WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Interesting how many Atlantean planes were in use in Argentine hands there towards the end of the war.

All designs aquired prior to the war and not durring.

Equipment Assessments

IMPA I-99: A joint Argo-Atlantean project this monoplane fighter easily outfought the Snider biplane fighters of the RSAF and even the monoplane DeBroek F-3A Buzzard. The later DeBroek F-3C Warhawk was a tougher proposition but still only had a 18kmh speed advantage and was slightly more manoeuvrable. By the summer of 1936 the I-99 had switched to a bomber-destroyer role, at 484kmh was faster than any RSAF bomber and was armed with four 13mm MGs and was still a threat to any fighter it came up against in a dogfight. It was a docile and well loved plane by all of its pilots.

FMA I-100 (all types): At one time the world’s best fighter mixing speed with agility and firepower. The I-100A with a more powerful engine was not as good as the original I-100, which remained in service throughout the war, and the hoped for increases in speed were not met. The I-100C built by Tucan was armed with 7.92mm guns due to shortages and poorer radio fit. The lighter weight increased the speed a little and this model proved to be the best out of the three in the dogfight. It was a tricky aircraft to fly and novice pilots soon learned to respect it and many lost their lives flying them. Although outpaced by the Swollow fighters in a straight line in turning combat the I-100 had the edge and its roll rate was far superior.

FMA I-01: The FMA I-01 Buchon was been designed by Luis Barron and his team to replace the I-100 and was heavily based on the CR.35 and Bf.109 fighters. Still not as fast as the Swollow type it proved not as agile but high altitude performance was good and it was more suited to the bomber destroyer role and could be adapted as a fighter-bomber. When the war was ending FMA had on the drawing board a revised version.

FIAT CR.35 (I-110): Received from Italy when her volunteer pilots left, these few fighters were the best in the war and could match the F-6D Swollow on even terms and in level flight had a 120kmh advantage, it could out-climb and out-turn it adversary too. Although tricky to maintain and lacking powerful enough machine guns they flew very well in the hands of veteran pilots and achieved a high kill-loss ratio.

IMPA M.B.1 (Vanquish I): Argentina’s first monoplane bomber, fast and well armed with defensive weapons the M.B.1 bore the brunt of the bombing offensive. Unsuited to daylight operations the type switched to night operations with a massive degrading in bombing and navigation accuracy. The glass cockpit was not popular and the three man crew was overworked.

IMPA SI-21A (Sp-21 Vanquish II): A development of the M.B.1 the SI-21A had a new nose for the bomb aimer and a radio operator to ease the crew workload. Although not more effective than the M.B.1 the SI-21A was a much improved bomber being faster and carrying an extra two MGs.

IMPA SI-21T (Sp-21M): Using the Sp-21M for export to Mexico as a basis the solid-nosed SI-21T housed four 13mm HMGs and retained the dorsal turret. Torpedo crutches were carried and the type became the favoured FAA torpedo bomber having the speed (it was 8 km/h faster than the SI-21A) to escape from older RSAF fighters and having the firepower to suppress AA guns onboard enemy ships. Some could carry two 18in torpedoes to deliver twice the firepower onto a target. It was a large design which hampered low-level work but the type had the range to make long-range missions. The SI-21S is the T model fitted with floats to replace the Fokker T.IVa.

FMA M.B.2: A basic single-engined bomber also developed as an airliner. It was a basic type and was easy to maintain on forward airstrips. It had a manual turret but only carried 400kgs of bombs and thus was only suitable for ground support. In this role it failed because of its low speed and lack of armour. By mid 1935 the type was little used but still produced for the lack of anything more modern to replace it. Most that remained post-war went to training schools.

Tucan T-17: This private venture seemed unlikely to be built but the Air Staff recognised the usefulness of the armoured fuselage. The T-17 was optimised for ground support operations based on experience from the Great War, the 1921 Argo-Nordish War and the Paraguayan civil war. Although it only had 2 forward-firing MGs and 150kgs of bombs it had dive brakes and could accurately bomb the smallest of targets. The armoured “bathtub” easily withstood bullets and no T-17 crashed due to the crew being killed. More than not the engine was hit or the tail surfaces destroyed. The type was more rugged than its frail appearance suggested and it was very simple to maintain and operate.

TNCA A-1 Mapache: Brought from Mexico these armoured fighters were used as ground-support aircraft alongside the T-17s while also having the capability to offer fighter protection to the slower T-17s. While being slower than all the modern RSAF fighters it had superior turn capability and an amazing climb rate. In trained hands it proved a lethal adversary and could carry three 750lb bombs over short distances, equal to a medium bomber.

Fokker T.IVa: Brought pre-war these monoplane seaplanes were basic but had a dorsal turret and were solid and easy to operate. By early 1936 its replacement, the SI-21S, had begun to enter service in small numbers.

TBN-6A Sea Dart: Brought from Atlantis the Sea Darts proved to be effective torpedo droppers but were hampered by their short range, slow speed and lack of protection. Spares were also a constant problem in service.

FMA I.Ae.4S: A development of the I.Ae.4 Racer and the related, but cancelled, carrier-based strike version the I.Ae.4S was fast but was a poor machine. It lacked any rearward defences and was shorter ranged than the Sea Dart. Although it equipped all Aviacion Naval strike units it was a poor design and hard to maintain. Serviceability was never more than 45% at any one time. The SI-21T was the replacement for this bomber but deliveries were slow. With three HMGs in the nose several were used as ad-hoc fighters when situations demanded. In this role it proved quite adept having a good turn rate and being easy to roll.


RSAF Equipment Assesments

DeBroek F-3C Warhawk: A redesign of the DeBroek F-3A Buzzard with a new wing, a 750hp LMF V-12 inline engine and partially retractable undercarriage and six 7.62mm MGs. Equal in speed to the I-100 Barron (though slightly slower than the I-100A) the lower wing loading meant that in dogfights the Warhawk was a formidable foe and it had similar acceleration. The open cockpit gave good all-round visibility. It had a good range and could be used for escort missions. By mid 1935 numbers declined in favour of the F-6 series but many African fighter pilots remember the Warhawk with affection.

JFM F-6B Swollow: The first modern fighter for the RSAF the Swollow was fast, 560km/h, and had 1000km range, more than ample for any escort mission. Although CoG effects had been improved in the design stage the high wing loading (though still less than the I-100) meant it was not a good dogfighter. It lacked the I-100’s roll ability but the powerful inline engine and elliptical wing gave a supreme performance allied to heavy firepower (2x15mm 2x7.62mm) meant it was a grave threat to any Argentine and Brazilian fighter. Some were fitted with wing racks for two 50kg bombs to serve in the ground attack role during the late 1935 offensives. It was this sturdy fighter with its experienced pilots that made aerial supremacy possible.

JFM F-6D Swollow: Developed from 1933 this is a F-6B fitted with a new LMF 1,250hp V-12 supercharged engine. Faster than any Argentine fighter (610km/h) and with 0.25hp per lb power loading this was one of the hottest fighters developed in the world at this time. Two extra 7.62mm MGs were squeezed into the wingroots and this fighter was a formidable machine. The F-6D pilots mainly used vertical climb and dive attacks to avoid getting into dogfights with the more nimble I-100s. By many accounts these fighters were tricky to handle and only experienced pilots were safe to fly them well in combat. Landing on rough air strips was always tricky with the Swollow but the F-6D with even more weight over the nose proved even more tricky. Only the few FIAT CR.35 fighters in Argentine service were capable of matching them. Just as the war ended the first two squadrons equipped with the F-6E became operational. These had a newly developed 1,320hp V-12 and was capable of 632km/h.

DeBroek FD-2 Hornet: This private venture fighter-bomber was developed into an escort fighter by the RSAF just pre-war and indeed found fame in the latter role. Powerfully armed with two 20mm cannon and four 7.62mm forward-firing guns a dorsal turret had another two 7.62mm MGs. With a speed of 560km/h and 1,600km range this was the ideal escort fighter able to chase after enemy fighters and still having rearward defensive armament. Many Argentine pilots feared these giant fighters and much effort was put into attacking them first to drive them away. During 1935 they began to be operated on night patrols to attack Argentine bombers. The crews found that the dorsal gunners could engage the enemy from below with surprise and often without retaliation. This then led to similar Argentine experiments and the concept of the turret fighter seemed to have gained much needed kudos.

Hartig A-18A Harvik: This light two-seat twin-engined bomber was a delight to fly. Capable of 420km/h from its two 880hp radial engines the A-18 had the range to fly long-range missions with a decent bombload (1000kg). The nose housed two 15mm and two 7.62mm MGs and the gunner had another two 7.62mm MGs. The A-18 was used as a battlefield support aircraft and as a strafer, the twin-engined layout helping many damaged aircraft to get home or at least over friendly territory. The lack of a bomb-aimer meant that accuracy was poor in anything but a steep dive. However no dives over 40 degrees were every tried, possibly more to doctrine than any limitation on the airframe.

JFM B-14A Devastator: One of the world’s first four-engined monoplane strategic bombers the B-14A was developed in response to the European theories of strategic bombing of civilian targets to knock out a enemy nation’s capacity and morale to wage war. This aim failed but that was not the fault of the aircraft. The Devastator was powered by four LMF1200 960hp V-12 engines and was protected by eight 7.62mm MGs in nose, dorsal, ventral and tail positions, all but the dorsal turret being manually operated. The B-14A can carry 2200kg of bombs and has a 3000km range. The airframe proved tough and many returned home despite suffering AA splinter holes and 7.62mm fire proved incapable of knocking them down unless the engines or fuel tanks were hit. The latter were protected but not self-sealing. Argentine I-100A fighters with six 13mm MGs proved a bigger threat but the Devastator was surprisingly nimble for a big bomber. It is known however that despite new wings after a prototype crash that the B-14A was still limited by restrictions to prevent failures. By late 1935 newer versions with better tail armament were entering service.

Martin-Zand RB-5B Flying Window: This modern reconnaissance aircraft had a troubled gestation but small numbers were built from 1931. Nearly all saw service in South America. The RB-5B proved nearly as fast as the A-18 despite having 160hp less power and being more ‘draggy’ overall. Pressed into service as bombers the Flying Windows became vulnerable to ground fire but even at high altitudes were easy prey for enemy fighters. Only armed with two 7.62mm MGs and lacking self-sealing fuel tanks they proved to be death traps but were kept in service.

Martin-Zand RB-5C Crocodile: A V-12 powered crew trainer variant of the RB-5B Flying Window the RB-5Cs were pressed into service as bombers. Carrying 1000kg of bombs and four MGs it was a better bomber than the RB-5B but was slower and therefore more vulnerable to ground fire.

RB-5D Longbow: A fighter development of the RB-5C, only a handful were built and 22 seem to have entered service in South America. The Longbow was faster than most Argentine fighters and carried a battery of two 20mm and two 7.62mm in the nose and two more dorsal MGs. They proved effective enough escorts but were less manoeuvrable and at lower altitudes were at a serious disadvantage.

Walter WA-98E Bulldog: Designed as a lightly-armoured ground attack and dive bomber in 1929 the Bulldog was also capable of acting as a fire control spotter with suitable radio equipment. It was slow but was very nimble and a joy to fly. They proved effective strafers but lacked heavy enough machine guns to inflict serious damage but accuracy dropping 250kg bombs in seventy degree dives was excellent. The Bulldog is one of the best dive bombers in the world and despite its age proved a big asset in the jungle fighting in Brazil and Paraguay. In forward airstrips the Bulldog proved very easy to keep running and was easy to patch up.

JFM DB-4B Mosquito: Developed as a modern monoplane replacement for the Bulldog the effective elliptical wing carried four 7.62mm MGs and offered decent manoeuvrability for an aircraft of its size. Bombload was two 250kg bombs or one 500kg bomb. Although not quite as accurate the Mosquito was stable in the dive thanks to effective slotted dive-brakes and also had an automatic pull-out system linked to the altimeter and bomb-release system. Used for hitting strategic pinpoint targets like bridges and ships the extra firepower of the DB-4B proved very effective and doubtless gave an edge to the RSAF’s bombing campaign.

Villant B-12A Marauder: This is the newest bomber in RSAF service and is a twin-engined type with dorsal and nose twin MG mounts. The two 920hp V-12 engines powered the B-12A to 456km/h and enabled the bomber to carry 1500kg of bombs with a range of 2000km. It carried the largest bombload of any RSAF medium bomber and was fast enough to avoid most fighters or at least get to more favourable altitudes. It was vulnerable to enemy fighters and proved to be nose-heavy on landing but overall was an effective bomber. It was hard to maintain under combat conditions.

Snider Type 24 Shark: Although not bad at dive-bombing, its intended role, the Shark was an awful aircraft to fly and was a poor carrier-based aircraft. The view from the cockpit was appalling but it had the range and bombload to pose a serious threat to enemy shipping and land-based Sharks for five months did make themselves felt. The type also proved horrible vulnerable to enemy fire and many exploded when hit in the wings or forward fuselage.

De Graaf DB-7A Stinger: This was the replacement for the Snider Type 24 Shark. The 1,050hp V-12 engine gave a top speed of 438km/h and although the Stinger only carried 500kg of bombs and was still tricky for novice pilots to handle it was more battle worthy. Three MGs proved too weak for self-defence and for strafing and so after limited use ashore by the RSAN all DB-7A units remained on carriers.

Any map of the final frontline?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
FIAT CR.35 (I-110): Received from Italy when her volunteer pilots left, these few fighters were the best in the war and could match the F-6D Swollow on even terms and in level flight had a 120kmh advantage, it could out-climb and out-turn it adversary too. Although tricky to maintain and lacking powerful enough machine guns they flew very well in the hands of veteran pilots and achieved a high kill-loss ratio.

Just a side not from somebody involved: This 120km/h speed advantage of the CR.35 is somewhat ridiculous. AFAIK, the F-6D already is at the very edge of the technology tree advantage we agreed on. The performance of the F-6D is based on a 1940 Spitfire variant and top speed is 612 km/h. About 730 km/h on anything short of a purpose build racer makes me scratch my head..... Or did we have out data wrong?

I think you might have something off, looking at RA's entries in the Italian encyclopedia. The Cr.35 is quick for the period, no question, but he's not showing it as 730 km/h.

I think the official history is either lying or the _1_ shouldn't be there.

Okay, thanks for clarification. I always wondered about it. :o)

The CR.35 is fast, but not that fast. Its also very small, has no armour, limited armament and range. Fiat's next fighter will go a long way towards redressing those problems after it stops killing the test pilots.

Seems to be a typo somewhere.

The CR.35 and F-6D actually have the same max speed and the F-6E is 20km/h faster.

Either that or some Italian snuck into the office and added a 1 for laughs!

Good stuff. Absolutely love the aircraft assesments. But no mention of the Type 105s used by the Mexican Volunteer Squadron?

Armoured Warfare: A Report By Maj. Gen. Antonio Miguel Barbera

Initially both Argentina and SAE mainly had light tanks in small numbers. During the first months of the war the T-1M31 was far superior to the few W4-SP Wasp and BT5-A Bullet tanks in African service. Each Argentine corps had an armoured regiment and consisting of 78 tanks 30 armoured cars were small forces but concentrated. The initial use was for infantry support rather than anti-tank duties and such combat was a case of chance meetings rather than any attempt to destroy RSAA tank forces. The latter took an opposite view having light tanks for scouting which were hardier than wheeled armoured cars in the Pampas plains and jungle areas, fast medium tanks for anti-tank work and armoured attacks into the enemy’s rear areas and heavy tanks to support the infantry and lighter tanks in both offence and defence.
By early 1935 the Argentine armoured forces were forced into tank combat as numbers of RSAA tanks increased and included much more capable models like the GAZ-3A Gazelle, HSR-2D Hussar and CET-2B Centurion, all of which outclassed the T-1M31 (based on the Vickers 6-Ton). Infantry support remained a prime role but often infantry units had to rely on artillery as the armoured regiments made local attacks in numbers at African weak points with limited infantry support and usually running into RSAA tank screens of light tanks which then were reinforced by fast tanks and heavy tanks. One favoured tactic was to use the tanks to lure RSAA fast tanks into a killing zone covered by the Regiment’s anti-tank gun company with German 37mm guns. Two T-1s would steadily retreat keeping up rapid fire while others made dust plumes to suggest a larger flanking force to push the African tank crews into a triangular trap. By the end of the war the Argentine tank strength was shattered and its total strength along the whole front could be counted in tens, even with stripping the tank school and impressed Brazilian FT-17 tanks this merge force could do little but try and stem the RSAA massed attacks of fast tanks with heavy tank support and infantry following behind. Although not the totally mechanised warfare plan practiced by Great Britain, Germany, India and Japan in this period it was a version of these tactics. RSAA light tanks would probe the lines; fast tanks would exploit any breach while the heavy tanks were close behind mopping up any strong points. RSAA tanks had much better radio equipment and could therefore co-ordinate much faster while the Argentine tanks had differing qualities of equipment and shorter reception range. RSAA tank units also had more infantry with them and light guns towed into positions next to the front lines. Argentine tanks tended to rely on local infantry units for support and artillery preparation was often lacking, the few TG-1M35 self-propelled guns ended up stuck with the infantry as support weapons rather than supporting the tanks. The provision of anti-aircraft batteries was in advance of RSAA practice but by mid 1935 they too had mobile batteries of heavy machine guns and 20mm cannon to deter strafing and bombing raids.
Maj. Gen. Antonio Miguel Barbera, commander of the Mechanised Corps, devised the TG-1M35 Self Propelled Armoured Gun, better known as the Armoured Gun Tractor, using the chassis of the T-1M31 with a light open topped box structure mounting a 75mm M33 L/24 gun for infantry support. The T-1M31 proved unsuited to infantry support with its 37mm gun and the TG-1M35 provided better mobile fire support and their appearance caused some consternation among RSAA infantry but the TG-1 was vulnerable to anti-tank weapons and fewer than twenty-four existed at any one time. Even so Argentina had produced her own fire support vehicle able to support the tank formations and any infantry units attached to them and had a gun that could destroy any African tank.
Reconnaissance by armoured forces also greatly varied, the RSAA having ample numbers of light tanks well armed and armoured against armoured cars and light tanks and able to traverse any rough terrain encountered and benefiting from superior radio equipment. Argentine armoured cars were useless outside urban areas, the Italian six-wheeled armoured cars were excellent but too few existed and so the over-stretched tank companies had to do these vital tasks alongside infantry support missions and anti-tank screening. The Motorised Signal Companies were useful for long-range radio links with Corps HQs but tactical radio equipment lacked reception range.
The provision of two Motorised Pioneer Companies and two Bridging Columns was ample for local defensive work and for limited offensive use in repairing bridges and roads and setting up supply dumps but in general the organisation would have been better if enlarged to Battalion size to fully make use of the pioneers. RSAA units lacked enough bridging equipment but did sterling work in the Brazilian jungles to keep the supply columns moving.
The Brazilian Army did not have extensive armoured forces despite the much vaunted fully mechanised Third Army. The Brazilian Army called their armoured vehicles "carro de assalto" or "autometralhadoras", rather than the term tank. France after the Great War had donated FT-17 tanks, twelve more were brought in 1921, of which one was a radio command TSF tank, and these were still in use during the war but were worthless for modern combat except in a static pillbox role. The need for more modern tanks was met by Argentina who supplied twenty-four T-1M31 tanks in 1934 and another forty during 1935. The need for armoured cars was met, like in Argentina, by improvised armoured bodies placed on Ford chassis with Lincoln axles and suspension with Ford engines. They weighed around 4 tons and were very mobile and did sterling scouting work where terrain allowed and they were armed with a single 12.7mm Browning HMG in a turret. Around 70 were produced from 1934 and ten larger 4x6 truck chassis were used to mount a 37mm gun in a turret in 1935. All of these 14 ton armoured cars were lost during late 1935. The Army used around 60 tracked agricultural tractors as prime movers and during the last months of the war around ten were converted into light tanks with armour plating and one 7.7mm Lewis MG. None of these survived the war. These improvised vehicles made no real impact on the war and were of little value apart from the useful 4 ton armoured cars which served into the 1940s. In 1935 an armoured train was constructed with a 75mm Schneider Model 1919 mountain gun and this saw sterling service as a mobile fire support weapon during the final months of the war and escaped destruction by RSAF bombers several times. By the end of the war three 20mm cannon were added to the train in flatbed cars.
Pre-war the Brazilian High Command practised modern tank warfare with strong armoured thrusts and mobile supporting infantry. During the war a lack of tanks hampered the few armoured attacks made against the RSAA and more and more the armoured force was used as an infantry support arm or as mobile scouting forces (which had a few surprising successes when they surprised RSAA armoured car formations). Training was good but morale fell as the war situation worsened but it is far to say in conclusion that postwar the Brazilians took all the lessons learned in combat by all sides and began building a proper armoured force rather than the meagre force scraped up on the cheap.

Equipment Assessments
T-1M31 Light Tank: Good mobility on solid ground but became bogged in swampy ground, the 88hp diesel provided good speed and range and lessened the hazards of fire if hit. The 6-15mm armour was not effective against any anti-tank weapon and consequently the type was seriously outclassed. The 37mm anti-tank gun fired both HE and AP shells. The transmission was poor and gear changing was hard, tight turns could easily throw a track, so drivers had to be very careful during combat.

T-2M34 Jaguar: These fast cruiser type tanks were provided by Italy during 1934 and proved very fast and agile with all the advantages of diesel powered engines in combat. The 10-25mm armour was still incapable of defeating most anti-tank weapons but its own 47mm gun firing HE and AP shells was able to penetrate most RSAA light and medium tanks at reasonable ranges. Mechanical reliability was poor but when they worked they fought well as medium tanks supporting the T-1M31 in both attack and defence.

T-3M36 Leopard: Wartime experience led to the development of a new tank. It was hoped it would be ready in time for the war but the technical challenges were too great. Basically it is an enlarged T-2M34 with improved torsion bar suspension for even better cross-country mobility and an upgraded turret with better armour and a new gun.

Mexico provided three Gothia Works Veles tanks and three Gothia Works Legionnaire Tanks, the former were used as training tanks but did see some action in the final months of the war as scouting tanks, their 45mm guns proving superior to the standard 37mm of the T-1. The Legionnaire tanks were used as assault tanks to support the infantry but all were destroyed by enemy action despite their very thick and comprehensive armour. They proved too heavy for use in areas without firm soil and roads.

Chrysler C-1M31 Armoured Car: these open-top armoured cars converted from commercial 4x4 chassis were useless for anything other than behind the lines patrolling. About 60 other assorted 4x4 and 6x6 commercial trucks were converted by the Adolfo Bash firm of armoured car makers (specialist in security firm and bank cars) with 8-10mm armoured bodies and 1-3x 7.92mm LMG and used as scouts or personnel carriers. In these roles they proved adequate in urban areas but did offer a useful capability otherwise lacking.

C-2M33 Armadillo Armoured Car: these six-wheeled Italian armoured cars were not well suited to cross-country use but did some sterling work in urban areas as wheeled tanks. The petrol engine was a drawback when hit but the 37mm gun could tackle any likely enemy tanks and the armour was superior to the T-1M31.

W4-SP Wasp: this RSAA light tank was unsuited to anything but local patrolling although the W5-SP with a 20mm cannon was a useful reconnaissance tank with good radio equipment.

STG-1A Stinger; this RSAA light tank replaced the W4-SP but with its two crewmen were overworked and armour was weak. The STG-1B suffered from engine problems and many overheated during the summer. They were useful in Paraguay however due to low ground pressure.

BT5-A Bullet: the main RSAA fast attack tank in 1934 it was fast, had good Christie-type suspension and long range and armed with a very effective 45mm gun superior to any Argentine tank gun then in use. Its weak armour, petrol stowage and high silhouette made it easy prey despite its speed and losses were heavy.

GAZ-3A Gazelle: as a replacement for the BT5-A this tank had better armour but a smaller 37mm gun and suffered from engine troubles. It was comparable to the T-1M31 and T-2M34 in performance and was the most numerous tank in RSAA service.

HCH-5R Hunchback: these elderly tanks were weakly armoured compared to newer designs and the riveted armour tended to break away when hit. They have the excellent 45mm gun but the petrol engine was a serious fire hazard.

CRU-3R Cruiser: few of these were encountered in 1934 but were easily knocked out due to poor quality of their riveted armour.

HSR-2D Hussar: replaced the HCH-5R and had a reliable diesel engine and suspension well suited to cross-country travel with good armour and certainly one of the better tanks in the conflict. Its 37mm gun was replaced by the excellent 45mm in the HSR-4T variant which arrived in South American during September 1935.

GOH-1N Goliath: these ponderous tanks had thick armour but as infantry support tanks the 37mm gun was inadequate and the petrol engine was very poor and vulnerable.

CET-2B Centurion: designed to become the standard heavy tank of the RSAA the Centurion was used more as a medium tank for attacks and as effective static defences. The CET-2C command vehicles had excellent radios, as did the 2B, the armour was not always fully effective on the sides and rear but the 55mm gun fired a powerful HE shell for destroying pillboxes and fortified positions, an anti-concrete shell was developed and the AP round could destroy any Argentine/ Italian tank in use and is one of the best tank guns in the world.

MOM-01 Mammoth: few of these ‘Self-propelled Artillery Vehicles’ were used in South America, some were used during the final advance up the Brazilian coast in late 1935. The relatively low weight was an advantage but the suspension failed with excessive use and it could not properly absorb the recoil of the 75mm howitzer. It was armoured but served as mobile artillery behind the frontline rather than the front-line assault or defence role of the Argentine TG-1M35. An improved variant was produced but saw no action.

Chapter 15: The End

As preceding chapters, as the military situation turned agianst the Argentines and Brazilians but turned to thoughts of peace.

The early meetings between RSAA and Brazilian officals near the frontline soon turned into diplomatic moves and on November 28th 1935 the following ceasefire agreement was signed.

Ceasefire Agreement between the Land, Aerial and Naval Forces of the South African Empire and the Land, Aerial and Naval Forces of the Empire of Brazil

Article I
Both sides agree to halt all military operations against each other on land, sea and in the air at 00:00 December 1st 1935

Article II
SAE military forces shall immediately withdraw from Brazilian territory across the border and Brazilian Forces shall withdraw from SAE territory in the Paraguayan border region

Article III
Brazilian military forces agree to keep a 50km de-militarised zone along their side of the border except for minimal paramilitary border guard forces needed for customs and border control. This zone will be permanent unless a subsequent agreement by both nations is reached. Should Argentina ever attack SAE territory, Brazil shall fully respect the 50km limit. However, should SAE ever attack Argentine territory, then Brazil has the right to regain military control of the 50km zone."

Article IV
The Government of Brazil shall expel all Argentine military personnel from its territory and will impound and destroy all Argentine military equipment on its territory

Article V
Both Governments conclude this agreement and once the ceasefire passes a state of peace will exist between each nation. Both Governments conclude this agreement and once all fighting on SAE borders have come to a halt, negotiations for a lasting peace treaty will be held and this will include arrangements for the Brazilian military to re-occupy the de-militarised zone once all fighting ends


A few months later the serious position on the Argentine front led the government to seek terms for a ceasefire and in Feburary 1936 the following document was signed by the two Army chiefs of both nations in a small village near the frontline.

Ceasefire Agreement between the Land, Aerial and Naval Forces of the South African Empire and the Land, Aerial and Naval Forces of the Republic of Argentina

Article I
Both sides agree to halt all military operations against each other on land, sea and in the air at 00:00 March 1st 1936

Article II
SAE military forces shall immediately withdraw from Argentine territory across the border and Argentine Forces shall withdraw from SAE territory

Article III
Argentine military forces agree to keep a 50km de-militarised zone along their side of the border except for minimal paramilitary border guard forces needed for customs and border control. This zone will exist until a subsequent agreement by both nations is reached.

Article IV
Both sides agree that the nation of Paraguay is now at peace and the civil war ended in favour of the Republican forces. Both sides agree that in the interests of peacekeeping and reconstruction that Argentina shall be responsible for law and order and humanitarian aid until a lasting Treaty is agreed

Article V
Both Governments conclude this agreement and once the ceasefire passes a state of peace will exist between each nation. Both Governments conclude this agreement and negotiations for a lasting peace treaty will be held on neutral territory


Soon after the war ended early tri-nation talks led to a cooling off period before the Argentines managed to pursade all parties to join on neutral territory to make a lasting peace between them.
Chile offered to host the talks in a suburb of Valparaiso, Viña del Mar. This area had a casino and hotel constructed in 1928, and the newly finished O'Higgins Hotel. The Chilean presidential summer residence, Castillo Presidencial, is also located in the city, along with several Palacios: Rioja, Carrasco, Vergara, Brunet (or Castillo Yarur, now Chilean police HQ).

The talks only lasted eighteen days and within that time there was much agreement, although the Brazilian delgation were anxious to end the de-militarised zone which they saw as an unfair punishment and extra internal pressure on their weakened political system but in the event they were unable to achieve this at the talks.

Here follows the text of the Treaty that was signed on May 10th 1936.

Treaty of Valparaiso

Preamble
The following signatories hereby conclude a lasting peace agreement following on from the ceasefire arrangements at which point hostilities ceased.
Representing the Government of Argentina is Senator Carlos Saavedra Lamas, noted legal academic and co-founder of the International Labour Organisation in 1919
Representing the Emperor of Brazil is Senor Paulo de Cristoforo, a retired High Court judge
Representing the King of the South African Empire is Luitenant-Generaal (Rt.) R.J. Van de Poel, a former military commander and currently an advisor to the War Ministry

Article I Military Provisions
All signatories agree to stand down their land/ aerial and naval forces from war-readiness to peacetime standards and to gradually reduce these forces to peacetime levels.
There are no formal restrictions on armed forces in terms of manpower, equipment holding or weapon types of any signatory.

Article II Territorial Provisions
The war has been fought without territorial ambitions and therefore no signatory has staked any territorial claims on their opponent. Therefore all signatories agree to maintain the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Grand Uruguay as defined before hostilities.

The Government of Brazil agrees to keep a 50km de-militarised zone along their side of the border except for minimal paramilitary border guard forces needed for customs and border control. This zone will be permanent unless a subsequent agreement by both nations is reached. Should the Government of Argentina ever declare war on the SAE then Brazil shall fully respect the 50km limit. However, should the Government of SAE ever declare war on Argentina, Brazil has the right to regain military control of the 50km zone.

Article III Spheres of Influence
All signatories agree to the following stated spheres of interest and declare that no signatory will interfere politically, economically or militarily in another’s political sphere of influence.
Argentina: Argentina and Paraguay
South African Empire: Grand Uruguay
Brazil: The Empire of Brazil

Article IV Paraguay
The Government of Argentina hereby agrees to re-build Paraguay and to distribute aid to the displaced people of Paraguay. The Government of the SAE hereby agrees to recognise that Paraguay in Argentina’s sphere of influence and will hand over General Hector Ramon Garioza Ruiz Diaz and any of his former government ministers now in hiding on SAE territory to the Hague in Europe for trial for crimes against humanity. The Government of the SAE hereby disclaims any support for the former Paraguayan regime and will return any former rebel soldiers to their homeland and will also allow free access to Paraguay for aid relief forces and will also fund a quarter of the re-construction costs over a ten year period.
The Government of Brazil having unilaterally withdrawn from the war without consulting their Argentine ally shall therefore loose any claim to Paraguayan territory that they may have been entitled too as per any previous agreement, either public or secret.

Article V Rio Parana De-militarization
The Rio Parana is one of the most important waterways in South America enabling transport and trade deep into the interior of Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and Grand Uruguay. Thus all signatories agree that the river should be open to all nations free from obstruction or interference. The Governments of Argentina and SAE agree to a naval arms limitation agreement on the Rio Parana.
1. No armed vessel over 200 tons (light displacement) shall be armed with guns over 150-155mm in calibre
2. No armed vessel over 600 tons (light displacement) shall be constructed
3. Both Navies agree to a total tonnage cap of 4,000 tons on armed vessels over 200 tons
4. The Government of SAE shall allow Argentine and Brazilian naval vessels stationed on the Rio Parana pass up and down the river to and from the Atlantic Ocean with proper prior notice and an RSAN pilot. The Argentine Government shall allow RSAN naval vessels based on the Rio Parana to pass through the Rio Paraguay and the upper Rio Parana with proper prior notice and an Argentine pilot
5. All signatories shall help each other in mine removal along the entire river and all coastal defences along the river erected during the war shall be dismantled. All those extant before the war are unaffected

Article VI Miscellaneous Issues
All signatories agree to open their ports and aerodrome to civilian traffic
All signatories agree to re-commence free trade with each other
All signatories agree to allow aid organisations to freely operate on their territory
All signatories agree to waive any reparation claims or any claims for culpability for the war in the interests of good will and lasting peace
All signatories agree to respect all respective territorial waters and air space
All signatories agree that any searching of suspect pirate vessels and other illegal naval traffic is the responsibility of the nation in whose national waters the suspect vessel is found to be in. No other signatory has a right to enter another’s territorial waters to search such a vessel without prior agreement.

My take.

Winner: Argentina
Loser: Brazil
Wash: SAE

With a lot of the ground campaign being fought in SAE territory I would has pushed for some monetary concesions if I was the SAE. IMO a lot of the common men will see this as a defeat. (return to the status quo)

Argentina suffered of course but IIRC no part of their territory was ever invaded plus they got recognized control of Paraguay. IMO they are the "winners", if you can call them that.

Brazil on the other hand was the big loser. Their fleet was decimated, their territory invaded and their vaunted Imperial Army humiliated on the field of battle. Won't be surprised if some political changes occurs in Brazil.

A very costly war for all party's with little gain. Argentina seems to have gained the most, with influence over Paraguay, while the SAE has successfully defended their territory.

See....

Not all of the fighting was on SAE territory. Especially along the coast Argentine cities and harbors suffered a lot while the Argentine Navy was cut down to about half her pre-war strength.

Probably the SAE could have pushed for more, might have had some kind of second wind the longer the war lasts because of the available industrial potential. But it would have been very, very costly and a clear defeat of the Argentine seemed to be out of range. So why not agree to peace and have everybody clean up their own mess?

The SAE has proven superior and able to stand up against two attackers, fight a two-front war and shift the battlefields into enemy territory. The SAE government is in doubt the AB(C) powers will ever try this stunt again. So the big gain is peace in this reagion.

(And as 1937er Talons later proofed it is even possible to overcome feelings and get along well - to some degree. As written above: Neither the Argentine nor the SAE entered this war to gain territory.)