Shipbucket

Actually JSB you can remove 5 of those ships you have for Argentina, The old Von der Tann, two Helgoland, and 2 Kaiser class, all are classed as Training ships by Treaty definition. That they are still available for use is like some of the other old ships scattered around the world (Schlessien and Schleswig-Holstein come to mind), they are there but don't have much military value.

Argentina is fully aware that it cannot beat the Royal Navy. It does not need to if the Germans and then Italians siphon off bits of the RN/Commonwealth forces. Argentina will only ever need to defend itself against a part of the RN. That that part of the RN is still going to probably beat the Argentines is just how it is. If I had made the Argentine ships more capable, bigger, better armed then they would have fuelled an even bigger South American arms race than what happened. What actually starts this race off is the UK paying off its debts to Chile by supplying them with a fleet centered around the 3 ex-King George V 13.5" BB's, CL's, and DD's, for the Canada and Eagle, which become the centrepiece of the new South African Navy. Brazil chimes in with the 4 Orions and Erin, and build/convert an ex-Izmail to a carrier. Also a quick and dirty conversion of a St Vincent to a training carrier. Argentina keeps buying ex-German ships to counter all these purchases/gifts. So there is plenty of ships around South America and from the Commonwealth forces from Australis and South Africa that could probably beat Argentina without any of the RN ships being required. But the RN will want to have a say in the retaking and it would be British boots that retake the land. Where I give Argentina an edge over its other South American rivals is the ability to build more ships in-house rather than buy them in from overseas which Chile and Brazil would have to do.

No justified social or industrial path?
Have you READ Harry Turtledove? Your departure point and his are identical. The result has to be a hostile United States.
Unless your departure point is 1792, the whole house of cards collapses.

Incidentally I pointed out that there was no Mahan, Colbert and no Fisher, However for the British carrier redos, there has to be a Eugene Ely, a Glenn Curtiss, a William Moffett, a George Cockburn et al. You don't get proper through deck British flattops without them.
A carrier will not be decommissioned during any battleship holiday. The economics do not justify laying it up.
I have chosen to let others speak about the drawings, but if you insist on technical criticism, your islands and gun placements foul take off and land on runs and eat up hardstand space.
That is a fair point. (See below.) I have not been told this. Just that my rendition skills are subpar. (See below.)
Okay. Again fair enough.

I think we might need to settle down here to avoid any unfortunate confrontations...

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Yeah, come on. No one should be banning people from commenting in threads (that's the admins' job) and let's try to be civil here... I know it's difficult for a lot of us...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

The pot calling the kettle black Colo?

All I am posting here is the drawings. To read the blurb and stats you will have to visit my site ( www.alternateuniversewarships.com )

This site costs me $15 per year (for the domain name) and provides 1TB of space. So it could be used, as noted by Colo, for hosting drawings. I still use dropbox for Shipbucket as I like the 'update' drawing facility.

The Light Cruisers

ARA Bahia Blanca.






ARA Formosa






ARA Rawson






ARA Jaguar






ARA Ushuaia






ARA Rosario






ARA Belgrano






ARA Neuquen

Yes, absolutely. Hence the "I know it is difficult for a lot of us" remark. Nobody is perfect (least of all me) but as an admin it's my job to try to remind people to be civil to one another. I'm human just like the rest of us.
I don't want it to seem like I'm targeting you (because I'm not), but I think this statement goes a bit against our fifth forum rule. Withholding content with the intent of driving views to an offsite page is a violation of the spirit of that rule. I would just post the descriptions here in quote boxes to allow casual forum users to read what was written - then (in my opinion) providing the link to your own page for additional information is much more acceptable.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

The problem I have is all the stats for the various ships are in tables on each htm page on my site - as you are aware Shipbucket does not like having tables being copied into it. The tables are removed and a mishmash of characters results. I have quite a bit of info in tabs which disappear when copied into SB also.

I am not trying to break the 5th rule on purpose. I have no advertising or any other irritating bits and pieces on my site.

If you would rather I did not advise people where they can find the rest of the info for the drawings then I will remove the site name and only post the drawings.

Ah, no, now that you've explained why you haven't posted it, it makes perfect sense to me.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

All together some very interesting designs. I like the modernisation you come up with.

A small note: The bow of your Belgrano-class still has the Leipzig's crest remaining. You might want to change that.

_________________
My worklist
Any help and source material is always welcome.

Thanks for the info on the crest DG_Alpha - fixed.