USS Ranger

[afspret]

I thought I read somewhere that the Ranger was going to available as a late war arrival, but I can't find it anywhere in the editor. Historically she did serve along the west coast as a training carrier, arriving in at SD in July '44.

[DuckofTindalos]

She isn't.

[m10bob]

Ranger was never geared for warm environs and was very stuffy for the crews. It would not have been pleasurable in a combat area in the Pacific.
(Ever seen an old bait can left in the sun with worms still in it?)....

[DuckofTindalos]

Given how flimsy she was, Ranger wouldn't have lasted long enough for that to be a problem. She did yeoman work training aircrews, but would not have done well in a fight.

[GaryChildress]

I think if you go to RogueUSMC's website you'll find in Big B's art section a ship side for USS Ranger. You can always create a mod and incorporate Ranger into it. [:)]

[tocaff]

T has hit the nail on the head when he said that for training purposes Ranger was excellent, but as a combat ship she left quite a bit to be desired.

[mariandavid]

It is an interesting comment on the confidence the USN had in its superiority in numbers, even at the time of maximum Japanese conquest. In any other navy she would have been pressed into service as an adequate CVL!

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

It is an interesting comment on the confidence the USN had in its superiority in numbers, even at the time of maximum Japanese conquest. In any other navy she would have been pressed into service as an adequate CVL!

Though many disagree, I've always felt that if we had lost at Midway we would have seen Ranger in the Pacific in late '42.

[anarchyintheuk]

I wouldn't disagree.

[afspret]

HMS Vanguard is in the data base, but she wasn't even commissioned until Aug '46. I'm guessing its there for modders to use as they see fit. If thats the case, then there's no reason why Ranger can't atleast be added to the data base, say in a future patch, for the same reason.

As far as it not being suitable for use in the South/Central Pacific, I put forth that it would be more than adequate for use in the North Pacific, espically since the Japanese AI is more adventurous than WitP. But hey, thats just my thoughts.

[RyanCrierie]

Okay, here's Ranger in two schemes:

1930s fit and colors
1944 fit and colors

[RyanCrierie]

And here she is in her 1945 scheme

[Dili]

She was good enough for Torch.

[TSCofield]

Vanguard would have been finished probably well before the end of 1945 if the war had continued. Her need was dramatically reduced by January of 1945 and her construction slowed. The only reason she was completed at all was because she was so close to being done.

I think that if we had lost more than Yorktown at Midway we might have seen Ranger, although I doubt her operations would have put her much beyond Pearl Harbor. She wasn't a true fleet carrier (neither was Wasp yet she was thrown into the fray) and didn't have the legs or protection to operate well with the Saratoga or any of the Yorktown class that might have made it out of Midway alive.

But she could transport aircraft and could be a nusiance if given the opportunity.

[m10bob]

Just for modders, Ranger carried these planes on December 7th while escorting a convoy bound for Singapore:

'Ranger' carried one squadron each of F3F (fighter biplanes), F4F-3 (Monoplanes), SBD dive bombers and TBO torpedo planes

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just for modders, Ranger carried these planes on December 7th while escorting a convoy bound for Singapore:

'Ranger' carried one squadron each of F3F (fighter biplanes), F4F-3 (Monoplanes), SBD dive bombers and TBO torpedo planes

I'm not aware of a US Navy torpedo plane designated TBO. Is this a typo? Do you have any other data?

[NormS3]

I did not think that the Ranger was able to carry torpedo planes.

Anyone know more about this? My sources are at home.

[m10bob]

Here is my source:

http://www.cofepow.org.uk/pages/ships_c ... m_sail.htm




Now...I have these huuuuuuge books at home....Lemme see what they say.(I'm pretty sure they are the same Don has.)..W.R. Taylor?(for one)..Lots of old planes.

Here it sez they were indeed TBD's:


http://www.heroletters.com/USS_Ranger.html

[Dili]

I have read that the Ranger had no storage for Torpedos.

Edit i have found it: " ...the USN had now called into question the entire future of the torpedo bomber. Dive bombers were now in favor, so much so that the new USS Ranger (CV-4) was designed completely without torpedo storage. "

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

If they employed TB with bombs only or modified the ship or just put torpdos in the Hangar i don't know.

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have read that the Ranger had no storage for Torpedos.

Edit i have found it: " ...the USN had now called into question the entire future of the torpedo bomber. Dive bombers were now in favor, so much so that the new USS Ranger (CV-4) was designed completely without torpedo storage. "

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

If they employed TB with bombs only or modified the ship or just put torpdos in the Hangar i don't know.

If this was the case when the Ranger was 'new', then she still might have been modified in the meantime. Then again, she didn't have torpedo bombers on her during Torch; although that could have been simply because they weren't needed for that particular mission.