Tillman Battleships

[@robertstone9988]

I want to see him and drach do a live chat together

[@KrazzyKelsie]

Then have the Iowa captain drach had on join them.

[@scottciesielski6854]

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! Drach already does so much streaming.....just gotta find Ryan 3 hours of spare time....especially because I think there would be so many good questions between them, from both to the other. HEY RYAN YOU BUSY NEXT SATURDAY ????

[@billbrockman779]

Drach plans to visit Battleship NJ this year if he can and has been planning with Ryan, from what he says.

[@nyrmetros]

Drach and the USS New Jersey team!

[@robertstone9988]

@@nyrmetros they should do a companion stream maybe a podcast from the helm of the New Jersey

[@bskorupk]

Given the size trends of Destroyers, I wonder how long it will be before Congress asks the Navy for plans for a Maximum Destroyer?

[@Orinslayer]

They got the Zumwalt.. Also, the arsenal ship concept exists, which is basically just a missile silo farm.

[@jamesharding3459]

@Will Kelly Senator Tillman: *My goals are beyond your understanding.*

[@jacksons1010]

@Will Kelly Congress does set some requirements for the Navy, though. The Zumwalt class has those 6”/62 guns because Congress demanded the USN maintain a shore bombardment capability. Once those were under construction Congress allowed the Navy to release _Iowa_ and _Wisconsin_ from being retained for that role. Twist ending: Congress failed to fund the ammunition for those 6”/62’s, and reduced the planned Zumwalt class from 32 ships to just 3.

[@polygondwanaland8390]

@Will Kelly Congress can force something to be directly procured by law, even if it's a terrible idea. For example: the SLS rocket. If Congress passed a law requiring the Navy to adopt a super destroyer or whatever, the Navy would have to humor them.

[@evensgrey]

@@Orinslayer There was even a design study for such a conversion of an Iowa class. It was rejected because of both the immense cost for the conversion and operating the result, and the lack of any plausible enemy requiring the sheer number of missile tubes the thing would carry.

[@mammutMK2]

I love how you are saying "we have an Iowa class battleship". Pronounce it like it's normal to have a battleship standing in your backyard, like someone is just saying "I have a boat when you want to do a trip up the river"

[@Grimmwoldds]

America, land of the HEAVILY armed and armored museum.

[@mammutMK2]

@@Grimmwoldds when a museum has more firepower then the navy of some contry

[@francissullivan5900]

@@mammutMK2 When one of the museums has more fire power than the navies of some countries.

[@Vinemaple]

"We have an Iowa-class battleship at home. We don't need to buy a Montana."

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Another disadvantage would be: since the size limits the number of potential ports and docks, the movement of the Tillmann clas would be more predictable (as in: put your Minefield here!)

[@evensgrey]

Or, if you're in a position to do so, "Take or destroy these facilities and the Tillman's have to withdraw all the way over there to refit or resupply (and our subs are busily mining the crap out of the approaches)."

[@comentedonakeyboard]

@@evensgrey the Bismarck couldnt use the Kiel canal, due to size. And later she had to move towards StNazaire, because it was the only dry dock big enough. Made her movements somewhat predictable.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Yes, but no one really had (or has) the capability to place a significant mine field near a US port. By WWII, you could park a bunch of subs outside some ports, but it would take a lot of torpedoes to sink one of these things, and they’d be heavily escorted, so it’s pretty unlikely you’d be able to sink one that way. The biggest disadvantage (besides cost) would be that they could only be in one place at once. An enemy could put fewer, smaller battleships in more places at once, and the Tillmans had to pick one. Also, while faster than most battleships, it couldn’t catch some of the faster ones or any of the battlecruisers. That could have changed with engine replacement in the 1930s though.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

@@bluemarlin8138 has anyone ever tried to mine a US harbour (Port Arthur style)?

[@TheRealJohnux]

@@comentedonakeyboard aren't you mixing this up with Tirpitz? Since Bismarck as far as I know, could barely use the Kiel Kanal, but still could use it. Plus, she was on it's way to Brest not exactly St.Nazaire in particular.

[@mdwallace]

We do these videos on Battleship New Jersey because 'that is the battleship we have' 🤣

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Excellent point!

[@cavecookie1]

Well, their battleship is better than mine!

[@wolfhalupka8992]

a wonderful statement !! love it...

[@jimtalbott9535]

Design Bureau: “Senator Tillman, how much armor and firepower should these ships have?” Tillman: “Yes please!”

[@clintcarpentier2424]

"All of them!"

[@redshirt5126]

the best part is that Tillman basicly said something along thoes lines irl

[@RayyMusik]

@@redshirt5126 The best part is the drachism “In 1918 he (Tillman) did everyone a favour and died“. :D

[@jetdriver]

In fairness the issue with British Battlecruisers was much less about turret armor and numbers and more about ammunition handling practices. It was those practices which led to all the magazine explosions at Jutland.

[@unluckyirish2763]

I dunno man. Taking the flash doors off and stacking gunpowder and shells in those openings cant possibly have repercussions

[@ZGryphon]

"Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

[@TheDogGeneral]

Rear Admiral Chatfield was also the person that describe Hood's armor system as insufficient and inadequate against her own caliber guns Ryan is wrong here when he says HMS Hood was armored against 15 inch shell she was not it penetrated her deck armor and blew up her Magazine from Bismarck the Japanese battleship nagato had a heavier broadside than the battlecruiser HMS Hood

[@jetdriver]

@@TheDogGeneral Bismarcks shell did NOT penetrate her deck armor. That’s been known to be false for decades now. The current thinking is a shell got in by going under her armor belt via a wave trough. Also Hood’s armor was on the same scale as that fitted to contemporary battleships and also had the benefit of being angled. Where there known weak spots in her protection against 15” shells? Yes. But it’s not correct to state she wasn’t armored against 15” fire based on her loss.

[@TheDogGeneral]

@@jetdriver the Royal Navy concluded in 1938 that hoods deck armor was insufficient for guns of her own Caliber rear Admiral Chatfield had concluded that in 1920 after she was commissioned for you to say Bismarck shells did not penetrate her deck armor were you there ? Also the Royal Navy called Hood a battle cruiser because they considered her a battle cruiser the fact that she had contemporary Armament to the previous class of Battleship is not relevant whatsoever and she may have had more armor than a Queen Elizabeth class Battleship by tonnage but the distribution was ineffective the Royal Navy's own personal repositories at the National Archives Kew confirm that and at the Imperial War Museum that I visited in 2014 so you are incorrect bismarck's 15-inch guns penetrated Hood's armor in detonated her rear magazine which catastrophically destroyed the ship everybody would like to pretend that it was a so-called lucky shot or one in a million or the gold and shot as Ryan says on his channel but there's no proof of that what there is proof is is that the battle cruiser Hood exploded when the battleship Bismarck penetrated its armor

[@unIDfied]

Ryan’s slight smug smile when he says “because we have an Iowa-class battleship”… priceless!!! Lucky you, Mr. Szymansky, and lucky us for battleship New Jersey having you on board!!!!

[@rekit7351]

Idea for something to film: You could always try filming the path from the lowest deck, to where ever the guy would escape to if the ship was sinking. When i was a kid, I used to wonder why people couldnt escape a sinking ship. Now i am just curious to see how difficult it would have been and how long it would have taken.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnm7fYODat2bbbM

[@rekit7351]

Awesome, thanks!

[@nk_3332]

Oh bugger, the ship is on fire!

[@JoshuaTootell]

It was standard to learn your escape method on the first day you arrived on board. "Here's your rack. Here is a blindfold. Now get out"

[@Paladin327]

“The belt would be 18” thick. Which is pretty thicc” Thiccer than a bowl of oatmeal is the correct term i believe

[@tripletimeace609]

lol

[@grumpyboomer61]

Thiccer than cold peanut butter.

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

Thicc Thighs, save lives.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

The yamato was 16" thick, so not THAT far away from reality.

[@flyingpancake3983]

My favorite nickname for the Tillmans now: big canoe

[@flyingpancake3983]

Or danger canoe

[@federicoviolino6784]

Better USS Compensation

[@SoaCrow]

Fattleship

[@ShadrachVS1]

I still wonder if Japan didn't gain a copy of one of these plans, and build the Yamato & Musashi off the basis...

[@overboss9599]

@@ShadrachVS1 japan knew they existed, but Yamato and Musashi were logical continuations of the gradual escalations of battleships that had been the norm before the naval treaty era.

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

The originator of one of my naval meme phrases. A weapon to surpass Tillman IV

[@christiansee2500]

Do you mean Tillman IV-2?

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

@@christiansee2500 I don’t remember the specific one off the top of my head always so I just say IV. Because there was a few powerful versions of 4

[@jamesharding3459]

I’m stealing it.

[@andrewcubbage1007]

A weapon to surpass aTillman IV - how about a B29 with an implosion design A-bomb! 😀

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

@@jamesharding3459 do it

[@kmacthebest]

Would like to see a collaboration with the Bilge Pumps (armored carriers, Drach and Dr. Alex Clark). No idea about the topic, just would like this be a 24 hour live stream. Make it a fundraiser for the BB New Jersey and maybe the Portsmouth Naval museum?

[@seanmac1793]

Or maybe the new Royal marines museum

[@SomeoneDK]

Could be a good idea for fundraising say Dec 7th for 12 or 24 hours...

[@AC_WILDCARD]

That would be awesome

[@protokevinleversee975]

Ryan, I've been watching all your video's. I really like how you have understood the digital realm and made this such a work of love for the Battleship New Jersey

[@dannyisaacs7552]

Once again another great topic. I had not heard of the Tillman concept. Building bigger piers, drydocks, and such never stopped us when the Carriers got bigger. You do what is needed.

[@fko1]

Never knew about these Tillmans before seeing this video. Thanks @battlehipnewjersey

[@evensgrey]

The British battlecruisers exploding at Jutland was mostly not the result of inadequate armor and too many turrets. The problem was that there had been a monomaniacal drive to increase the rate of fire. For this goal, things like the flash doors, which were part of the internal defenses of the ships meant to inhibit the spreading of fire and explosions in the hoistways for ammunition and propellants, had been removed. Further, the increased rate of fire resulted in the magazine space not being able to hold ammunition and propellant for the period of sustained fire required, so additional projectiles and propellants were stacked wherever could be found space in and around the turrets. This further meant that hatches that should have been dogged closed in battle were locked open so the additional projectiles and propellant could be manhandled into the turrets. And just to make things a bit worse, there is evidence that because the propellant bags were not being handled correctly they were leaving propellant trails back to the makeshift magazines when they were brought up. This is where the thinner armor of WWI era battlecruisers becomes an issue: It was relatively easy to penetrate the armor on the turrets, and if that happened all the other things that were done mean that the explosion that would have otherwise disabled that turret could spread through the whole ship and completely destroy it.

[@HrothgarHeavenlight]

There was actually one british battlecruiser (HMS Lion) which famously while damaged severly did not succumbed to explosions like other british vessels , as it had used proper procedures.

[@7thsealord888]

Good video. Noting that there were a number of instances where navies designed and built warships in response to ship designs they THOUGHT another navy was about to build. So, if someone out there heard of the Tillmann designs, and then drew their own conclusions ... well, the idea could have gone viral, so to speak. "THEY'RE building one, so where is ours?!?!? Get On It!!!!!!" "Yessir!"

[@Paladin327]

In reference to british battlecruisers having a higher chance of a catastrophic kaboom, i believe a lot of that was because the british would stage shells and propellant in a way that would increase rate of fire but also increase the chance of detonation

[@michaeledmonds8490]

Great comments and video archives.

[@CH3TN1K313]

@ 22:25 Ryan, a man of culture. Get that triple turret superfiring over a dual turret OUTTA HERE!!!

[@brucermarino]

Great video again! Didn't the "turret farms" of WW I generally explode because of poor ammunition handling as part of the rate of fire cult and not because of the multiplicity of turrets? Thanks again!

[@adamdubin1276]

Yes, but having a number of magazines spaced throughout the ship probably didn't help.

[@keeshahdarkfurr8328]

The British ships were exploding from a turret hit because they were storing shells an power in the turrets, as well has leaving the blast doors open to achieve a higher rate of fire

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

They were also battle cruisers now battle ships

[@brucermarino]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer yes but it still seems to be the show handling that was the issue as Tiger demonstrated at the Battle of Jutland.

[@brucermarino]

@@adamdubin1276 it didn't help but it wasn't the cause. Note HMS Tiger.

[@mokdumoknonsharrall1868]

Video suggestion: What changes would Ryan make if he were redesigning the Iowa class battleships? Assume they were being built during the same time period, but it could include changes that will make them more versatile/effective in the future deployments. I'm wondering about things like: specific armor configuration, move turret #3 5-feet forward to make more room for X, get rid of the bridge tower, or replace compartments on the 01 level with something more useful...

[@seanmac1793]

that's a good idea

[@Maty83.]

X turret would add 3000t more to the ship, so there is not much to be done there. You'd have to drop the speed which would be... Unwise given their role as carrier escorts. Other than that it could be interesting, especially since you have the exposed shell rooms for 5" mounts on the Iowas and the bow has negative buoyancy. So "Given future knowledge of the expansion of the Panama Canal and NJs service, along with the known flaws of the ship, how would you re-design the ship?"

[@can_hauler]

Adding another turret aft would turn NJ into a Montana class

[@philb5593]

Ryan already did a video about "What the Navy doesn't like about the Iowas" Basically you look at what changes were made as the Iowas were built, how they were modified, and what was going to be different in the Montanas.

[@bkjeong4302]

Don’t build them and build four more Essexes.

[@juliankremer1900]

I'd love to see a comparison video of the Iowa class vs the German H-series battleships.

[@bkjeong4302]

An Iowa (or a Yamato) would actually be flat-out superior to the H-class proposals that were taken seriously (H-39 to H-42), despite being smaller. German naval design in WWII sucked due to loss of design expertise after WWI.

[@Balmung60]

H-44 was kind of like Tillman 4, in that it was a design study that could theoretically overpower any known battleship (even multiples of them) and never had any chance of actually being built.

[@Jinke888]

Best naval channel

[@joshuamitcham1519]

I come for battleship content Ryan...I was offended by the comment about Pensacola class cruisers. Those architects deserved a medal 🏅for that design given the intent of doctrine and limitations placed,I think it was a beautiful class.The bow alone makes it better than most inter-war cruisers regardless of nationality.

[@JoshSees]

Production quality keeps going up. Cheers.

[@Shadx27]

Powder handling was the main issue for the British during Jutland, armor was a bit of a contributor to that.

[@SSarrival]

When you come down here to visit the NC will you be doing a video about the torpedo hit on her? She still has the handwriting from the workers at Pearl Harbor on the plates they put in too. I got a gift to give ya as well!

[@pigbay]

I would love to see maybe a stream of Ryan trying out World of Warships and just judge all the paper ships they put in the game. (As well as some real ones)

[@Revkor]

like the 2nd US BB line, they are practically tillmans

[@Derin7890]

Russian Carriers

[@Armoredcompany]

So, the lesson of the British Battlecruisers at Jutland is represented a little miss-leadingly here I feel. The designs were solid designs, the problem was that all of their safety features has been disabled or bypassed by the crews. Had the Royal Navy actually enforced it's own written operating procedures many of the Battlecruisers that detonated should have survived those hits, minus the turret in question of course. Their mistake was storing powder charges in places that were NOT the powder magazine in order to load more ammunition that was technically allocated onboard. They also tended to habitually lock open the flash doors separating the powder rooms from the turret barbets. This meant that the impact flash in the barbet would enter the powder magazine, resulting in the detonations that were witnessed. If they had used their ships correctly it isn't a very big stretch to say that there should have been FAR fewer, or even no catastrophic magazine explosions.

[@johnshepherd9676]

The two first generation battlecruisers had insufficient armor to stand up to capital ship armarment. At least one went up when a shell penetrated the belt.

[@Armoredcompany]

@@johnshepherd9676 Correct, one. Like I said, we might not have seen a complete elimination of magazine detonations, but we would have seen a dramatic reduction. Sure a turret might be disabled, but with the flash protection measures in place a magazine detonation wouldn't have been a sure thing without a direct hit to the magazine itself

[@austinhughes6852]

The Tillman’s sounds like a nice.Sports car that you only drive.When the weather is nice.

[@timberwolf1575]

The sheer absurdity of the recoil forces that a 6x16" gun turret would have to deal with is mind boggling. Trying to design the turret to be accurate while firing those monsters would be a major challenge before computers. The kind of harmonics, stresses, and deformations you would see in the turret structures would probably make them hilariously inaccurate and a maintenance challenge. The design of the barbet and turret ring to withstand the forces of a simultaneous salvo would probably be hilariously difficult to get right.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

That’s more firepower than Renown & Repulse in one turret…

[@Odin029]

Tillman IV is my favorite because it's the most impractical, ridiculous design of them all. 24 gun barrels... half the ships crew is only there to handle powder.

[@terrygardner3031]

One of the reasons for English battleship/battlecruisers blowing up was Beaty's not enforcing safety procedures in the magazines keeping blast doors open so as to increase loading speed.

[@jimmymullen3016]

In the super-battleship alternate history what would be the impact on the development and use of carriers? I only really know anything about the 8 planned by the British (and now Tillman ships), but in the 20s was there even any notion that aircraft might ever be large enough to carry a weapon that could do more than scratch the paint of these things? Could they have actually pushed back the rise of the carrier?

[@gunrunner7224]

Probably we'd just end up with bigger carriers armed with lots more planes and heavier bombs and torps then what was in use not to mention that subs carrying said torps would have a field day firing spreads at those monsters.

[@rinzler9171]

Battleships actually resisted a lot of that in the Pacific theatre. Every battleship out there that was taken out by a carrier, all Japanese, required several carriers to knock out of action and lead to either a sinking or a scuttling. On the American side, with the updates to Anti-air and the use of all the fire directors, I think there are about 8 of these on the refitted standards as well as 8 on all the 3rd Gen Battleships. For reference Essex class I believe also had 8 directors. Battleships generally were not shooting at other ships in the war so the directors normally used for hitting ships were utilized for killing planes. The battleships in the battle line each acted as a sort of force multiplier for the effectiveness of AA. The more of these ships you had near each other, the heavier the flak, which either brought down aircraft intent on fighting a other day, or outright deterred them from attacking altogether. I say for the former, "attack with intent to fight another day," because I guess with the fight profiles of inbound suicidal kamikaze pilot/missile hybrids direct hits were the only thing that were going to drop them, and they had zero intention of surviving the collision. It seemed to change a lot of how AA was effective or not. If the kamakazi planes were simply missiles (some say they were human guided missiles), I guess AA of the time seemed to have an issue bringing these down. The major innovations that spelled the end of battleships as a viable contender for queen of the seas was either nuclear power for the submarines after the war, or developments such as the Fritz X guided bomb dropped from well beyond any capable AA capability, and the potential for nuclear versions of these guided weapons. Every sinking of a battleship in WWII had arguements going for and against them when it came to carriers--- admittedly though I am a bit weak on my knowledge of the Italian dreadnoughts. My impression is Ark Royal or some other famous carrier rendered them a joke, threatening to make a lie of my entire post.

[@Philistine47]

The earliest torpedo bombers flew before WW1, so the idea of aircraft posing a real threat to surface ships - even large ones - was already in circulation. It wasn't enormously _practical_ yet in the 1920s, as better performance and improved reliability were really wanted, but improvements in aero engines and aircraft construction were clearly coming sooner or later. I think that an alternate history with super battleships in the 20s might actually have seen "have-not" navies putting _more_ emphasis on aerial attack, as a cost-effective alternative to the massive investment required to build, operate, and support such large ships.

[@Maty83.]

If it came at the cost of radar and AA control, then probably not. The big thing about large ships is how many AA guns you can put on the sodding things. And if you give them central AA control you will get a murderous barrage more than enough to take out a substantial amount of planes, though enough may get through eventually. There would be a certain point in the late 1930s and early 40s when ships would be very vulnerable to planes, as happened historically due to the technological advancements of aircraft over fire control, but.... As you get new ships (Look at Iowa), these become supreme AA platforms. Now imagine 8 5"/38 twin mounts per side instead of the five you have on Iowa, with the same or higher amounts of Bofors. One or two CVs would pose pretty much zero threat to such a vessel if it were escorted by a couple treaty cruisers and destroyers (Mainly thinking about Brooklyns with their 40-degree elevation main guns with VT fuses along with 5" and a Benson/Sims-class DDs as escorts) Especially given the increases in torpedo protection and armour, which would be enough to keep bombs from destroying the ship. A swarm of 300+ aircraft would still be a kill, just as happened with Yamato, but at that point you're probably losing the war if the enemy can field 5 carriers unopposed.

[@jetdriver]

I don’t see these ships radically altering the rise of the aircraft carrier. Carriers would likely have been bigger from the start but were limited by the Washington Treaty. But if these ships are built there is a high probability that the treaty doesn’t come along as it did historically or at all. So I suspect you see larger carriers sooner but the development of naval aircraft likely continues along a similar path. It’s also worth noting that WWII carrier aircraft were quite capable of sinking one of these ships

[@jedhaney3547]

Omg, would love to see the 24 main gun variant as one of the new Super battleships in World of Warships lol. With the Satsuma and the Hanover in game atm this is getting crazy lol.

[@unluckyirish2763]

The Lyon has a 16 gun broadside. Divisions of those are terrifying. Now make that a 24 gun ship and a division of 2 or 3

[@jedhaney3547]

@@unluckyirish2763 Yep, but the Lyon had 13.4 inch guns, not 16 inch like the before mentioned example lol. There was also Tillman variant with like 15 18 inch guns as well lol!

[@k1tsun386]

@@unluckyirish2763 Also the Cristoforo Colombo

[@chopper7352]

Ryan gets "Triggered" from 21:45 to 22:30 about the mixing of turrets with different gun configurations on battleships. As always... a great comparison discussion.

[@grathian]

Panama Canal was the most obvious, but not the only restriction. Clearance of the Brooklyn Bridge to allow entry into the New York Navy Yard, as well as the draft were also limits.

[@codyhilton1750]

Another good one Ryan.

[@valleywoodstudio7345]

Fascinating!

[@richhoule3462]

This man sure loves his battleships lol. Awesome video! Thanks!.

[@rinzler9171]

I love the historical footage.

[@toddwebb7521]

Tillman 4-2 vs Yamato is the fight everyone wants to see

[@chrisbruce5711]

Yep

[@philb5593]

Tillman vs Yamato and Musashi would be a more even fight. 15 18in guns vs 2 ships with 9 18in guns each

[@rinzler9171]

"I consider it the first fast battleship..." Yes!

[@timwf11b]

I believe the issue with the British battlecruisers blowing up wasn't so much the turret layout as it was partially the lower armor, and even more so improper safety procedures in the turret and shell and powder lifts.

[@beware3586]

If we’re discussing paper ships I would be curious to see how you think the Iowa class would do against the H-class if the Kriegsmarine had been able to build them

[@Vinemaple]

I love how practical and realistic Ryan is in these comparisons, even when he has to give advantage to the other ship. I'm linking this video to The Mighty Jingles's recent USS Vermont video... Also, I somewhere got the idea that Tillman was crusading *against* the growing size and expense of American battleships, and ordered the plans so he could point to their excess... I think the Wikipedia article characterizes him that way. Any information? [EDIT] More recently I've found out that he was more likely advocating what he believed would be an "end run" around incremental improvements, not understanding that the technology was advancing too fast to build a battleship that wouldn't become obsolete, nor did he understand that the older battleships weren't entirely obsolete, immediately. Ironically, the USN was probably employing the best strategy to deal with the problem.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

That would be accurate. 🙂

[@Vinemaple]

@@grahamstrouse1165 But the Navy top brass kept pulling them out and going, "Ooh, shiny!" for decades, to the horror of their more experienced subordinates...

[@DarkestVampire92]

Would be neat to see a followup video to this with the 1934 Maximum Battleship designs, since thats more comparing apples with apples rather than comparing an ancient design from 1917 with the very last hoorah of the battleship era. (Vanguard doesnt count)

[@douglasmiller8607]

Using the Tillman hull size to develop super carriers with full length angled armoured decks with side deck elevators (no elevators in flight deck) basicly a Nimitz size carrier

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

No it's not

[@michaeltillman1147]

Since Tillman is my family name I love this topic! I'm picturing some Admiral calling in the Tillman whenever he needed a line breaker. Kicking ship and taking names. With the thing having a relatively shallow draft it could even maneuver better for flanking. Got me daydreaming for sure! 😎

[@jimfleming3975]

I hope you're not related!

[@Landkreuzer1944]

Can you do a video on a hypothetical battle between Yamato or Bismark and an Iowa class Battleship? Both sides containing a reasonable task force with no carriers, but allowing for float planes would make the scenario more realistic. I hope to be able to visit New Jersey or one of the other Iowa class museum ships in America to support you guys, history deserves to be preserved and remembered, and battleships to me are part of the pinnacle of human engineering and the majestic culmination of thousands of years of naval warfare

[@danmathers141]

I have learned much more here about battleships the could have been built. I have always been a friend of the Montana class. I used to think they were an elongated Iowa with the same speed and modernization of the times. I understand why they weren't built but it would be cool to have one or two of these around.

[@dave8599]

Fewer turrets also means you can armor them better for a given weight verses lots of turrets, i.e. a turret farm battleship. This means thicker armor, lessening the chance of damage.

[@bullreeves1109]

Ah yes. The Battleships that would make Yamato run in terror in a time when the strongest ships afloat were the Queens and Nevada’s.

[@adamdubin1276]

Don't forget the Bayern-class

[@rich7934]

With the comment about `Turret farms' blowing up, the British were known to leave the doors open through the barbette armor from the lower turret to the magazine for quicker transfers. IIRC the British also tended to leave extra powder and shells in the lower turret, than they were supposed to in the name of firing speed. Basically turning the turrets into oversized pipe bombs. Powder & shell skuttles like those used on later battleships (one from the magazine to lower barbette and a second one from lower barbette to inside the lower turret) would solve this issue as the blast couldn't leave the barbette and get into the magazine. I think the turrets of the USS Olympia even had the skuttles, and she was built before the Tillmans would have been started. After that it would just have been discipline to prevent the circumventing of the skuttles. The IV-2 with the 5x3 18" turrets would be my preferred Tillman. The 6 gun turrets are too much unless the ship went wider for a bigger turret, but still that would be too many guns to risk on the `perfect shot' incapacitating the turret. Did the USN ever loose a New York/Texas class BB (or other USN BB with 3rd group of turrets) because of a turret blowing up, causing a magazine chain reaction?

[@barrybend7189]

So how good would they be if they were converted to carriers?

[@colinmurphy7522]

How about a library tour? Show off the books you have about ships, the navy, the conflicts New Jersey took part in, or anything else you find interesting !

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3zCfXekoMZ9Z9k

[@ChrisBrown-iu8ii]

Did any of the Tilmans have an alternate 20 inch main armament?

[@chrisbruce5711]

Nope

[@rhamph]

"Because we have an Iowa class battleship" is such a ludicrous thing to hear, yet here we are!

[@DarkestVampire92]

Side note, the point he makes about turrets taking a hit and blowing up the whole ship is pretty much limited to british battlecruisers, due to issues with flash tightness around the doors that keep the gun hoists and the magazines seperate. German battlecruiser Seydlitz fpr instance actually did suffer a magazine explosion, but managed to crawl back into port, and multiple other german ships suffered turret hits without getting their magazines exploded. The Iowa itself had an out-of-battery detonation occur shortly before the end of her service life, yet the magazine did not explode thanks to flash-tight doors and emergency crews standing by. Since Tillman's ships would have been built after WWI and after the battle of Jutland, there's no doubt in my mind that they would have looked very seriously at this problem when building these.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

What are the Tillman battleship designs? When somebody in Congress has zero idea how naval development works and asks the Navy to just design the biggest, baddest ships they can.

[@richardgreen1383]

Re: Drydocks. Granted, the USS Texas did not have access to a USN drydock, but one of the delays in getting her into dry dock (other than the $) was scheduling a dry dock big enough to get her in, and then they had to use two smaller dry docks connected with a slight extension on one of those. I think there are only two dry docks big enough to take a Nimitz or Ford class carrier (other than the construction dry dock, and I think there is only one on each coast.

[@josephbaker677]

I would like to know all the "ships duty`s" that a sailor could be assigned too. Explaining their massive crew sizes while underway.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Able bodied poopdecker, senior poopdecker, midship poopdecker, officer poopdecker, captain poopdecker

[@comradevlad7459]

If you want to see the closest thing to a Tillman Battleship, look up USS Vermont on World of Warships. It is a somewhat similar version to a Tillman 4-1 and Tillman 1.

[@planetwisconsin9901]

Very much enjoy the videos! I would love to see something on the USS Ward.

[@Deltarious]

I think the super battleship concept was a reasonable one if you're following the doctrine to match- planning for an offensive war where you are trying to draw the enemy into a decisive engagement engaging multiple hostile battleships or surface combatants at once. However, as the history shows, the existence of viable carriers and airpower pretty much renders this concept obsolete entirely. You only need to deal wounding or debilitating damage to effectively remove the battleship from contention, and though it might not be at risk of sinking, it's going to be combat ineffective and therefore useless.

[@bkjeong4302]

Aircraft carriers rendered ALL battleships obsolete, not just superbattleships. And the Tillmans were designed long before the late 1930s, when the carrier rendered the battleship obsolete.

[@Nortonius_]

Context on the “pitchfork” moniker for these unbuilt ships’ namesake would have been interesting (and germane)! Great videos. Always interesting!

[@ZGryphon]

He was in the habit of publicly threatening to take a pitchfork to anyone he disagreed with, which was basically everybody--including, on one particularly memorable occasion, President Grover Cleveland. Senator Tillman was what we would now describe as "a real piece of work."

[@timothyboles6457]

So much to discuss here. Drachma did a similar video on the Tillman's. It would be interesting to see actual models of all the Tillman's next to any other US designed ships. The sheer ridiculous nature of the 6 gun turrets would be interesting. The 18" gun versions would have been interesting to develop. I understood that the issues that the British had at Dogger Bank and Jutland were they got lazy with ammunition and powder stowage during the battle. The Germans sort of had the same problem at Dogger Bank, but figured it out sooner than the British. I totally agree that building one or 2 of the Tillman's would have been a waste of time, energy, and money. But at the same time, imagine showing the flag to a potential future enemy with one! Especially the 24 gun versions. Or the 12 18" version.

[@barryjobe]

I'd like to see something on the Cleveland class light cruisers

[@stephenlaw9827]

Ryan and Drach are the best on You Tube.

[@Paladin327]

“Is 4 or 5 knot/ of extra speed worth the extra 10,000 tons” Probably, in terms of ships, 4 or 5 knots is a huge difference

[@jamesdenecochea5709]

Only if your strategy is use your Capital Ships as "floating anti-air batteries" in Fast Carrier Task Forces(like the Iowa-class).

[@Paladin327]

@@jamesdenecochea5709 that extra 4-5 knots could mean the difference between dictating range and preventing the enemy fleet from escaping or disengaging from a stronger fleet

[@KPen3750]

I loved Drachs Tillman battleship video informative and hilarious

[@chrisbruce5711]

Personally I sorta found it in poor taste. Like from the navy's porpective his reaction to the idea of the Tillmans is logical. Looking at it from the angle of a political standpoint it can be seen as a joke gone poorly. When Tillman made the suggestion to investigate the maximum battleship it was unambiguously voted for.

[@KPen3750]

@@chrisbruce5711 It may have been voted for unanimously, but congress aren't ship builders or designers, plus Tillman himself was a right bastard of a person. The navy did not want these battleships but some bright sparks in congress thought the Navy would want them. I don't see how its in poor taste to make fun of the outlandishness of these designs.

[@keefymckeefface8330]

@@chrisbruce5711 many a stupid idea has been unambiguously voted for. Not just the tillmans.

[@murderouskitten2577]

Nice video , but Drach nailed it with his mockery and sarcasm :)

[@edwardmcirvin8342]

An additional variant with 10 20" guns in 5 twin turrets would have been epic. I imagine you could fit those without much fuss onto the 15 18" gun design and still use the same armor and have the same speed.

[@lindsaybaker1733]

I like the unbuilt Lexington class Battlecruisers, had four been built along with the two converted into carriers. They would have been partially rebuilt with a new superstructure like the Iowa’s and with twin 5/38 and 40mm and 20mm AA guns.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

As regards turret farms and exploding British battle cruisers.....improperly storing ammo and powder in the turrets led to multiple ships explosions. Speed over saftey.

[@jessica4lovin]

thank you , for your ; dedication ! battleships , need love ; too !!

[@stephenmarshall3771]

Those six gun turrets would have not only been impractical due to space, but they would have no doubt had a slew of mechanical issues and breakdowns that would seem to never end

[@glennedgar5057]

I was reading the sister ship of the yamoto sortied two times during the taraw and wake island raids. Also, the ship sortied once to attu and was cancelled after attu fell. It would be fascinating to see how if these conflicts occurred if results would be different.

[@rogersmith7396]

I would go with the Lexingtons. As I recall they did have a hell of a lot of port holes though.

[@kurtthomsen2414]

Question: At around the 6:45 mark in the video there is a helicopter view of the #1 and #2 main batteries firing. Immediately after the guns fire the center gun in turret # 1 looks like it is retracted by around 5 feet (???). What's up with that?

[@johnking1896]

I think that for the 'giggles & grins' add Jingles for the absolute humor.

[@aaronp3411]

I remember seeing a design iteration for the South Carolina class that. If memory serves, it had three quadruple turrets in a super(duper)-firing trio all forward of the superstructure. I don’t remember where I found it, but I’d you guys have any info about it and would like it to share it in a video, you’d have at least one viewer.

[@jaybee9269]

Don’t care for the Tillmans too much but I would’ve liked to see a Lexington battlecruiser built…

[@EarthenDam]

One lucky Japanese submarine with sub version of the Long Lance and you just lost a huge amount of your fleets firepower if you had a few Tillmans over the much larger amount of smaller Battleships we did have. I wonder if they had been built if in a naval treaty it was demanded the US scrap them all?

[@jamesharding3459]

Subs carried the Type 95, not the Type 93. In terms of explosive power, they were comparable to the international standard 21” torpedo like the Mk14, British Mk8, or German G7a.

[@Klyis]

Any treaty probably would have allowed other nations to build something similar, which is essentially what happened with the Nagato class in real life. Nagato was the first battleship armed with 16" guns and was finished shortly before the Washington Naval Treaty. Originally the other signers of the treaty wanted Nagato scrapped but Japan naturally refused to destroy their brand new battleship. So instead a provision was added to the treaty which allowed other countries to also build a limited number of 16" gun battleships.

[@LudensP]

@@Klyis IIRC it was not Nagato but her unfinished sister Mutsu that was supposed to be scrapped. However, Mutsu's construction had been funded by a large public donation drive within Japan, so scrapping her would be a giant middle finger to the many Japanese that had donated their savings for the sake of national defence. The British and American negotiators used this to their advantage by arguing that they should be allowed 3 state-of-the-art capital ships each (in the UK's case: the 2 Nelsons plus Hood; the US got to keep a 3rd Colorado). I don't think they could have reasonably demanded that Japan demolish Nagato, without Britain also agreeing to scrap the much larger HMS Hood. And that wasn't going to happen. But your larger point is absolutely true: if the Tillmans had been built, the Washington Naval Treaty would most almost certainly have allowed other nations to construct something similar (unless construction hadn't progressed very far, and Congress really wanted their money back).

[@EarthenDam]

@ It seemed to me from the video it would have resulted in a significant amount less than the amount of actual battleships we ended up with, not counting how the Tillmans would have effected the London/Washington Naval Treaties. I doubt the US was going to spend more than they did historically so that means quite a few less ships. Before WW2 the US Congress was not too keen on large peacetime military budgets, nor was the tax payers of the time.

[@scottl9660]

There are both advantages and disadvantages for having fewer/better weapon systems. It gets exaggerated at the ends of the spectrum though. Even large battleship runs are measured in single digit units, so reducing from 4 to 3 or 6 to 4 is a pretty big hit. You can see the US navies thinking with the creation of the Yorktowns/Rangers to fill up thier treaty tonnage limits. They tended to be conservative and pick middle tonnage options with more hulls to move around and redundancy against that sub in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lastly I’d love to imagine how the Washington /London treaties would have played out if these monsters and the inevitable counters to them built around the world had actually been built. My guess is they would have been scrapped. As @LudensP said, Congress and parliaments around the world wanted to pay down their war debts and large navy expenditures run contrary to that goal.

[@notbobrosss3670]

Ahh the Tillman’s. The idea of the one eyed Bond villain from central casting that got elected to congress. 🤔 that plot sounds familiar.

[@IRLangmaid25]

The H39 and H41 battleships in the German Z Plan would be interesting.

[@benwelch4076]

Great video as always, very in depth about the Tillmans. My idea could the New Jersey survive an attack against both the Tone and Chikuma if they already had their planes armed and in the air? Multiple opponents from multiple directions and different types of attacks.

[@alcanino2883]

Hi Ryan, Besides the different battleship guns of different calipers. How far past WW2 did the navy or the armaments to make and store the different calipers last?? Are there any stockpiles of 16" or smaller calipers still in inventory???

[@dennismason3740]

By golly the wooden deck looks fantastic, in color, from above. That is a ship.

[@klausschroiff4405]

An idea for a video - how was life in the spotting towers (especially WW I era) with all the coal/oil exhaust gases?

[@richardstansbury9788]

I am not sure if you've done a video of all the battle dressing stations, of course starting with main medical (Sick bay). On all except my last sea command (USS Carl Vinson), most ships had three. On the Carrier we had six, Main Medical (Sick bay), Forward Battle Dressing Station, Forward Auxiliary Battle Dressing Station, After Battle Dressing Station, After Auxiliary Battle Dressing Station and Flight Deck Medical.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJObhGR6i56CpNE

[@mauricedevine7350]

Interesting topic! Concerning 'turret strikes causing (British) ships to explode'; what are your thoughts regarding 'poor ammunition (propellant) handling practices being the great root cause?

[@jackwardley3626]

The Queen Elizabeth class battleships were supposed to be the first fast battleships doing 28knots but didn't want to spend the extra money on small tube boilers and they were originally going to have 10 15 inch guns but again money. I'm not sure by maybe the Nimtz class carries couldn't be as big and weigh what they do if they weren't nuclear powered.

[@Nebris]

'Turret farms' also means 'magazine farms', hence them blowing up so easily.

[@notme123123]

What was the strategy of ships like HMS Rodney/Nelson, with a super firing pair of turrets and a third at deck level behind the pair? That seems less useful that the two turrets forward and one aft design of the Iowas/South Dakotas/etc.

[@gregoryquinn3301]

To save weight, they were designed to treaty weight restrictions so all guns forward meant a smaller armored box which made the ships light enough for the treaty rules

[@steeljawX]

We really do have the technology to build a Tillman mockup (not that we need one that actually sails, just a water tight hull with equivalent weight of a bunch of engines and guns,) and yet it's some how more appealing for us to try to reconstruct a ship that head butted an iceberg and lost. I'm just saying it'd be fun to have a to scale mock up hull of a Yamato up against a scale mock up hull of a Montana up against a scale mock up hull of a Tillman Maximum. I feel like if given the entire line of US BB's, the Iowa class would be the "medium", Montana would be "large", and the Tillman would be "super-size". And some how all of them come with fries and a Coke. I have to, out of local pride, defend the offset number of guns in a turret on ships to an extent. I agree it looks bad for large guns. However the Pensacola class had ten 8" guns, so half the size of the Iowa class's guns. If they're smaller, I can give some lenience because it was kind of like, "PUT ON MOAR GUN THAN THE LAST ONE!!!! But don't sink it, please." I mean the prior class to the Pensacolas were the New Orleans class and they had nine 8" guns so they REALLY pushed the envelope with adding an extra turret and mathing out 1 more gun into the mix. But the Pensacolas were more of a victim of their time. They were the first cruisers built after the London Treaty was enacted placing limits on everything that wasn't a battleship. And the reason I have to back the Pensacola class is because of Swayback Maru. I digress, my personal opinion, up to a certain gun size, off number of guns per turret is okay. Once you exceed like 11" in gun size, now it's looking bad. But I can especially forgive the odd number of guns per turret if they're dual purpose guns like in the Cleveland's secondaries vs her primaries (triple primaries and single dual purpose secondaries.) Small caliber and pulling double duty. Understandable and forgivable.

[@steeljawX]

"Aircraft don't pose a threat to these things...." At the time, nah, they did. Today, they still do. Ask the Yamato how much of a threat airplanes were to her with her superior 18.1" Beehive AA round. At the time the Tillman was being contemplated, sure. There was only an air threat near the shores, but there's a reason why carriers are the coveted ships today over battleships.

[@tobyw9573]

In support of very large ships, consider an unloaded container ship such as Hong Kong Express which when loaded can reach speed of about 25 kts with an engine of approx 90,000 HP See Wikipedia: Hong Kong Express Perhaps such a ship could be compartmented, improved, etc., to such an extent that it would be extremely resistant to sinking. When powered up to battleship standards and relatively lightly loaded compared to its original design loads, it could perhaps increase its speed 50% or more. There are also characteristics of cruise ships and tankers that could be used to advantage.

[@SleepyWombat9696]

Clip idea: if a battleship was was built new today how different would it be to the iowa class. What would be computer controlled instead of people, amount of people need to run, even bigger guns? Nuclear powered , bigger? Etc