan a event that gives them the choice to take a hit in resources but be given the tech or to get it the way everyone else does.

This could work also for other countries that historically fielded forces that no one else did but could have if they had put the resources and effort into it. Make it expensive for anyone else to develop and give a event to the country that actually developed and produced it for a overall discount in resources(figure the amount of resources that would have been consumed to do the research the normal way and give a drastic reduction)

::edit for spelling::
 
Aregntinian Naval OOB 1936

BBs:
Libertad Class (2300tons):
Independencia (1891)
Libertad (1890)
Rivadavia Class (27700 tons):
Moreno (1911)
Rivadavia (1911(

Cruisers:
Garibaldi Class:
General Belgrano (1896-7100tons)
Pueyrredon (1898-6800tons )
Veinticino de Mayo Class (9000tons)
Almirante Brown (1929)
Veinticino de Mayo (1929)
La Argentina (May 1937-7500tons)

DDs:
La Plata Class (2 in class-890tons)
Jujuy Class (2 in class 1010tons)
Buenos Aries Class (launched 1937, 1375tons, 7 in class)
Churucca Class (2 in class, 1522tons, 1925)
Mendoza Class (3 in class, 1570tons, 1928/29)

SSs:
Santa Fe Class (775tons, 3 in class, 1932)
 
Re: Aircraft Subs

Originally posted by Baenwort
(...)Perhaps one way to solve it would be to have them as a expensive tech for everyone and give the Japan a event that gives them the choice to take a hit in resources but be given the tech or to get it the way everyone else does.(...)


I will be repeating, until all around get bored - "Always ask yourself - what will AI do with that?"

In this case - it can possibly break resource balance of AI controlled country. Also, if we leave new doctrine tech ("Long range submarine warfare") free to research for anyone, but costly, there is serious chance that AI controlled nations will waste their IC on that.

I understand that blocking techs for some nations is controversial (see discussion about "Elite units"), but in that case it got sense - other countries never attempted to make someting like that, and their sub warfare doctrine was totally different. Also, IMO it's attractive from gameplay point of view - this makes play with Japan even more unique.
 
Aircraft Subs

My thought was to give Japan the tech at the beginning of the game much like we have already done with heavy torpedoes. That would allow any country to research them if they feel it is something they want (kind of like the aviation cruiser). I think that it is viable that other countries could have built something similar, but I do agree with Japan having the technology at the beginning. MDow
 
Re: Aregntinian Naval OOB 1936

Originally posted by JRaup
BBs:
Libertad Class (2300tons):
Independencia (1891)
Libertad (1890)
Rivadavia Class (27700 tons):
Moreno (1911)
Rivadavia (1911(

Cruisers:
Garibaldi Class:
General Belgrano (1896-7100tons)
Pueyrredon (1898-6800tons )
Veinticino de Mayo Class (9000tons)
Almirante Brown (1929)
Veinticino de Mayo (1929)
La Argentina (May 1937-7500tons)

DDs:
La Plata Class (2 in class-890tons)
Jujuy Class (2 in class 1010tons)
Buenos Aries Class (launched 1937, 1375tons, 7 in class)
Churucca Class (2 in class, 1522tons, 1925)
Mendoza Class (3 in class, 1570tons, 1928/29)

SSs:
Santa Fe Class (775tons, 3 in class, 1932)
thanks for the info, we are trying to find the combat capabilities of some ships... ;)
 
Chilean Armada revisited

Originally posted by JRaup
Chilean naval OOB for 1936:

BBs:
Huascar (1865-1130tons)
Capitan Prat (1874-discarded in 1936-6901tons)
Almirante Latorre (1913-28000tons)

Cruisers:
Blanco Encalada (1893-4420tons)
Chacabuco (1898-4300tons)
O'Higgins (1898-8500tons)

DDs:
Almirante Lynch Class (2 in class- 1430 tons)
Serrano Class (6 in class-1430 tons-all 1928 vintage)

SNs:
6 400ton WW1 Era subs
3 Capitan O'Brien Class (modified Brit O class Subs)

Plus they received some River and Flower class Frigates and Corvettes, purchased from the RCN 1945/46.
i have some spare time right now, so i will post the info anyway... :D
based on this post of JRaup....

BB Almirante Latorre:
you can find it up there.


Monitor Huascar:
FOTO-00163.jpg

Year 1865
1.180 tons (B.O.M).
1 Gatling .44.
1 cannon of 12 lb.
2 cannons of 40 lb.
2 cannons of 300 lb.

Send to construct by Peru to the shipyards Laird Brothers, Birkenhead, Poplar on Thames, in England, in 1864, according to the design of the Captain Cowper Coles of the Real Navy, under the model "Ericsson".
The 300 tubes of lbs (10") were of muzzle-loading mounted in an installed circular revolving tower in crujía, designed by the Captain Cowper Coles of the Real Navy.
Sent to the water the 7 of October of 1865. Finished in December of 1865. It weighed anchor of England the 20 of January of 1866, not reaching to arrive after the War against Spain.
It participated in the internal wars of Peru and as rebellious it faced in Ilo the English ships "Amesthyst" and "Shah", occasion in which a torpedo went off to him, that the monitor eluded.
It is the most shining ship of the Peruvian Navy in 1879, during the War of the Pacific, commanded by Admiral Miguel Grau Seminary, distinguished and brave sailor of that nation.
The 21 of May of 1879 the Chilean corvette "Emerald" was sank in the Naval Combat of Iquique.
Captured by Chile in the Naval Battle of Angamos, the 8 of October of 1879, in which his Commander Admiral Miguel Grau died.
It operated the rest of the War of the Pacific under Chilean flag, emphasizing in the cannonade of Arica and death of Manuel Thomson Porto Mariño and in the blockade of El Callao.
In 1885 four boilers were settled to him in the Lever shipyards, Murphy & Co. of Creek of the Boat, (today Creek Sandal), an steam powered apparatus to move the tower of the tubes, a new helix designed by shipyards Laird Brothers, settled a new chimney little more discharge than the original one and the boxes of smoke and the "shirts" of the chimney renewed.
The cover of the between-decks was renewed and planks in the upper deck changed. Also one repaired doblefondo and the machines to him.
In 1887 a steam engine of two horizontal cylinders settled to him, constructed by the Morrison company, to move the artillery tower.
Later, during the Civil War of 1891, it participated in the fight in the side of the congressmen.
It was recovered like a historical relic in 1934, being painted of yellow and gray. Four tubes of greeting in the ailerons of the bridge were settled to him and the flag of the Command in Head of the Second Naval Zone is hoisted, tradition that has continued to date.
Between 1951 and 1952, thanks to the initiative, perseverance and push of the Commander-in-Chief of the Second Naval Zone, Rear admiral Pedro Espina Ritchie, began the total restoration of the monitor, with the intention to leave it as it was in 1878, and to became a sanctuary where they venerated the Naval Glorias of Chile and Peru. The work was facilitated with numerous objects, furniture, accessories, etc., that were in perfect state of conservation in the Warehouses of the Naval Arsenal of Talcahuano.

Conclusion: this ship must not be included in the OOB.


Acorazado Capitan Prat
FOTO-00263.jpg

Year 1890
6901 tn
4-47mm.
10-37mm.
6-57mm.
8 cannons Canet de 4.7"/45, double towers of quick fire.
4 cannons Canet de 9.4"/35, in simple towers.
5 machineguns Maxim.
4 torpedo tubes of 18", under flotation line.

In fulfillment to the Law of 22 of August of 1887 it was constructed in the shipyards Forges ET Chantiers of the Mediterranée, the Seine, France. Sent to the water the 20 of December of 1890, in a ceremony presided over by the Rear admiral Juan Jose Latorre, Naval Mission leader of Chile in Europe.
It was the first ship military in the world whose artillery was moved by electrical motors. Each tube of 9,4"counted on two motors, of which one era of respect and served to drive the ammunition and shell hoists. They were arranged in simple towers, located one to prow, another one to stern and one to each band.
The electricity was produced by two dynamos driven by steam engines of 40 HP, with excitation compound.
Sent to Chile in May of 1893, getting up like ship standard of Escuadra in control of the Rear admiral Luis Uribe Orrego.
It was reformed in 1909, installing 12 boilers Babcock of water tubes, which increased its speed to 19,5 knots. Also the height of the chimneys was increased.
In 1920 it was in disarmament.
In 1926 it was not considered a floating defense.
In 1928 was activated as mother of submarines, which fulfilled until 1930.
In 1935 it was in disarmament in Coquimbo, being a Mechanics school.
In 1942 its taking apart was authorized.

Conclusion: this ship must not be included in the OOB.


Crucero Blanco Encalada (2do)
FOTO-00264.jpg

Year 1893
4.420 tn
5 torpedo tubes of 18", 2 at each side over the line of flotation and one on prow submerged.
12 - 3 pdr.
2 cannons of 8"/40.
10 cannons of 6"/40.

Contracted its construction in 1892 to replace the armored frigate of the same name sunk during the Civil War of 1891, to the Shipyards Armstrong Mitchell, Withworth & Co. Ltd, Elswick, Newcastle, upon Tyne, England, with a design derived from the Japanese cruise "Yoshimo" and designed by Philip Watts.
It took a boat torpedo of 60 feet of length with a torpedo of second class. Its dowry was of 427 men. Sent to the water the 09 of September of 1893.
It served like ship of instruction, ship station in Magallanes and Artillery school. It was reformed in 1909 and 1920. After the reformation of 1909 its speed reached to 22 knots.
Retired of the service in 1940.
Alienated the 19 of December of 1945.

Conclusion: i do not think this ship should be included, because we cannot remove it later...


Crucero Chacabuco (3ro)
FOTO-00294.jpg

Year 1897
4.300 tn.
4 machineguns.
6-2 1/2 pdr.
12 cannons of 12 pdr.
10 cannons of 4.7"/40
2 cannons of 8"/45
5 torpedo tubes of 18", over the line of water.

Constructed by the shipyards Armstrong, Withworth & Co. Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, Elswick, England and designed by Philip Watts. It was twin of the Japanese cruise "Takasago".
It had two machines, two propeler, cylindrical boilers. Coal capacity of 300 tons normally, 1,000 tons maximum. Its dowry was of 400 men.
Sent to the water in 1897 with name "4 du Julliet", was available for sale. Chile bought it in 1902 before the diplomatic difficulties with Argentina.
Protected cruise that surprised by its good maintenance and efficiency. In December of 1909, in machines tests, maintained a speed of 24.75 knots during three hours.
It was modernized several times, but in 1941-42 took place the most important of the repairs, totally modernized and transformed into Ship School. The armament was changed by 6 tubes of 6"/50 and 10 machine guns of 20 mm antiaircraft were installed. The bridge was extended and baffle plates in the chimneys were placed.
The 14 of 1943 July carried out exercises in the zone of Coquimbo. During that year went to Lota, Talcahuano and it returned to Valparaiso. The 18 of December participate in the exercises of end of year with the Escuadra.
It was the last Elswick cruise staying afloat and in good condition active in the world.
Alienated the 15 of December of 1959 according to Law no. 11,542 of 05 of June of 1954.
Its helmet was acquired by the Steel Company of the Pacific.

Conclusion: i leave it up to you guys...


Crucero Acorazado O'Higgins (3ro)
FOTO-00272.jpg

Year 1896.
8.500 tn
3 Torpedo tubes 18", over the line of water.
10 -6 pdr.
4 machineguns.
10 -12 pdr.
4 cannons of 4,7"/45.
10 cannons of 6"/40.
4 cannons of 8"/45.
2 torpedo tubes 18", under the line of water.

Constructed in shipyards Armstrong, Withworth & Co. Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, Elswick, England and designed by Philip Watts. The government order its construction in March of 1896 to a cost of 700,000 pounds sterling. Sent to the water in April of 1896.
It had two machines of triple expansion, two propellers, 30 Belleville boilers in three groups. It could supply 700 tons of normally and 1,200 tons maximum coal. Its dowry was of 500 men.
It arrived at Chile in 1898 July.
It was send to Panama in 1903 during the confrontation between the U.S.A. and Colombia, by the Panama Canal, that finished with the separation of Panama of Colombia.
In its cover , the 15 of February of 1899, took place the "Hug of the Strait" between the Presidents of Chile and Argentina, Federico Errázuriz and Julio A. Roca respectively.
In 1919 it speed trials gave 21 knots.
Also in 1919 in its covers the embarked Naval aviation was born, since a flooded hydroplane was assigned to him.
It left the service in 1933 and was alienated in 1958 according to Law 11,542 of 5 of June of 1964.
Its helmet was sold to the Steel Company of the Pacific.

Conclusion: this ship must not be included in the OOB.


If you want more info let me know...
If you find the names of the DD i can look for them...

Cheers.
:cool:
 
Last edited: