Tillman monsters.

ATP

Well-known member
Senator Benjamin Tillman lobbed for making maximum battleship/70-80.000t,12-24 406-457guns/ from 1917.
Let assume,he succed and at least one was builded.
Would it kill Washington treaty? or only allow other made bigger battleships?
If so,how many and how big they would be ? and how would change it WW2 ? /in my opinion,not at all/

Comments are welcome.I made it tread,becouse for me battleships are like tanks - the bigger are most cool.Even if it had little to no sense.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
The USN didn't want the battleships he told the USN to propose. They were too expensive for the "used chewing gum wrapper and two bottle cap" budgets Congress was willing to approve after WWI. They would have been a liability instead of an asset.

Tillman was upset that battleships kept getting bigger and more expensive. He pretty much forced the Navy to propose the largest battleships possible at the time.

The Navy proposals for "maximum battleships" were about as ridiculous as they thought they could get away with and meant to be fantasies which only existed on paper.

If those got built the US would probably do what the IJN did with Yamoto and Musashi: keep them docked and out of the way as much as possible because they're way too expensive for use on regular deployments.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The USN didn't want the battleships he told the USN to propose. They were too expensive for the "used chewing gum wrapper and two bottle cap" budgets Congress was willing to approve after WWI. They would have been a liability instead of an asset.

Tillman was upset that battleships kept getting bigger and more expensive. He pretty much forced the Navy to propose the largest battleships possible at the time.

The Navy proposals for "maximum battleships" were about as ridiculous as they thought they could get away with and meant to be fantasies which only existed on paper.

If those got built the US would probably do what the IJN did with Yamoto and Musashi: keep them docked and out of the way as much as possible because they're way too expensive for use on regular deployments.

All true.I am simply interested how building,let say 2 of them would affect world navies.Becouse even if Washington treaty was still there,british would built N3 and G3 battleships,which were actually good idea,and french ,Italy and Japan would build their super versions,too.
German would build much bigger Bismarck.
French and Italian do not count/french sunked by british traitors,italian never achieving anything/, But Japan would use theirs from 1941,and Bismarck would be too late to attack as OTL,but wait in Norway instead.And we would get some nice fight there.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
All true.I am simply interested how building,let say 2 of them would affect world navies.Becouse even if Washington treaty was still there,british would built N3 and G3 battleships,which were actually good idea,and french ,Italy and Japan would build their super versions,too.
German would build much bigger Bismarck.
French and Italian do not count/french sunked by british traitors,italian never achieving anything/, But Japan would use theirs from 1941,and Bismarck would be too late to attack as OTL,but wait in Norway instead.And we would get some nice fight there.
The UK and Japan would have put their super versions in the water because they were already in the works and feasible for the slipways they had available.

France and Italy. Nope. France didn't have the slipways and Italy didn't have the industry or the money.

The only other countries capable of building Dreadnoughts at the time were Spain (barely, with British help) and Russia (not anymore by then). Everyone else bought theirs (Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Turkey), no longer existed (Austria-Hungary), or had been disarmed (Germany).
 

ATP

Well-known member
The UK and Japan would have put their super versions in the water because they were already in the works and feasible for the slipways they had available.

France and Italy. Nope. France didn't have the slipways and Italy didn't have the industry or the money.

The only other countries capable of building Dreadnoughts at the time were Spain (barely, with British help) and Russia (not anymore by then). Everyone else bought theirs (Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Turkey), no longer existed (Austria-Hungary), or had been disarmed (Germany).
So,Italian get more trashed,and if germans follow with Bismarck,it would sunk quickly.But still lost to japaneese.
USA would lost one in Pearl Harbour,and others would do nothing important.Maybe except facing Yamato in 1944.
Japan - they would do something only if they send them to Gualdalcanal.Otherwise - nothing changed.
Maybe sunk more in Philippines in 1944,but still lost.

P.S Tillman 4/2 looked best of all of them,but Tillman 2 was most cool.24*406 would be fun to see.I always wonted to check how turret with 6 *406mm guns work.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Funnily enough, there is a video on the Tillmans on youtube by one of the more favored military gurus:


Please also note that Tillman was a rampant racist even for his time. Some of his comments were, from my quick glances, something that should never be repeated if they were recorded at all.

In addition, the USN had a literal shoestring budget because Congress would always try to kill the US military...
 

ATP

Well-known member
Funnily enough, there is a video on the Tillmans on youtube by one of the more favored military gurus:


Please also note that Tillman was a rampant racist even for his time. Some of his comments were, from my quick glances, something that should never be repeated if they were recorded at all.

In addition, the USN had a literal shoestring budget because Congress would always try to kill the US military...


In those times anybody except Poland was racist.And even now everybody except dying white people is racist,too.
Congress try to kill military for good reason - not turning Republic into Empire,which happened after WW2.
And - i still wontto see those monsters builded.Becouse then british,japaneese and maybe others would build their own,and,when it not change WW2,it certainly made it more cool.
And,in my persnal opinion,if world could not be better,then,at least,made it more cool!
 

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Everyone would build bigger.
The G3/N3 were the response to the Lexington class (which became carriers instead) and the South Dakota (Which would have had better armament than the Montana) The Tillman would push it to another level up so the British response would likely need to be the battleship sister of the Incomparable class which was planned to use 20 inch guns.

The Japanese have the Kii class and an early 18 inch design planned as their own response, and they did have the ability to build their own 20 inch guns in the 1920s so in theory could also build something to fight a Tillman. Assuming they have the cash.

So both Japan and Britain could build their own Tillman at least in terms of technology and dockyard capacity, something that would exceed the N3 or Yamato class in terms of size and firepower, but at hideous cost.

Probably all of them would be too slow for WWII and torpedo magnets :p
 

Buba

A total creep
Everyone would build bigger.
The 50-60K ton ships were the limit of existing infrastructure. Slips, drydocks, Panama Canal locks, gun barrel casting pits ...
E.g. I'm not sure if the RN could build and service the Yamato.
Hence to the cost of ships add expenditure for infrastructure.
BTW - in the 20's there should be a pause in "displacement creep", as oil fired watertube boilers give major savings in weight. Also - triple and quad turrets, AoN armour scheme ...
 

Harlock

I should have expected that really
I'd say it varies, the biggest yards on the Clyde could handle ships up to 900-1000 feet long and in the 80k ton range during that era, and both the UK and Japan had the machinery to manufacture 20 inch guns (as did the US of course) So I'd say that in terms of just building the things it would be possible if not easy.
Infrastructure is definitely a limit as at least at first there's only one UK yard and only one arsenal that can make material on that scale, but I guess if you only plan a couple of them it could be done.

Be interesting to see if the Nelson style design would be favoured, a lot of the early Japanese designs had that same all guns forward design too and looked exactly as unlovely :p
 

Buba

A total creep
The French managed to make the all forward armament look good
Debatable.
:p

Be interesting to see if the Nelson style design would be favoured,
I, for one, would love to see the G3 or N3 built. Also oddball.
Should be prettier than the Nelrods :)


a lot of the early Japanese designs had that same all guns forward design too and looked exactly as unlovely :p
They unleashed such hentai on the world with their heavy cruiser seaplane carriers ...

the biggest yards on the Clyde could handle ships up to 900-1000 feet long
Is that THAT slip where you lanch a ship which, after hitting the water, then crosses the Clyde and - as it is longer than the Clyde is wide - floats into the mouth of a tributary of the Clyde?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Is that THAT slip where you lanch a ship which after hitting the water then crosses the Clyde and - as it is longer than the Clyde is wide - floats into the mouth of a tributary of the Clyde?

Yeah that's the one I think, must have been quite a clenching moment launching something from there :p

I'd have liked to see this one built, one of the original designs for Yamato




would have used diesel engines too hence no big funnel. Very interesting take
 

ATP

Well-known member
How,in your opinion it change WW2 sea battles ? except british G3 battlecruisers sinking Bismarck in first battle,i do not see much changes.Except far more cool battles on Pacyfic with the same results.

Wait! Hitler could order scrapping all battleships in 1941.More U-boots.Could they win Atlantic battle thanks to that ?
 

Harlock

I should have expected that really
G3 class were good fast battleships, but I think the monster ships are too slow for real fights. Great for convoy escorts and shore bombardment, but I suspect most of their targets would just run away :p

Maybe youd have 18 inch guns replace 16 inch on whatever exists instead of the Iowa or Lion class but I reckon carriers are still the thing. With no treaty limits you may in fact see much bigger carriers deployed earlier. An Essex instead of Yorktown, Taiho maybe


As for U-boats, probably too late by 41. Mid to late 1940 is their best chance
 

Buba

A total creep
except british G3 battlecruisers sinking Bismarck in first battle,
In a world where "Tillman's" - this could be the name for successors to "superdreadnaughts" - are built the Bismark would be different.
It would be 55K tons - or more - and 4x2x42cm.
Armour scheme still sucks, though.
With no treaty limits you may in fact see much bigger carriers deployed earlier.
Could be the reverse. The USN hot-rods aka useless junkpiles get completed as battlecruisers, same happening in the IJN. With money poured into various Tillmans all you get are Hosho's or Langley's for scout planes.
Larger, c. 15K tons, purpose build carriers would come in the early/mid 30s. Thus development of carrier aviation may be delayed by a decade or so. Still, Essexes/Indomitables/Shokakus may very well show up more or less on schedule ...
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
In a world where "Tillman's" - this could be the name for successors to "superdreadnaughts" - are built the Bismark would be different.
It would be 55K tons - or more - and 4x2x42cm.
Armour scheme still sucks, though.

Could be the reverse. The USN hot-rods aka useless junkpiles get completed as battlecruisers, same happening in the IJN. With money poured into various Tillmans all you get are Hosho's or Langley's for scout planes.
Larger, c. 15K tons, purpose build carriers would come in the early/mid 30s. Thus development of carrier aviation may be delayed by a decade or so. Still, Essexes/Indomitables/Shokakus may very well show up more or less on schedule ...

Two G3 against bigger Bismarck - i think,that they still sunk her.And you are right about carriers - with more money poured into Tillmans,there would be less for anything else.So,navies probably use scout carriers for their monsters.
 

Harlock

I should have expected that really
Two G3 against bigger Bismarck - i think,that they still sunk her.And you are right about carriers - with more money poured into Tillmans,there would be less for anything else.So,navies probably use scout carriers for their monsters.

I'd guess a G3 and whatever gets built instead of a KGV. Improved Lion class maybe? There was a version planned with 12x16 inch guns like the Montana. Maybe one of those paper ships from world of warships :p

Interesting to speculate what the 1930s would bring in the wake of an arms escalation. I'd guess 18 inch guns become standard as the big navies all had prototypes, and its a fair point carriers may develop less if more money goes into guns.
Cruisers would be interesting too, Japan and the US had some powerful ships planned but I think only a handful of Alaskas were used
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top