Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ralph090

Please stop calling the new American Battleships "Tillmans," because they're not.

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

38
[DOINK]
Members
17 posts
1,814 battles

Seriously. They're not Tillman battleships. They are all derivatives of the South Dakota (1920) class that were laid down prior to World War I and canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty. Their design was influenced by lessons learned from working on the Tillman designs somewhat, but they are really more of an escalation of the Standard Type.

The Tillman ships were designed as "maximum battleships" at the behest of Senator Benjamin Tillman. Tillman was Chairman of the Senate Committee of Naval Affairs (for anyone who doesn't know, the each house in the US Congress is subdivided into specialized committees and bills have to pass through the committee that has jurisdiction over the bill's topic before they can be heard on the floor of the whole chamber. as a result, the chairman of a committee has enormous power to block any legislation he/she personally doesn't like) and hated how the US Navy kept asking for bigger and bigger, and consequently costlier and costlier ships every year. Eventually, he demanded that the US Navy just tell him what the biggest battleship they would ever build would be so they could skip straight to that and Congress would never need to worry about paying for another battleship again. Because Tillman was Chairman of the Senate Committee of Naval Affairs and could thus block all funding to the US Navy entirely if he so chose, the Navy had to humor him and produced four main design studies, with the only limitation being that the ships needed to fit inside the Panama Canal locks, which were 1,000 feet long, 110 feet wide, and about 40 or so feet deep. These designs are as follows:

They were all about 975 feet long, 108 feet wide, and had a draft of 32 feet 9 inches. They had a full flush deck and a secondary battery entirely in hull casemates, which was possible due to the increased height over the Standard Class. Displacement is measured in American short tons. Also, I'm not differentiating between triple and three gun turrets because it's not particularly relevant and I can't find information on it anyways.

Tillman 1: Displacement: 70,000 tons. Armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Belt armor: 18 inches. Speed: 26 knots.

Tillman 2: Displacement: 70,000 tons. Armament: 24 16"/50 caliber guns in four six gun turrets. Belt armor: 13 inches. Speed: 26 knots.

Tillman 3: Displacement: 63,500 tons. Armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Belt armor: 13 inches. Speed: 30 knots.

Tillman 4: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament:  24 16"/50 caliber guns in four six gun turrets. Belt armor: 19 inches. Speed: 25 knots. They selected this design to develop further.

             Tillman 4-1: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament: 13 18"/50 caliber guns in five twin and one triple turrets. Belt armor: 16 inches. Speed: 25 knots.

             Tillman 4-2: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament: 15 18"/50 caliber guns in five triple turrets. Belt armor: 16 inches. Speed: 25 knots.

Now, for context, here is USS Colorado, the last of the Standards:

Displacement: 37,600 tons. Armament: 8 16"/45 caliber guns in 4 twin turrets. Belt armor: 13.5 inches. Speed: 21 knots. Length: 624 feet. Width: 97 feet 4 inches. Draft: 30 feet 6 inches. (again, the displacement is in short tons for comparison purposes. most figures, including the Washington Treaty, use long tons)

Senator Tillman died in 1918 from a cerebral hemorrhage, so the designs went no where after that as the US Navy wanted nothing to do with the ships. They were too big, to expensive, and too resource intensive to be practical. Instead, they finally managed to break with the Standard type, which was starting to become somewhat long in the tooth, during World War I. They opted for a number of improvements that resulted in a new class of ships:

South Dakota (1920): Displacement: 48,400 short tons. Main armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Secondary armament: 16 6"/53 caliber guns in casemates. Belt armor: 13.5 inches. Speed: 23 knots. Length: 660 feet. Width: 106 feet. Draft: 33 feet.

There are certainly some similarities, such as the main battery layout being the same as Tillmans 1 and 3 and the belt armor being roughly the same as Tillmans 2 and 3, but on the whole they are much closer to the Standard Type than the Tillmans. Their belt armor was exactly the same as the Standards, used the same all-or-nothing armor scheme, the same turbo-electric drive system, and their speed of 23 knots was "average" for the time, being about the same as the R and N3 classes of the Royal Navy and similar to the public figures of the Nagato class (the Japanese initially concealed their true 26 knot speed). The deck armor was however increased over the Standard Type. Also, the 16"/50 caliber gun was the Mark 2 variant, not the Mark 7 variant found on the Iowa class. It fired the same shell as the 16"/45 caliber gun used in the Colorado class, just with a higher muzzle velocity. The Mark 7 gun had a larger chamber so that it could fire the Mark 8 super-heavy shell. This is all in keeping with the design philosophy of the Standards, with heavy firepower in four main battery turrets, ideally triples, laid out in two superfiring pairs fore and aft, good armor protection, and speed that was exactly as fast as it needed to be and no more. It was not in the same family as the Tillman "everything and the kitchen sink" approach.

Now, here is USS Kansas:

Main armament: 12 406mm (16")/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets firing the same shells as USS Colorado. Secondary armament: 16 127mm (5")/38 caliber guns in 8 twin dual purpose turrets. Armor belt: 343mm (13.5 inches). Speed: 23 knots. No displacement given, at least that I could find.

And USS Minnesota:

Main armament: 12 406mm (16")/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets firing the same shells as USS Colorado. Secondary armament: 16 127mm (5")/38 caliber guns in 8 twin dual purpose turrets. Armor belt: 343mm (13.5 inches). Speed: 23 knots. No displacement given, at least that I could find.

You'll notice that everything except the secondary battery is an exact match. Also, look at the funnel on Kansas and then at the most common artistic interpretation of South Dakota (1920). Then look at that skyscraper profile on both ships. Now look at a photograph of USS West Virginia in her 1944 configuration. You'll notice that they are very similar. Kansas and Minnesota are literally the same design. Both are modernized versions of South Dakota (1920), just with modified stats for their respective tiers and somewhat different superstructures (which was not uncommon for World War II modernizations. just compare Colorado and West Virginia).

The only outlier is USS Vermont, which has 12 457mm (18")/45 caliber guns in four triple turrets, a 406mm (16") belt, and a displacement of 70,000 tons according to the wiki. However, you'll notice that none of the Tillman designs are a good match for her. None of the Tillmans had 18"/45 caliber guns. Instead, they were all 50 caliber guns. Additionally, there is no 70,000 short ton Tillman armed with 18 inch guns of any description, and 4-1 and 4-2 have 13 and 15 respectively, not 12. Additionally, the guns follow the same small-bore-50-caliber-to-large-bore-45-caliber incremental increase that characterized the shift from Tennessee to Colorado instead of the small-bore-45-caliber-to-large-bore-50-caliber increase the 18 inch armed Tillmans demonstrate. Tillmans 4-1 and 4-2 both had 16 inches of belt armor, but they displaced 80,000 short tons as opposed to 70,000. It is possible that the Wiki is using long tons instead of short tons, but 70,000 long tons is equal to 78,000 short tons, not 80,000 (it's not a huge difference, it is there). Vermont's speed is also slower than any Tillman, at 23 knots vs 1 and 2's 26, 3's 30, and the 4 series's 25. She instead seems to be a logical escalation of South Dakota 1920, almost as if she was a follow-up class designed once the details of the British N3 class, with its 9 18 inch guns and 15 inch armor belt, were known.

In short, none of these ships are Tillmans. Kansas and Minnesota are both South Dakota 1920 class ships, and Vermont is a logical escalation of that design. Vermont is definitely closer to the Tillmans than the others, but she is still a very poor match for all of the various designs. At best she is to the Tillmans what North Carolina or South Dakota (1939) are to Montana. You can see some resemblance, but they're definitely different ships.

Note: I should say that I also posted this on Reddit, just in case. It isn't stolen.

  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,121
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,931 posts

I am not a fan of the new Tillman BBs.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 8
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[DOINK]
Members
17 posts
1,814 battles
3 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

I am not a fan of the new Tillman BBs.

*looks sad*

I'm not the biggest fan either. I didn't hate playing Colorado (in no small part because I finally started becoming less potato while playing her), but I'm in no hurry to do it another three times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,121
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,931 posts
2 minutes ago, Ralph090 said:

*looks sad*

I'm not the biggest fan either. I didn't hate playing Colorado (in no small part because I finally started becoming less potato while playing her), but I'm in no hurry to do it another three times.

:Smile_teethhappy: I couldn't resist.

I didn't even know about "Tillmans" until a youtube video today.  Playing WoWs has taught me a lot about old ships.  Based on your post, maybe what I have learned is not always true.  Thanks for the information.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[DOINK]
Members
17 posts
1,814 battles
2 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

:Smile_teethhappy: I couldn't resist.

I didn't even know about "Tillmans" until a youtube video today.  Playing WoWs has taught me a lot about old ships.  Based on your post, maybe not always the truth?

Not always. If you're referring to The Mighty Jingles's video, he usually gets things right, just not every time. It's one of those "trust, but verify" things. Also, to be fair, I also learned about them from a Youtube video by Drachinifel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[L-S-D]
Members
117 posts
41,274 battles

Only thing is the kansas isnt armed with 406/50 guns in port it say's their 406/45 mark 2's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[MOOW]
[MOOW]
Members
674 posts
24,428 battles
41 minutes ago, Saint06 said:

Only thing is the kansas isnt armed with 406/50 guns in port it say's their 406/45 mark 2's.

Thats odd.. in my port they're listed as 406mm/45 mk7.. those never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[BNICE]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
1 hour ago, Ralph090 said:

Not always. If you're referring to The Mighty Jingles's video, he usually gets things right, just not every time. It's one of those "trust, but verify" things. Also, to be fair, I also learned about them from a Youtube video by Drachinifel.

hehe.

This is how I felt about Musashi's "higher cit", when in reality it was just an optical illusion caused by her unique hull model.

Edited by Akeno017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[CDOH]
Members
547 posts
7,420 battles

what ever they are called they are hot steamy garbage.  They are a major handicap to any team they are on. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,411 posts
40,435 battles
6 hours ago, Ralph090 said:

Seriously. They're not Tillman battleships. They are all derivatives of the South Dakota (1920) class that were laid down prior to World War I and canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty. Their design was influenced by lessons learned from working on the Tillman designs somewhat, but they are really more of an escalation of the Standard Type.

The Tillman ships were designed as "maximum battleships" at the behest of Senator Benjamin Tillman. Tillman was Chairman of the Senate Committee of Naval Affairs (for anyone who doesn't know, the each house in the US Congress is subdivided into specialized committees and bills have to pass through the committee that has jurisdiction over the bill's topic before they can be heard on the floor of the whole chamber. as a result, the chairman of a committee has enormous power to block any legislation he/she personally doesn't like) and hated how the US Navy kept asking for bigger and bigger, and consequently costlier and costlier ships every year. Eventually, he demanded that the US Navy just tell him what the biggest battleship they would ever build would be so they could skip straight to that and Congress would never need to worry about paying for another battleship again. Because Tillman was Chairman of the Senate Committee of Naval Affairs and could thus block all funding to the US Navy entirely if he so chose, the Navy had to humor him and produced four main design studies, with the only limitation being that the ships needed to fit inside the Panama Canal locks, which were 1,000 feet long, 110 feet wide, and about 40 or so feet deep. These designs are as follows:

They were all about 975 feet long, 108 feet wide, and had a draft of 32 feet 9 inches. They had a full flush deck and a secondary battery entirely in hull casemates, which was possible due to the increased height over the Standard Class. Displacement is measured in American short tons. Also, I'm not differentiating between triple and three gun turrets because it's not particularly relevant and I can't find information on it anyways.

Tillman 1: Displacement: 70,000 tons. Armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Belt armor: 18 inches. Speed: 26 knots.

Tillman 2: Displacement: 70,000 tons. Armament: 24 16"/50 caliber guns in four six gun turrets. Belt armor: 13 inches. Speed: 26 knots.

Tillman 3: Displacement: 63,500 tons. Armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Belt armor: 13 inches. Speed: 30 knots.

Tillman 4: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament:  24 16"/50 caliber guns in four six gun turrets. Belt armor: 19 inches. Speed: 25 knots. They selected this design to develop further.

             Tillman 4-1: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament: 13 18"/50 caliber guns in five twin and one triple turrets. Belt armor: 16 inches. Speed: 25 knots.

             Tillman 4-2: Displacement: 80,000 tons. Armament: 15 18"/50 caliber guns in five triple turrets. Belt armor: 16 inches. Speed: 25 knots.

Now, for context, here is USS Colorado, the last of the Standards:

Displacement: 37,600 tons. Armament: 8 16"/45 caliber guns in 4 twin turrets. Belt armor: 13.5 inches. Speed: 21 knots. Length: 624 feet. Width: 97 feet 4 inches. Draft: 30 feet 6 inches. (again, the displacement is in short tons for comparison purposes. most figures, including the Washington Treaty, use long tons)

Senator Tillman died in 1918 from a cerebral hemorrhage, so the designs went no where after that as the US Navy wanted nothing to do with the ships. They were too big, to expensive, and too resource intensive to be practical. Instead, they finally managed to break with the Standard type, which was starting to become somewhat long in the tooth, during World War I. They opted for a number of improvements that resulted in a new class of ships:

South Dakota (1920): Displacement: 48,400 short tons. Main armament: 12 16"/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets. Secondary armament: 16 6"/53 caliber guns in casemates. Belt armor: 13.5 inches. Speed: 23 knots. Length: 660 feet. Width: 106 feet. Draft: 33 feet.

There are certainly some similarities, such as the main battery layout being the same as Tillmans 1 and 3 and the belt armor being roughly the same as Tillmans 2 and 3, but on the whole they are much closer to the Standard Type than the Tillmans. Their belt armor was exactly the same as the Standards, used the same all-or-nothing armor scheme, the same turbo-electric drive system, and their speed of 23 knots was "average" for the time, being about the same as the R and N3 classes of the Royal Navy and similar to the public figures of the Nagato class (the Japanese initially concealed their true 26 knot speed). The deck armor was however increased over the Standard Type. Also, the 16"/50 caliber gun was the Mark 2 variant, not the Mark 7 variant found on the Iowa class. It fired the same shell as the 16"/45 caliber gun used in the Colorado class, just with a higher muzzle velocity. The Mark 7 gun had a larger chamber so that it could fire the Mark 8 super-heavy shell. This is all in keeping with the design philosophy of the Standards, with heavy firepower in four main battery turrets, ideally triples, laid out in two superfiring pairs fore and aft, good armor protection, and speed that was exactly as fast as it needed to be and no more. It was not in the same family as the Tillman "everything and the kitchen sink" approach.

Now, here is USS Kansas:

Main armament: 12 406mm (16")/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets firing the same shells as USS Colorado. Secondary armament: 16 127mm (5")/38 caliber guns in 8 twin dual purpose turrets. Armor belt: 343mm (13.5 inches). Speed: 23 knots. No displacement given, at least that I could find.

And USS Minnesota:

Main armament: 12 406mm (16")/50 caliber guns in four triple turrets firing the same shells as USS Colorado. Secondary armament: 16 127mm (5")/38 caliber guns in 8 twin dual purpose turrets. Armor belt: 343mm (13.5 inches). Speed: 23 knots. No displacement given, at least that I could find.

You'll notice that everything except the secondary battery is an exact match. Also, look at the funnel on Kansas and then at the most common artistic interpretation of South Dakota (1920). Then look at that skyscraper profile on both ships. Now look at a photograph of USS West Virginia in her 1944 configuration. You'll notice that they are very similar. Kansas and Minnesota are literally the same design. Both are modernized versions of South Dakota (1920), just with modified stats for their respective tiers and somewhat different superstructures (which was not uncommon for World War II modernizations. just compare Colorado and West Virginia).

The only outlier is USS Vermont, which has 12 457mm (18")/45 caliber guns in four triple turrets, a 406mm (16") belt, and a displacement of 70,000 tons according to the wiki. However, you'll notice that none of the Tillman designs are a good match for her. None of the Tillmans had 18"/45 caliber guns. Instead, they were all 50 caliber guns. Additionally, there is no 70,000 short ton Tillman armed with 18 inch guns of any description, and 4-1 and 4-2 have 13 and 15 respectively, not 12. Additionally, the guns follow the same small-bore-50-caliber-to-large-bore-45-caliber incremental increase that characterized the shift from Tennessee to Colorado instead of the small-bore-45-caliber-to-large-bore-50-caliber increase the 18 inch armed Tillmans demonstrate. Tillmans 4-1 and 4-2 both had 16 inches of belt armor, but they displaced 80,000 short tons as opposed to 70,000. It is possible that the Wiki is using long tons instead of short tons, but 70,000 long tons is equal to 78,000 short tons, not 80,000 (it's not a huge difference, it is there). Vermont's speed is also slower than any Tillman, at 23 knots vs 1 and 2's 26, 3's 30, and the 4 series's 25. She instead seems to be a logical escalation of South Dakota 1920, almost as if she was a follow-up class designed once the details of the British N3 class, with its 9 18 inch guns and 15 inch armor belt, were known.

In short, none of these ships are Tillmans. Kansas and Minnesota are both South Dakota 1920 class ships, and Vermont is a logical escalation of that design. Vermont is definitely closer to the Tillmans than the others, but she is still a very poor match for all of the various designs. At best she is to the Tillmans what North Carolina or South Dakota (1939) are to Montana. You can see some resemblance, but they're definitely different ships.

Note: I should say that I also posted this on Reddit, just in case. It isn't stolen.

So, basically, you are saying WG took a Colorado to a secret lab, injected it with steroids and we got these. Only, instead of leaving Colorado in the recovery room, WG dropped Colorado off at a McDonald's.

Then it got a pump to enhance itself for tier 10. But again. A FSM.

Joking aside, it looks to me WG took the idea of adding external torpedo protection to Colorado as normal. And that progressive ships should have this feature visible.

But later designs show that torpedo protection was made internal eventually first with North Carolina, then South Dakota. So any new line should have been a striking resemblance to the South Dakota line all the way up to 10.

We would have seen a compact tier 8 variant with some Colorado guns and South Dakota hull. That is your transition ship. Also, for the first time, furious far reaching secbats. The unique flavor of this line. Decent AA.

Tier 9 would be more closely South Dakota layout, longer for 12 guns, South Dakota guns finally, and those amazing secbats. Blistering AA.

Tier 10 would be the beast 12-18s with 6 of each side of twin 127s Montana caliber secbats with amazing range, slower reload, blistering AA of 76mm and 40mm, obviously slow at about 29 knots.  

The commonality of all these hulls is that the bulge we see on the current line was not necessary. Because that would have been built internally and integrated into the ships structure so it would streamline in the water better.

The US Navy knew the fast BB line would need streamlined hulls and thus incorporated an internal antitorpedo protection bulkhead system.

This innovation would have fallen right behind the speculative years after Colorado and even though Colorado was the last Super Dreadnaught of the Standard line, the next ship would retain only a hint of Colorado's aesthetic, but not the lower hull.

The original standards all didn't have those bulges. Texas had hers put on after her boilers were converted to oil burners. On Texas, it was a subtle application and few notice it because the concept was new. But the threat of torpedoes was real.

When NM came off the line, again, didn't have a decent bulkhead, it too had one added. Again slightly subtle. The Pennsylvania class and New York class are probably the only two that few people notice this add on. But look at photos.

Colorado started with a small bulkhead, but later study during the Washington treaty, and Texas in particular being able to sink the 4th incomplete hull successfully, forced the Navy to add a bigger bulkhead.

That is why Colorado looks like a bulbous top water bait. Just look at the armor models of Colorado and West Virginia to confirm this.

But WG unfortunately, maybe because they speculated incorrectly, that it is normal to slap on huge pieces of metal on an already finished ship.

So we got this line with that layered armor scheme. It's like a huge onion taco 🌮 of goodness with frustrating citadel hidden filling inside.

It's merit is that your long range AP will detonate early on that outer layer at waterline. So it behaves much like a splinter deck.

But it being on the outside makes her slower than an ice cream truck.

South Carolina is probably in the shop getting that V12 hemi dropped in now.

It is unfortunate that WG came up with this, but it's too late to change it now. If they take the bulges off for instance, it could alter other parameters and that may take another round of testing that WG would be not comfortable with.

Not to mention, unprecedented.

But you have to look at it this way. They theoretically can't make the ships faster without removing or reducing the profile of the bulges. Because any speed increase would not look right in game for a chunky boat.

In a game called Warship Gunner, I got a double hulled Yamato to go 75 knots and turn on a dime.

It was ridiculous. And disgusting. And the game ceased to be a challenge. That is the very moment that I realized I finished that game. It was no longer fun. I just put the controller down and moved on. Flew off to Rylos and gave Xur a hard time.

I even made a DD go 150 knots.

Yep, disgusting.

I can break em just as fast as ya make em.😏🤣

 

 

 

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,202
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,085 posts
14,677 battles

@Ralph090, the Tillman's were basically just design proposals. What we have is if the idea had actually been taken up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,256 posts
12,119 battles
14 hours ago, Ralph090 said:

They're not Tillman battleships

Vermont's hull is LITERALLY Tillman IV-2 but without its 5th turret

s0cllvke3i951.png?width=2004&format=png&

3 smokestacks, the drop on the stern, thinner profile, it all checks out, keep in mind that the hull in this pic is likely how it would have looked in the time it would have been built, around or after WW1, where aircraft werent a huge threat to ships yet, what we have in game may very well be a refit it could have gotten with the removal of a turret to allow for the weight of the extra AA guns and 5" dual mounts

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,700
[A-I-M]
Members
3,392 posts
14,039 battles
13 hours ago, Grapefruitcannon said:

Thats odd.. in my port they're listed as 406mm/45 mk7.. those never existed.

Both of you, check your ports.It says both things about the guns. One description is shown in the expandable “armament” box of ship characteristics, and the other description shows in the pop-up window you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,927 posts
46,668 battles
19 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

Vermont's hull is LITERALLY Tillman IV-2 but without its 5th turret

s0cllvke3i951.png?width=2004&format=png&

3 smokestacks, the drop on the stern, thinner profile, it all checks out, keep in mind that the hull in this pic is likely how it would have looked in the time it would have been built, around or after WW1, where aircraft werent a huge threat to ships yet, what we have in game may very well be a refit it could have gotten with the removal of a turret to allow for the weight of the extra AA guns and 5" dual mounts

I seriously doubt the USN would have dropped the 5th main gun turret just to allow for the additional AA and 5" dual mounts.  In RL, none of the Pearl Harbor refitted USN BBs had any of their main gun turrets removed.  Yet additional AA, 5" dual mounts, and improved torpedo protection were added, nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[FOXY]
Members
1,094 posts
5,330 battles
47 minutes ago, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

Both of you, check your ports.It says both things about the guns. One description is shown in the expandable “armament” box of ship characteristics, and the other description shows in the pop-up window you get.

Mine says for both the Minnie and the Kansas, fully upgraded.

"406mm/45 MK7" and it fires a 406 MK (8 for Minnie),(5 for the Kansas), Mod 1 round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,445
[REVY]
Members
8,076 posts
6,118 battles

Tillmans are suppose to come with sextuple turrets.  Where are they WGing?
GH6bktR.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[BNICE]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

Vermont's hull is LITERALLY Tillman IV-2 but without its 5th turret

s0cllvke3i951.png?width=2004&format=png&

Should've gotten this ship as the T10.
Drop Kansas-Vermont down a tier each, you hardly have to nerf them for it as well lol.

Vermont's hull isnt that design at the least, you physically that 5th turret inbetween the 3rd funnel and turret, and I doubt they'd move back something like the funnels.
Though I do agree, Vermont is heavily, heavily inspired from Tillman IV, as probably the best representation WG believes is "balanced" for T10. (though I scoff at the idea, considering how incompetently bad 2/3 ships in this line are.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
Members
1,797 posts
5,635 battles

I will be taking my 110k HP, 26 kt Battleship armed with 15x 16" rifles now, thank you. Heh.  No balance problems detected...slap a Russian flag on it and call it good.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[APEZ]
Members
2,516 posts
8,803 battles
44 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Tillmans are suppose to come with sextuple turrets.  Where are they WGing?
GH6bktR.jpg

 

SEXtuble is right

 

:etc_hide_turtle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
561 posts
4,952 battles
33 minutes ago, Mahrs said:

I will be taking my 110k HP, 26 kt Battleship armed with 15x 16" rifles now, thank you. Heh.  No balance problems detected...slap a Russian flag on it and call it good.

it will automaticaly get a 32 seconds reload and 1.8 sigma plus it will play this song

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[FOXY]
Members
1,094 posts
5,330 battles
2 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

it will automaticaly get a 32 seconds reload and 1.8 sigma plus it will play this song

 

Strangely okay with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[-TNT-]
Members
417 posts
15,788 battles

spot on ......The Kansas sucks .. Easily worse 8 bb in game ... Tillman's name deserves better ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,366
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,256 posts
12,119 battles
13 hours ago, War182 said:

Tillman's name deserves better

not really, from what ive heard the guy was a huge prick when he was alive as well as an extreme racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×