USS Ranger

[Tankerace]

I have a question, that frankly I never thought I would ask. Why isn't the Ranger in the game? I understand the majority of her operations were in the Atlantic, but while doing research on the Plan Orange Mod (Im considering giving the US the Ranger a wee bit early, to compensate for no Lady Lex or Sara), I found out something I didn't know. In May-June 1944, the Ranger went a flight deck refit at New York. Transferred to the Pacific, she reached San Diego on 25 July 1944, and then reached Pearl Harbor on August 3. Until October, she trained night fighter pilots of Night Fighter Squadron 102, and then became a training carrier operating out of Alameda, California.

It seems to me that, having gained this experience, she could be used along the same lines as Enterprise, flying off night flying groups in defense of the fleet. I just find it odd that with every last tugboat of both fleets in the game, it just seems to me she should be included. Just my $.02

@Lemurs, if you want to put her in your mod, give me a heads up and I'll do a graphic of her.

[Platoonist]

Works for me! Don't forget to draw those famous folding funnels in their locked and upright positions. [:D]

[Halsey]

While we're on the subject of the Ranger's inclusion into WITP.

What about converted ocean liners that were used as high speed AP's?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I have a question, that frankly I never thought I would ask. Why isn't the Ranger in the game? I understand the majority of her operations were in the Atlantic, but while doing research on the Plan Orange Mod (Im considering giving the US the Ranger a wee bit early, to compensate for no Lady Lex or Sara), I found out something I didn't know. In May-June 1944, the Ranger went a flight deck refit at New York. Transferred to the Pacific, she reached San Diego on 25 July 1944, and then reached Pearl Harbor on August 3. Until October, she trained night fighter pilots of Night Fighter Squadron 102, and then became a training carrier operating out of Alameda, California.

It seems to me that, having gained this experience, she could be used along the same lines as Enterprise, flying off night flying groups in defense of the fleet. I just find it odd that with every last tugboat of both fleets in the game, it just seems to me she should be included. Just my $.02

@Lemurs, if you want to put her in your mod, give me a heads up and I'll do a graphic of her.

She's a training CV. Should not be in. Here is the problem. We are once again back at the lack of a withdrawl requirement for USN. There should be. Various reasons...ships required in other theatres and training duties. Historically, a large number of the ships currently constantly available to the Allied player were withdrawn. Yet another huge disadvantage for Japan's already hopeless situation.

The withdrawl requirement should be primarily CLs, DDs, DEs, SSs, APs, AKs, SCs, with the odd capital ship thrown in. If this was modelled, Ranger's presence would be valuable, if only to be used to satisfy the withdrawl requirement.

[Tankerace]

I can understand that reasoning. My arguement was simply "Everything else and the kitchen sink was in, but she isn't". Still, I do agree a withdrawal req. for the USN is needed.

As to how Ranger could be implemented, giver her a VERY low experience rating, forcing her to train from August '44 to say the beginning of '45, and give her a low a/c complement, so that the player would use her only as a night fighter carrier.

I just thought it was interesting. I was always under the impression she was in the Atlantic, until being used for Magic Carpet duties.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

While we're on the subject of the Ranger's inclusion into WITP.

What about converted ocean liners that were used as high speed AP's?

I think someone is playing around with the various liners of various nations. Most were used for the run to Europe I believe.

[Tiornu]

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the USN would have committed Ranger to combat in the Pacific. Her apparent similarity to other fleet carriers gives the false impression that she approached their capabilities. She did not. Operationally, her inferiority as a platform was dramatic. In combat, she was frightening in her vulnerability. Her operations in the Atlantic give strong evidence that the navy intended to risk her only in sectors where enemy strike capability was minimal.

[Tankerace]

I agree that she couldn't be used as a frontline carrier. But, she could be used to rotate squadrons, take a freshly arrived unit, let them work up with Ranger, and then embark them on an Essex class, and take the combat vets from the Essex, let them rest at PH, and then have them work up again with the Ranger, or retrain them as night fighters on a CV outside the combat zone. If used in combat, she gives easy VPs to the Japanese. But as a training carrier, she could be very useful. Besides, if you used her as a training platform, then you wouldn't need to take the Lexington and Saratoga out of combat (Sara was pulled out, and used as a training CV in '45, Lexington might have been aswell). Still, I guess you can use some of the CVE's for that duty.

[Desertmole]

Ranger had some peculiarities that, I think, kept her from being committed to the Pacific. For starters, she did not have a torpedo magazine or workshop. This is why she seldom carried torpedo bombers, and when she did, they normally carried bombs. Secondly, she was designed for scouting and fleet support, as opposed to being a full fleet carrier. This is why she carried 2 VF and 2 VS squadrons at the beginning of the war. Her other performance was limited, and her deck was considered too small for regular flight operations. Just not a good mix for the Pacific.[8|]

[fbastos]

Well, she's still better than a CVE... and there were plenty of CVEs in the Pacific.

I think that the problem is not so much of her capability, but that the US Navy never got really comfortable with the concept of a CVL.

F.

[Tankerace]

Ill explain my previous solution more clearly.... Im a bit tired, having spent the last 5 hours trying to find every kind of fighter that was used on the Langley 1922-1930.

Ok, Lets say we have VF-100, a newly arrived squadron at SF. Embark them on Ranger, and have them operate from a carrier for say 2 months. If you want, re train them as night fighters, and let them gain experience.

Now, lets say you have VF-9 flying off the Essex. Been in combat about 6 months. Extremely tired. Both CVs rendezvous.

At PH, the Essex takes on the VF-100, a new sqdrn but now with pretty good experience. VF-9 is offloaded to PH for a few weeks of rest.

While VF-9 is resting, repairs can be made to the Ranger from cruising through the back areas of the Pacific.

After a few weeks rest and refit, VF-9 is embarked on Ranger, and is switched to night operations. After a few months, VF-9 is a fully competent night fighting unit, and can be deployed on one of the main battle line carriers, replacing another "war weary" squadron, or to replace a day squadron with a night one.

It beats having to gain experience the hard way, by training in range of Bettys. This way, you guys get experience, can rest, can rotate, and do so with minimal loss and property damage.

[Tiornu]

Yeah, but when a Casablanca blows up, 900 men go into the water; when Ranger blows up, 1800 men go into the water.
Ranger was not a CVL. She was intended as a full-sized CV.
The CVLs had better protection than Ranger.

[Tankerace]

Well, when you factor in that Ranger was built in 1934, and the Independence class CVLs in 1943, their protection schemes will vary substantially.

Plus, Ranger was a cross breed, trying to incorporate lessons from the Langley and the Lady Lex. For the 1st purpose built carrier, she wasn't too bad, and was in fact superior to the first purpose built carriers of Japan (Hosho) and Britain (Hermes). Course, she was built 10 years after them, but shhhhhhh [:D]

Still, the Lexingtons, despite being cramped, were a far superior design.

[Tiornu]

"Well, when you factor in that Ranger was built in 1934, and the Independence class CVLs in 1943, their protection schemes will vary substantially."
Ranger's "protection scheme"?--hee!

[Tankerace]

Just did some more digging. To Ranger's credit, she was the first carrier to operate the TBF Avenger (Delivered April 14, 1942), and was also the only carrier in WW2 to operate FR-1 Fireballs. Shortly after the surrender of Japan, her airgroup consisted of F8F Bearcats and TBM Avengers. Not bad for a hunk of junk.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Well, when you factor in that Ranger was built in 1934, and the Independence class CVLs in 1943, their protection schemes will vary substantially."
Ranger's "protection scheme"?--hee!

Hey, stamped aluminum counts as a protection scheme. [:D]

[Halsey]

This is interesting. Looking up troop movement by just the HMT Queen Mary. From 1940 to 1943, she made 46 seperate voyages to ports in India, SE Aisa, and Australia. That's pretty impressive for one ship. She wasn't permanently settled to the Atlantic until 1944 to 1945. With a capacity of 8500 troops. That's a lot of boys.

Here's the link- http://troopships.pier90.org/

[MadmanRick]

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the USN would have committed Ranger to combat in the Pacific. Her apparent similarity to other fleet carriers gives the false impression that she approached their capabilities. She did not. Operationally, her inferiority as a platform was dramatic. In combat, she was frightening in her vulnerability. Her operations in the Atlantic give strong evidence that the navy intended to risk her only in sectors where enemy strike capability was minimal.

While I agree that the Ranger was not committed to the Pacific for fairly valid reasons (which you mention), I think the overwhelming reason was that Midway took most, if not all the pressure off of the USN. However, suppose that things had worked out differently? Would the USN have avoided deploying the Ranger, IF IF the results of Midway had been the other way? I think she should be in the database and perhaps ONLY appear if the USN player suffers catastrophic CV losses in the first year. I mean the Ranger can be no more vulnerable than a CVE? She also can be no more "useless" than the Long Island? I vote to have her included, either in a later patch (or preferably) in a user mod.

Rick

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

While we're on the subject of the Ranger's inclusion into WITP.

What about converted ocean liners that were used as high speed AP's?

OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Gimme another chance to VENT!!!!!
One of those fast liners was the WAKEFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sister ship(identical specs,etc) to the West Point,(if anybody is lookin'),and it carried troops to Singapore so close to the fall it took a Jap bomb..It escaped,and later took the 2nd US Marine Division to NZ..
Seems to me that's a bit more than just "gitten yer feet wet" in the Pacific,and this was not a training cruise,etc..

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the USN would have committed Ranger to combat in the Pacific. Her apparent similarity to other fleet carriers gives the false impression that she approached their capabilities. She did not. Operationally, her inferiority as a platform was dramatic. In combat, she was frightening in her vulnerability. Her operations in the Atlantic give strong evidence that the navy intended to risk her only in sectors where enemy strike capability was minimal.

While I agree that the Ranger was not committed to the Pacific for fairly valid reasons (which you mention), I think the overwhelming reason was that Midway took most, if not all the pressure off of the USN. However, suppose that things had worked out differently? Would the USN have avoided deploying the Ranger, IF IF the results of Midway had been the other way? I think she should be in the database and perhaps ONLY appear if the USN player suffers catastrophic CV losses in the first year. I mean the Ranger can be no more vulnerable than a CVE? She also can be no more "useless" than the Long Island? I vote to have her included, either in a later patch (or preferably) in a user mod.

Rick

Another factor against deployment of Ranger in forward POA Theaters was her notoriously poor seakeeping ability. Ranger could not operate aircraft in heavy weather conditions. That on top of the lack of armor or magazine stowage, pretty much precluded her from operating in the POA.

Wasp was also not going to be used in POA for the same reasons. After losing Yorktown at Midway, USN really had no choice but to bring Wasp over.