Page 1 of 2
The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:34 pm
by I_AM_GOD...frey
IMHO, the USS Ranger should've been included in WITP. She was after all present in the Pacific in 1944/45. Dispite the fact she never saw any action.
On 11 July 1944 she departed Norfolk transited the Panama Canal 5 days later, and embarked several hundred Army passengers at Balboa for transportation to San Diego, arriving there 25 July.
After embarking the men and aircraft of Night Fighting Squadron 102 and nearly a thousand marines, she sailed for Hawaiian waters 28 July, reaching Pearl Harbor 3 August. During the next 3 months she conducted night carrier training operations out of Pearl Harbor.
Ranger departed Pearl Harbor 18 October to train pilots for combat duty. Operating out of San Diego under Commander, Fleet Air, Alameda, she continued training air groups and squadrons along the California coast throughout the remainder of the war.
USS Ranger
She was transfered back to the eastern seaboard after the war.
I intend to put the Carrier in the game but have no idea what class she was! Perhaps someone could help out.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:47 pm
by Tankerace
Ranger was a one off class of ship, the first US purpose built aircraft carrier. For full realism, you'd have to make a new class and graphic.
However, it should be pointed out that she was (by that time) a training carrier, and never would have seen action.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:58 pm
by rogueusmc
Is it deja vu or have we had this discussion before?...[:D]
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:17 pm
by I_AM_GOD...frey
Ranger was a one off class of ship, the first US purpose built aircraft carrier. For full realism, you'd have to make a new class and graphic.
Already started working on the database! Came across a Russian site which claimed it to be a CVL. While other sites say that it could hold 86 A/C
a training carrier, and never would have seen action.
She would under my command [;)]
Is it deja vu or have we had this discussion before?...
Has there? [X(] I tried a search for it but am having problems loading the actual searches!
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 12:47 am
by Tiornu
Ranger was, in effect, something of an experiment, as she was designed before the navy could digest the lessons of the Lexes. The intent was to build the smallest fully capable fleet carrier. The result was an operational inferiority with the added charm of total vulnerability. You do no want her getting anywhere near a kamikaze.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:13 am
by Admiral DadMan
Picture USS Wasp (CV-7) with even less armor (as much as a soda can) and even worse sea keeping ability in heavy weather.
She was kept out of the western Pacific because of these issues
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:17 am
by Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
Picture USS Wasp (CV-7) with even less armor (as much as a soda can) and even worse sea keeping ability in heavy weather.
She was kept out of the western Pacific because of these issues
I have read in many places that she was highly unstable in rough seas. Makes me wonder how well she operated in the S. Atlantic and the Med with that kind of sea keeping.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:29 am
by Halsey
The Ranger is one of the reasons why the US gets good CV trained pilots.[;)]
The Allies don't need it. We've got respawning.[;)]
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:07 pm
by Capt Cliff
Excuse me, but the Ranger DID see action! She was in the North African invasion and participated with the Home Fleet with airstrikes against Norway. The problem was she was too slow, something that plagued the WASP, and would not have been able to keep up with the other fleet carriers.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:09 pm
by Tankerace
I didn't say she didn't she didn't see action. I said that in the Pacific, she never would have seen action, where she did not.
"By that time, she was a training carrier, and never would have seen action"
I said by that time, 1944. Not 1942, during North Africa.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:41 pm
by Hornblower
Worse then being slow (same 29.5 knots as the Wasp) she was seriously under armored. Also her hull shape couldn’t handle the long Pacific swell. During Torch she carried F4F’s and SBD’s, and nothing I can find indicated that she carried TBF’s. Now if you want to include carriers- yes we had this discussion before- give me my Essex’s and if the war goes past 9/45 hows about the FDR and Midway??
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:19 pm
by Capt Cliff
Actually it was late 43' when she struck Norweigen targets then went into the yard at Norfolk in the first half of 44'. Then she went to the Pacific and operated out of San Diego as a training carrier. See the short history below. She did operate TBF's or TBM's against Norway.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/shi ... anger.html
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 pm
by mlees
This is another one of the "what if" ships, and I remember trying to float this idea out sometime last Nov or Dec.
For the reasons stated by others above, the Ranger was used operationally when there was absolutely nothing else available, but the ship was not in good shape in the later war period. (Probably overworked on routine stuff in the early war period.)
If you want to include it in your games, knock yourself out, and have fun! (I would lump it in as a "Wasp" class for laziness sake.) Your human opponents need to be OK with it, of course...[:'(]
As a side note, don't forget those paddlewheeled training carriers on the Great Lakes!
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:51 pm
by Mr.Frag
ORIGINAL: Tiornu
Ranger was, in effect, something of an experiment, as she was designed before the navy could digest the lessons of the Lexes. The intent was to build the smallest fully capable fleet carrier. The result was an operational inferiority with the added charm of total vulnerability. You do no want her getting anywhere near a kamikaze.
That describes it perfectly. Never let the bean counters control the engineers! [:D]
Paddlewheel power!
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:52 pm
by Greyshaft
ORIGINAL: mlees
As a side note, don't forget those paddlewheeled training carriers on the Great Lakes!
IIRC those paddlewheelers had no below deck stowage for planes. The pilots slept on land and every morning would take off from dirt and do a few circuit and bumps off the paddlewheeler before return to terra firma for the evening.
Not sure how you model that
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:54 pm
by Tiornu
I would really like to see an analytical compare/contrast of Ranger and Saipan.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:58 pm
by Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
That describes it perfectly. Never let the bean counters control the engineers! [:D]
Bean counters controlling engineers?!?!? HA! I'm a bean counter in a high tech company. I can't get an engineer to look at me, let alone control what he does. (Mr Engineer, how much progress did you get this quarter on the widget project? I'm trying to recognize revenue on the % completed method and I NEED your information.)
HA!!
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 11:18 pm
by tsimmonds
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
That describes it perfectly. Never let the bean counters control the engineers! [:D]
Bean counters controlling engineers?!?!? HA! I'm a bean counter in a high tech company. I can't get an engineer to look at me, let alone control what he does. (Mr Engineer, how much progress did you get this quarter on the widget project? I'm trying to recognize revenue on the % completed method and I NEED your information.)
HA!!
You can fix this by making the perfectly reasonable assumption that, in the absense of hard data documenting progress towards completion, the project is 0% complete as of this period end. All operating expense drops straight to the divisional bottom line! Take that, Engineering P&L! Next period they will pay more attention to your request for information.
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:38 pm
by Mr.Frag
ORIGINAL: irrelevant
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
That describes it perfectly. Never let the bean counters control the engineers! [:D]
Bean counters controlling engineers?!?!? HA! I'm a bean counter in a high tech company. I can't get an engineer to look at me, let alone control what he does. (Mr Engineer, how much progress did you get this quarter on the widget project? I'm trying to recognize revenue on the % completed method and I NEED your information.)
HA!!
You can fix this by making the perfectly reasonable assumption that, in the absense of hard data documenting progress towards completion, the project is 0% complete as of this period end. All operating expense drops straight to the divisional bottom line! Take that, Engineering P&L! Next period they will pay more attention to your request for information.
I guess I touched a nerve [:D]
RE: The USS Ranger should have been included...
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 2:05 pm
by tsimmonds
I guess I touched a nerve
FY05 year end was 3/31. The auditors are here. Sarbanes-Oxley has turned them all into soul-sucking zombies from another galaxy! Gaaa!
No, wait, they were like that last year too; it must have been business school.