USS Ranger - Guide 299

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@deaks25]

I presume Ranger ran most efficiently when her stacks were facing vertically. When she was conducting flight ops and had her stacks turned horizontal, did she have any noticeable degradation in her performance due to the bend in her exhaust?

[@Moredread25]

What was the average monthly pay of a sailor on Ranger in WW2?

[@deaks25]

Did Ranger have to ensure her stacks were rotated before conducting flight ops? Did this impact her ability to respond to situations? Or could CAP fighters be spotted and launched well enough regardless of the stack position?

[@Colt45hatchback]

Could we get (if its available) some info on the german rescue buoys from the channel? And perhaps any funny stories of people "liberating them" from the sea for other uses? I heard one was used for a movie, so i assume some were knicked.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

What would you theorise might be the impact on the Second World War, if guided anti-ship weapons had been developed in the 1930’s?

[@Easy-Eight]

Side note, in '43 there was a serious proposal from Admiral King to have Ranger upgraded by adding blisters and new machinery. However, Bureau of Ships put together an excellent demonstration of how Ranger would tie up space, time, and money that would cost one new Essex and presented it to him in a logical briefing. The normally thorny King was very impressed with the demonstration. He reversed his decision. That said Ranger was a star on the Junior Varsity team in the Atlantic. She gave good service and did a lot to wreck Germany's steel industry post 1943. Sinking iron ore freighters helps strangle the production of Tiger and Panther tanks.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

I don't know how the Swedish 'myth' got rolling -- but by 1943, France was the primary source of iron ore for the Nazi war machine. Search engine away. Sweden was huge in 1940 because France was not yet conquered. Adolf could just float French ore down the river in late 1940. IIRC, 'free' French iron ore was part of the armistice 'deal.' In financial terms, Adolf raped France ( and all other nations ) from 1940 onwards. This is rarely brought up in pop histories.

[@christopherrowe7460]

Thanks for that excellent phrase "Junior Varsity". It says it very well!

[@Tomyironmane]

"If it's a thankless, unglamorous, and essential job, Ranger has done it."

[@calvingreene90]

Admiral King was a very capable man despite his only serious screw up being ruining anti-submarine operations at the beginning of the USofA involvement in World War II.

[@rickkephartactual7706]

Excellent additional information

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

I like how her funnels look like one of those custom hot rods with their exhaust jutting out the engine

[@phaasch]

Pimp my hull.

[@Paludion]

Makes me think of shotgun rounds strapped to the sides of a firearm, myself.

[@GrumpyGrobbyGamer]

All she needed was a niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice candy apple paint job with flames on the funnels, and a shark mouth on the bow. Add at least one stripe along the side to make her 2-3 knots faster as well!

[@timclaus8313]

Only ship built with a set of zoomies, lol...

[@jeffblacky]

One of former VFW members served on the Ranger in WW2 Before being transferred to the USS Enterprise as a mess officer- he was wounded in a suicidal attack on the ship in 1945. He said he loved the Ranger as it was his first ship with a bunch of friends aboard. He died in 2019 at 100.

[@Straswa]

Thanks for sharing his story.

[@kevinsullivan3448]

HAND SALUTE!

[@kevinsullivan3448]

READY TOO!

[@christopherrowe7460]

Thanks for sharing! I've heard everyone refer to her as a lucky ship and a happy ship.

[@MrSuzuki1187]

My dad night qualified on the USS Ranger during the summer of 1944 flying an F6F(N) radar equippped Hellcat fighter. He subsequently became a member of Night Torpedo Squadron 90 aboard the USS Enterprise flying the radar equipped TBM Avenger. He left on a war cruise on December 24, 1944. Night Torpedo Squadron 90 was the US Navy's very first squadron to fly night and instrument flying weather low level attack missions from an aircraft carrier.

[@VosperCDN]

Now that would be a part of history to be proud of, being on the leading edge of night operations like that.

[@christopherrowe7460]

Thanks for your dad's service, Joel. He probably was training in Summer 1944 out of Quonset Point, where my grandfather was COMAIR Quonset Point after commanding RANGER. His experience while in command of RANGER strongly informed his new command, which primarily involved training air groups before deploying to new carriers (or older, repurposed carriers like ENTERPRISE). There were far more operational losses of aviators due to accidents than due to combat losses during RANGER's deployment in 1943 to the North Atlantic and British Home Fleet. He insisted on instrument and night flying experience for all air groups prior to being sent to the Pacific. And that's not including the extra training a Night Torpedo Squadron would have received.

[@Paludion]

USS Ranger seems like construction pieces you keep around in the attic, your basement or in the garage. You don't really know what to do with it, it takes space, but perhaps you're going to need it one day. And miraculously, one day, you DO need it. ^^

[@khaelamensha3624]

As a French, just imagine what we could have done with her... From fleet floating wine cellar to submersible aircraft carrier 😂

[@kevinsullivan3448]

Yeah, it just hangs out somewhere until you realize it's just what you need to accomplish a specific task, then you're glad you kept it.

[@genericpersonx333]

Well, the ship you have is better than the ship you don't, but the real question is if the ship you didn't get to have because you kept the ship you have is not so straight-forward. Thankfully, the better ships than Ranger managed to cling on long enough for the Essex class to solve everyone's problems, so Ranger was not pushed beyond its limits.

[@General_Dane]

Like the vessels the Germans built to escort their Deutschland class panzerschiffs, except the ships failed at every role (being too slow to keep up with the Deutschlands, having too short a range compared to the Deutschlands, having too shallow draft for open sea operations and having too deep a draft for minesweeping operations) Edit: Before anyone aks, Drach did a video on them, and that’s the only reason I know about them.

[@staticinmotion8614]

I don't know where you found the photo at 4:08, but it's absolutely amazing. Three American carriers, all brand new and untested technology, pulling into San Francisco Bay beneath an unfinished Golden Gate Bridge. That's a lot of change to capture in just one photo.

[@fr.joeobrien3678]

That's an amazing picture!

[@dhkent55]

It is an amazing picture but that isn't the Golden Gate with that shore in the background. It was completed in April 1937, before the Ranger came to the Pacific. It isn't the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge either, which was opened about 6 months earlier. Maybe someone can identify which bridge it is.

[@glennac]

@@dhkent55 Sure it is. And that’s Alcatraz there near the top. “U.S. Navy ships passing under the Golden Gate Bridge, 12 November 1936, while under construction. The carriers (from front to rear) are: USS Lexington (CV-2), USS Ranger (CV-4), and the USS Saratoga (CV-3).” commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_aircraft_carriers_passing_under_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge_in_November_1936.jpg

[@nicklyons4227]

@@dhkent55 Pretty sure that is the GG bridge (Alcatraz Island in background), so the photo must be earlier than you think, or the photo is not of the Ranger.

[@staticinmotion8614]

@@dhkent55 Ranger was moved to San Diego and arrived on 15 April, 1935, so she had two full years in the Pacific before the bridge was complete. Also, that's Alcatraz Island the the carriers are steaming past. Definitely San Francisco Bay.

[@RCAvhstape]

For a not-quite-there-yet design she was a very good-looking ship, nice clean lines and oddly modern-looking.

[@christopherrowe7460]

Yes, with the funnels sideways during flight ops, one can imagine her lack of vertical funnels meaning she has a nuclear reactor.

[@somewhere6]

A unique, good looking ship that was wisely kept away from serious opposition.

[@FandersonUfo]

honourable service by the little guy - well done Ranger CV4

[@DavidSiebert]

Thanks for posting this. I had always thought of the Ranger as a waste. I also wondered why it was not used as a super escort carrier during WWII. Now I know that it was too busy doing other more useful tasks.

[@bizjetfixr8352]

For being the very first "keel up" carrier, they got a lot more right than they did wrong. Her limitations were created by conscious decisions made when her physical size was decided. One suspects that if she didn't exist, USS Enterprise would have been withdrawn from combat (July-August 1944?) to perform those roles. Meaning that an Essex would have taken on the role of "night carrier" for the fleet.

[@jemb67]

1st *US* keel up carrier. After Hermes and Hosho

[@glauberglousger6643]

I always thought Ranger looked like a flying carrier with those things at the back She’s also one of the best looking carriers in my opinion, simple, elegant, and effective without clutter, Especially as shown in the thumbnail, Her tower looks a bit odd and uneven, but it’s unique and interesting, and clean, so I can give it a pass

[@khaelamensha3624]

Quite true, she was quite closed to an actual nuclear aircraft carrier but for the flight deck

[@cosmoray9750]

U.S. Is on the Verge of Internal Collapse: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJPMd2d_qqhsaNU 🤔

[@winstonviceroy6125]

The USS Texas made it to drydock. Although she was being towed, it was a sight to behold seeing her cut through the waves.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Seems like a pudding cart before the horse not having a plan on where to put it however.

[@Fitzwalrus06]

Wasn't that cool?? 😁😎 So great to see her underway again after all these years, even if only under tow! 👍

[@robertf3479]

@@WALTERBROADDUS That decision will be made shortly, it isn't like she will be coming out of drydock next week and the need for the work was critical. Sometimes the decisionmakers have to be forced into a corner in order to get them to do their jobs, especially when those are politicians like these are.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@robertf3479 a one-week dry dock seems awful fast?

[@GrumpyGrobbyGamer]

@@robertf3479 and you can count on Texas politicians to be too busy grandstanding and hatemongering to take care of a treasure that just needs a LOT of love and care. I hope they do the right thing. USS Texas would be a terrible thing to lose

[@kendramalm8811]

If escort carriers were known as "baby flattops", would that make Ranger a "toddler flattop"?

[@AlternativePractice]

Toddler Top

[@gargravarr2]

She's more of a lanky teenager who has grown to her full length but not her full displacement.

[@Emperorvalse]

@@gargravarr2 I agree with the teenager and would add that they at first had no idea what to do but quickly learnt how to do what was expected from it.

[@josephstevens9888]

@@gargravarr2 Interesting description!

[@Ridliman]

And what about Langley?

[@bullettube9863]

Not for the first time the American congress was convinced that what the navy needed were smaller and cheaper ships. For the Navy's part, Ranger proved that only a well rounded design comprising lots of space for lots of planes, lots of storage space for fuel and ammo, lots of speed, and sufficient armor to protect against aerial bombs and torpedoes would do. While the Yorktown class were good, they had weaknesses that were only corrected after Pearl Harbor with the Essex class.

[@tommckinley111]

It wasn't congress, it was the post WWI treaties that dictated construction as Drach said, that compromised Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp. The treaties were going by the wayside, political climate was changing with Germany, Italy, Japan getting aggressive that by the time Hornet was being built, the USN was getting the design right - laying the foundation for the Essex class to go into mass production. The five treaty compromised carriers held the line and even turned the tide at Coral Sea and Midway till the new ships arrived. Gotta hand it to the US naval engineers of the day - they did a heck of a job despite world and national politics holding one hand behind their backs!

[@stewartellinson8846]

I do find these early carriers to be very interesting. It's fascinating - and a little odd - that Ranger initally didn't carry torpedo aircraft. I imagine this was a doctrine based decision, but it's odd given how things panned out for carrier operations. I suppose it shows how unclear and contested the future was as these things were being worked out.

[@henrikgiese6316]

IIRC the US didn't have any practical aerial torpedo at the time while bombing had been demonstrated.

[@DS_Boston]

The Wiki page states: “To save money, Ranger was initially designed and commissioned without torpedo stowage or a torpedo bomber squadron.”

[@DS_Boston]

@@henrikgiese6316 The Mark 13 was available from 1936.

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@DS_Boston well from my understanding, avalaibility was not correlated to efficiency but it was not known at the time...

[@joshwhite3339]

For a while the USN still thought of carriers mostly as part of the Scouting Force for the Battleline, so I think their thoughts led them towards Scout Bombers and Fighters for that role at first. Eventually Planes and Carriers improved to the point where they constituted their own serious offensive threat.

[@johnlovett8341]

I was just, 2 days ago, desperately looking for a USS Ranger guide. Drach reads minds!!!! What color am I thinking?? Yep. It was unicorn pink 🦄. Seriously, I was looking for this 2 days ago. Love the Drach!!!!

[@hopper1]

Ranger was the Rodney Dangerfield/Jan Brady/redheaded step-child of carriers. No respect. Hell, Wolverine and Sable usually get more attention than Ranger.

[@Lemonjellow]

Shoulda built her with paddle wheels if they wanted her to be one of the cool kids 🤷‍♂️

[@hopper1]

@@Lemonjellow LOL

[@nallepuku8485]

The bridge is truly beautiful

[@MatthewChenault]

It’s also worth noting that USS Ranger was the first carrier to be built by Newport News Shipbuilding, which ended up becoming the primary builder of US Aircraft Carriers from that point onward. The reason why this was the case came down to a couple of factors: 1. They were directly tied with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, which linked it directly with the industrial regions around the Great Lakes. Having the transportation system required to get goods from the industrial heartland towards their shipyards enabled them to get the resources required to produce the ships. 2. These same railway connections also made it easy for them to access Detroit and the automotive industries in Michigan, which would assist in producing aircraft for Northrup Grumman. 3. It’s right across the Roads from Norfolk Naval Yard, one of the US Navy’s largest naval dockyards in the country.

[@gregorywright4918]

There was a bunch of politics and corporate foot-in-the-door involved as well. See the article in USNI Naval History titled "Building Carriers: The Navy and Newport News Create A Monopoly" from August 2022. I would not say "the primary builder of US aircraft carriers from that point onward". They got that position in the 60s when they beat their other competitors for the first nuclear carrier, Enterprise. The built less than half of the Essexes, two of the three Midways, and half of the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks. New York Shipbuilding was their main private competitor, but Philadelphia and Brooklyn NY got some too.

[@williamromine5715]

There is such an emphasis on the carriers in the Pacific, that I keep forgetting their use in the Atlantic. Thank you for reminding me of their valuable contribution to the European theater.

[@Knight-Bishop]

I didn't know much about my grandfather's military service until I personally dug and placed the memorial plaque on his grave and got the story behind the old lamp I had. He was an AA gunner on the Ranger and the lamp was made out of a spent 127 shell😅

[@andytrail6974]

Great video on my name sake. I was on the Ranger that was commissioned in 57'. Awesome to see pictures of the one that came before. You should do a video on the lineage of the name Ranger. It started in the revolution until today. I believe the newest Ranger is a unmanned vessel today.

[@joshpalmer2423]

My grandfather was machinist mate third class around that time. Thank you for you're service

[@andytrail6974]

@@joshpalmer2423 I was on Ranger for her last four voyages. It was a great experience I wouldn't give up for anything. Thank you for his service.

[@timwerner7771]

Thank you Drach! My Dad was in the Army air corps and sailed on one of the ferry missions to N. Africa. His job was to convert the shipload of P-40's for service in the desert. He removed high -altitude oxygen equipment and added various screens and filters to the planes. He would have loved this video.

[@michaelk19thcfan10]

Enjoyed the photo of the task force entering San Francisco Bay sailing under a still under construction Golden Gate Bridge.

[@rashkavar]

Seems like a simple but efficient design, especially considering they were going by theory and by the expectation of losing the carrier if the enemy ever managed to engage it directly. And that carrying capacity really helps with the issue of getting fighters ferried over to Britain.

[@ph89787]

6:37. Adding onto that Drach. She was working with Saratoga as part of Carrier Division 11. One of the Air Groups trained aboard her was Night Air Group 90. Which of course was later embarked onto Enterprise.

[@Kerndon]

Thanks for this clarification. I always was under the impression that Ranger wasn't used in the Pacific mainly due to her low top speed - even though some Japanese carriers were just as slow, or even slower.

[@gregorywright4918]

The Kaga was the slow one - she was rated for 28 knots, but due to time between refits probably made more like 27. Yet the IJN aircraft were lighter than USN, so it may not have made much difference.

[@blackpowder4016]

She made 29.3 kts which was pretty decent for a two-screw ship with only 53,000 shp. None of the North Carolina or South Dakota class were that fast and they'd have set the fleet speed.

[@rotolactor]

I served 4 years on USS Ranger CV-61. The bow pennant from CV-4 was kept in a glass case in a small compartment on the hangar deck.

[@pauljensen5699]

The story of the "unknown" aircraft carrier of the United States. Thank you. I always wanted to know ever since I did a report in high school... in 1987.

[@harryburnham1379]

The uss ranger has always been my favorite carrier. I love it’s funnel setup and see it as a big escort carrier.

[@kahoki]

The USS Ranger does have the most period aesthetic island that I have seen on an air craft carrier of that era.

[@gregorywright4918]

It's poor funnel setup which did not keep smoke off the flight deck (compared to the Lexington's), and it's very cramped island which did not have enough room for ship ops and flight ops were two of the big complaints about the "minimal carrier" concept, hence the bigger Yorktowns with a trunked, higher funnel and proper island space. That space was needed when radar came along and they put together the CIC and fighter control.

[@timclaus8313]

@@gregorywright4918 The Japanese also had some very odd exhaust stack variants that were later replaced or sunk.

[@gregorywright4918]

@@timclaus8313 Yeah, the Kaga's was a hoot!

[@issacfoster1113]

still remembered the double proc of her Assault carrier skill & quick takeoff. Once in a lifetime achievement.

[@shileetan6040]

Man of culture

[@ussliberty109]

We don't call her RNGer for nothing.

[@leftcoaster67]

Better than the Langley, Not as good as the Lexingtons. Took every job and did it to the best of its abilities. Can't ask for much more.

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@kahoki]

Thanks for making a video on the USS Ranger - it seems to forever been overshadowed by its larger brethren's operations in the Pacific Theater, though I have a better appreciation of why it was a smaller hull due to Treaty restrictions I was not previously aware of.

[@hood7028]

I could binge listen your videos all day

[@CaptainFury767]

My airwing was assigned to the subsequent "USS Ranger" (CV-61) in the early 1980s. Thanks for the insight into her predecessor.

[@Fred_Lougee]

CVW - 3, by any chance?

[@CaptainFury767]

@@Fred_Lougee Hi. CVW-9, on the 1983 Indian Ocean (via Central America) deployment. That one where we collided with the Wichita during the unrep. And oh yeah, the engine room fire that nearly lost her. Good times... said nobody, ever.

[@Fred_Lougee]

@@CaptainFury767 The cruise where she spent 120 days on station off Nicaragua or something like that? I was in VA-145, my first time out was Ranger's first operation with full air wing following repairs and SLEP in Bremerton in 1986. The squadron had transfered from the Kitty with CVW-3 and a lot of the "old hands" had tales of the she ran Ivan down. They even had the commemorative tee shirts.

[@CaptainFury767]

@@Fred_Lougee That's the one. I don't think it was quite 120 days, but it felt like it. Then off to the I.O. With a brief stop in Subic to get the collision damaged hammered out.

[@Fred_Lougee]

@@CaptainFury767 Well, at least you (should have) got an extended stay in Po City to do some hammering of your own. Beers...hammering down beers. Sheesh, what did ya think I was talking about. I recall a map of the world painted on a bulkhead somewhere...like maybe back near the aft galley just outside the Corpsmen's station. In the Gulf of Tonkin was the notation "Yankee Station" and just of the Pacific Coast of Central America was "Ranger Station".

[@Philistine47]

Truly it is said, _"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice."_ It says a lot about _Ranger_ that even in the winter of 1942-43 the Navy refused to send her to the Pacific. Still, kudos to the Navy theorists who figured out very early that the first priority for an "aircraft carrier" was to carry the largest number of aircraft it was practical to operate - even if their first draft was a bit optimistic as to just how little ship they could get away with for the size of air group they wanted. The _Sangamon_ class were the largest and most capable of the CVEs until the very late-war _Commencement Bay_ class, being converted from fleet oilers. While significantly shorter than _Ranger,_ at full load they actually displaced quite a bit more - and notably, the _Sangamons_ operated F6Fs and F4Us (rather than the FM2 Wildcats most CVEs flew) once the Navy had enough of those types for all the fast carriers.

[@gregorywright4918]

Remember that in 1934 aircraft were quite a bit lighter than they were by 1942, and still biplanes. Also the Sangamons still had some extra oil tankage eating up part of their displacement. They often refueled their escorts.

[@terencewong-lane4309]

Lovely, my favourite US aircraft carrier! Thank you Drachinifel ❤

[@petesheppard1709]

Great overview, especially with all the photos!

[@joshuariddensdale2126]

My grandpa served on Ranger CV4 as part of her Marine detachment. A couple years ago, I built Trumpeter's 1/350 scale model of her. The included paint chart depicts her in her 1944 dazzle scheme, but I've researched other schemes she wore throughout her career. Pre-war, she was simply painted straight haze gray. Early war, she wore Measure 12 Mod, but was soon repainted in Measure 22 (Sea Blue up to the hangar deck, Haze Gray above), before being repainted yet again in the dazzle scheme. In my first build, I didn't bother putting the PE parts on either.

[@Uncle_Neil]

BTW, USS Texas (BB35) entered dry dock on 8/31, finally...so YES!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yeah. There was a lot of stuff they did with _Ranger_ that the stopped doing with _Ranger_ . _Wasp_ was another smaller carrier. They had a bit of Treaty Tonnage left over after the _Yorktown's_ and they made a smaller _Yorktown_ out of it. The didn't want to send it to the Pacific because it was to lightly built - but with other carrier losses - they did - and it was lost too. .

[@leopardone2386]

I just read an interesting article on Ranger this week then the 5 minute guide comes out. Talk about timing!

[@kwad8]

Ranger had a much more interesting life than I expected. The way Drach always talks about her i thought she never saw any combat and was using for training and testing all her life.

[@leighrate]

In the role.she performed, she did infinitely more damage to the Axis Power's than simply being one more flat top that's running around.breaking thing. Logistics and training win wars.

[@MalfosRanger]

When she had the opportunity, Ranger and her crew reveled going after the enemy. While many now and in her time compare her capabilities unfavorably to her contemporaries, I doubt anyone in the Atlantic theater had anything but appreciation for the example her crew set. As with aircraft, it’s often the ship’s crew that defines her legacy more than the engineers that devised her.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Wow! I have ALWAYS wondered about this desperately needed but apparently even less badly armored than Wasp CV!

[@ph89787]

Wasp was pretty much a watered down Yorktown.

[@jeffbrooke4892]

Thanks, its nice seeing attention aid to an often overlooked ship. It would be ineresting hearing you talk on the Wasp and how it compared to the Ranger, seeing how both appeared to be very similar in size and function yet with the Wasp having been built after the Ranger. Thanks!

[@phaasch]

No SKF universal shaft couplings on that bad boy.

[@davidholder3207]

Thanks for taking us along to the Bristol weekend. What a blast.

[@kaltenstein7718]

I absolutely love the picture at 4:20, The Lexingtons with Ranger and the half-finished Golden Gate Bridge With Alcatraz in the background. Where do you get all of these?

[@riverraven7359]

While overshadowed by bigger cv's I think the lighter carriers were useful supports to a lot of operations. The current Royal Navy could do with a pair of cheap, fast carriers for similar reasons.

[@alaindao7374]

Small carriers may save on shipbuilding cost but the operation costs are where it really hurts. The USS Ranger CV-4 had nearly the same size crew as the larger USS Yorktown CV-5. This means that the day to day operations cost of the Ranger was nearly the same as the Yorktown while you are getting a less capable carrier.

[@riverraven7359]

@@alaindao7374 fair point, I was largely thinking of the strike power of a large airgroup based on a (comparatively) cheap hull. For low tech enemies a high number of basic ground attack aircraft is more use than a small number of multirole generation 5 aircraft.

[@Lemonjellow]

I mean... technically the Royal Navy does have a pair of "cheap," fast carriers if we're comparing them to the modern equivalent of a fleet carrier. The QE's are 40,000 tons lighter, carry 30'ish less aircraft at full load, are close in cruising speed, and are 5 Billion GBP's cheaper give or take in unit price than a Nimitz Class Super Carrier... They're rather impressive ships honestly...

[@MalfosRanger]

Funny thing is that before Ranger attacked the German shipping off of Norway, German newspapers celebrated a U-boat skipper awarded for allegedly sinking her. Ranger’s skipper even posed for a picture with a German article claiming his ship’s demise.

[@joshuariddensdale2126]

My grandpa, who served on Ranger CV4 as a Marine, had a copy of the newspaper article where Uboat captain Von Bülow of the U404 erroneously reported sinking Ranger.

[@Knight6831]

Ranger was the 1 of the 3 pre-war carriers to survive the war

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Enterprise is the second, who is the third?

[@epl803]

@@MaxwellAerialPhotography Saratoga

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@epl803 Yes. Lexington and Saratoga looked so much alike they put a big stripe down the sides of the Funnels on Saratoga - which you can see in that picture of all the American's Carriers. .

[@kwad8]

@@BobSmith-dk8nw That dark stripe threw me off at first thinking it was a different ship with 2 funnels.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@kwad8 Yeah. They wanted to make it easy to see I guess. My understanding is that they were having people from one ship land on the other a lot so that's what they did. .

[@burningsky23]

very cool pic of the four early CVs all together👍

[@Birdfarmer862]

I have had the ‘Distinction’ of attending reunions of crews from USS RANGER CV-4 and USS RANGER CV-61. Amazingly, the CV-4 guys were MUCH CRAZIER! Both had the reputation of being the happiest CVs in their days.

[@colbeausabre8842]

What's interesting is that the USN eventually decided that the Ranger and Wasp were too small to operate torpedo bombers and the their air group changed from the standard one squadron of fighters (VF) with F4F's, one squadron of scouts (VS) with SBD's, one squadron of bombers (VB) with SBD's (the scout and bomber squadrons trained identically and were, in practice, interchangeable) and one squadron of torpedo bombers (VT) with TBD's or TBF's to one consisting of two fighter, one scout and one and one bombenee r squadron. Every carrier also had an Air Group headquarters flight with one each of the type used by each squadron embarked, so the Ranger carried 2 F$F's and 2 SBD's in that. And selected carriers were designated as flagships and carried a flag flight, normally a SBD and a biplane amphibian J2F to attend conferences ashore. Both these aircraft were painted, a special glossy deep "Flag Officer Blue".

[@Straswa]

Yay my favorite carrier, thanks and nice work Drach!

[@SaturnCanuck]

Thanks for this. I always thought of Ranger as "The Forgotten Carrier". Now for Episode 300, might I suggest another carrier -- USS Valley Forge CV-45. The first jet sortie flew off her desks in Korea, and in 1970 became the setting for the movie "Silent Running" as the Space Freighter Valley Forge.

[@chadthundercock5641]

On the topic of carriers, can you do a video on the history and uses of "battlecarriers", or aviation battleships? The Ises, Tone, Kearsage etc.

[@marcbloom7462]

Still hoping for a review of the USS Mississippi (BB-23) and USS Idaho (BB-24).

[@johnforsyth7987]

Me too.

[@rayperkins6006]

I greatly enjoy your channel. May I suggest that you produce some content on WW2 British Rescue Tugs. For starters you could look at the career of the Lady Brassey, in particular her exploits in the channel in 1944.

[@32shumble]

Nice looking ship

[@davidlee8551]

Excellent information as usual. Thanks!

[@flynnmeikle6482]

good vid, love to see hms enterprise one day

[@Achates72]

Yay more Drach!

[@eegles]

4:08 Presumably this photo shows the Golden Gate Bridge under construction, with the main deck about to be joined? And the Ranger about to pass Alcatraz Island prison?

[@gregorywright4918]

Yep.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

5:30 aircraft ferry I wonder if these ferry runs included tanks or other large cargo

[@gregorywright4918]

Aircraft were a much more valuable and time-constrained cargo than tanks, which usually traveled on large freighters. Plus, they needed a powerful crane to lift them off.

[@dougeldredge]

uss chicago cg11 was a great war ship, we decommed her in 80, i believe shes razor blades now

[@ronallen3087]

I would like to see a video on USS Ranger CVA/CV -61. I t s sortie rate and tonnage dropped in Viet Nam and Gulf War was why she was the "Top Gun of the Pacific Fleet".

[@brentsmith5647]

Brilliant video thank u 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@Engine33Truck]

Ranger had some great benefits. She was excellent, she was a “tour de force” if you will into the light fleet concept (though the USN didn’t know it at the time), she was not only an experimental phase in carrier development but also served as an example of what not to do going forward. But for combat capabilities, the USN would’ve been better served by somehow finagling a third Lexington into the WNT.

[@gregorywright4918]

The problem with the Lexingtons was they were TOO big for what they got. They had enclosed hangars, which limited what you could strike below and warm up there (and probably led to Lexington's loss due to gas fumes). Steve Valley made the point that the Lexingtons may not have been worth it, but they were all the aviators were going to get in the early 20s, and they showed what a big carrier could do. Two was enough, but the follow-on Ranger was built too small. They should have aimed for 20,000 tons.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

That tiny island looks strangely like one of the USN supercarriers!

[@gregorywright4918]

From a distance; they are very different in size and layout. The difference to the other oil-fired carriers is the lack of a stack. The CVLs and CVEs all had similar deck-edge stacks, which would not keep smoke off the deck or from the landing glidepath in certain wind directions.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

@@gregorywright4918 Of course, but from certain angles it surprised me.

[@mjjuntunen]

I had been wondering about the Ranger lately

[@peteryazak866]

The Ranger also participated in Operation Bodo against german merchant shipping

[@MalfosRanger]

Operation Leader, off the coast of Norway in Fall of 1943.

[@peteryazak866]

@@MalfosRanger Your right I was mistaken. Thank you for the correction.

[@loganjay7819]

Literally was looking for uss ranger yesterday

[@raxbol]

Another informative and interesting video. Would you ever consider doing a series of videos on ship names such as all the U.S. Navy ships named Ranger with a very brief history on each or all the HMS Queen Elizabeth's or Ark Royals, that sort of thing? Could be interesting.

[@timclaus8313]

The Ranger was necessary to learn what was needed to build the Yorktown and Essex classes.

[@gregorywright4918]

Not exactly true - the Yorktown was laid down in May of 1934, the Ranger was commissioned in June of 1934. I think it was more of the comparison from the Langley to the Lexington class, they realized the "small carrier" was a mistake.

[@timclaus8313]

@@gregorywright4918 Every ship designed and built is a lessons learned case for those that follow. While the timeline between design and keel laying was not great, the combined lessons of the BC conversions and Ranger led to the much improved Yorktown design, and then to the even better Essex. Expect lessons from Ranger also went into the Independence class conversion light carriers.

[@timclaus8313]

@@gregorywright4918 A smart navy learns from every ship they build, and incorporates the lessons into the next ships. Even of the same general class.

[@gregorywright4918]

@@timclaus8313 In the case of the Ranger and the Wasp, the USN was not being "smart" but rather trying to see what it could get away with within the limitations of the Washington and London Treaties. Those were mistakes, too small to be well-protected or fast enough. They served well, but Wasp's demise showed what would have happened to Ranger if she had been used in the South Pacific in '42. I just don't think the dates mean that Ranger contributed much to the Yorktown. She probably had some effect on modifications to Enterprise and Hornet, and she definitely drove the Navy to upgrade the size of the next class and protect it better.

[@timclaus8313]

@@gregorywright4918 Without a doubt, every country was playing games with the treaty limits, though the UK less than most. Being as pretty much every carrier prior to WWII was a bit of a crap shoot trying to figure out what would work, it is no wonder Ranger and Wasp were built. We also see with Kaga, Akagi and other earlier carriers, the IJN tried all kinds of stuff, along with the multiple flight decks on some of the RN ex-battlecruisers. By the time the US came up with the Essex design and the RN came up with Illustrious, it is fair to say both countries pretty much optimize their carrier designs for the war they needed to fight in 1940 and later.

[@fr.joeobrien3678]

I have 2 comments: 1) Call me inattentive! Drach, I've long enjoyed your installments but I haven't been reading the fine print carefully. USS Ranger is Guide 299. (Thanks, see below.) Do you have something special for #300? 2) Always interested in the development of the US carriers. (PS: Jon Parshall guest: always 4 stars!!!) Langley: test tube. Lex and Sara: treaty opportunities. Yorktown and Enterprise: heavyweight stalwarts. Wasp and Hornet: slightly slimmer stingers followed by Essex hoard... Thanks for filling the Ranger gap! Now I know why CV4 was a 'one of a kind.' (Hey, how may tons do we have left?) Drach: 'Knowledge and Thoroughness.'

[@mbryson2899]

Rumor has it that for #300 he'll be covering HMS Spartan and that he'll be doing the narration bare-chested.

[@gregorywright4918]

The Hornet was a Yorktown repeat, rather than a smaller Wasp repeat. And I think you mean the Essex "horde"...

[@fr.joeobrien3678]

@@gregorywright4918 Gregory, Re: Essex 'horde', thank you, I did!

[@mbryson2899]

Check it out, the rumors were true!

[@DougVerona]

I really enjoy your videos. I would like to see a video about the ship I was on, USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30) (1955-84), if it is in the scope of what you cover.

[@nx014]

Dear Drachinifel - I saw your video on your tour of the USS Olympia. I wonder if you would get around and give a video tour of the BATTLESHIP USS Missouri (BB-63) or not?

[@solicitr666]

1:38 "The carriers the US Navy already had, either in service or under construction." Actually, the WNT exempted all existing carriers as "experimental," so Langley (the one US carrier in service at the time) didn't count against the cap.

[@Drachinifel]

Article 8 meant Langley counted at the time but could be replaced at any moment, unlike anything built afterwards. The US didn't count her into their long term plans as they'd replace her with a far more capable ship, but she was technically there on paper in the 20's

[@gregorywright4918]

@@Drachinifel She counted up until 1937, when they downgraded her to an aircraft transport/seaplane tender (AV-3). But that was too late to help the Wasp.

[@treemanlee07]

What no ads??? Wonderful!

[@TargaWheels]

There was another carrier I think it was the Ranger that came to Hawaii in the mid-70s. It was in Pearl when we went to the Arizona memorial. It was no where near as big as the current carriers. It was still a monster of a ship. I think they scrapped that one also.

[@gregorywright4918]

CV-61, the third Forrestal? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-61)

[@DaveSCameron]

Love these ⚓

[@johnfisher9692]

It looks like ranger taught the US a valuable lesson on the problems of trying to squeeze too much into a small hull. Looking at how the aircraft were deck parked on outriggers i shudder to think how many would have been lost in a Pacific or Atlantic storm.

[@chesterbaumgart7381]

Excellent video.

[@andrewmountford3608]

Can you cover HMS Conway please? My father was taught on the ship. It ran aground in the Menai Straights and was lost. Not his fault I hasten to add.

[@Aelxi]

🎶Go Go US Ranger🎶

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Mighty shipfu USS Rangeeeer

[@johnforsyth7987]

Hey Drach. How about doing videos on the battleships USS Mississippi and Idaho. Great video on the Ranger. A carrier than often gets overlooked.

[@mattw785]

Aw always, great stuff!

[@mrains100]

Thank you.

[@TheBruceGday]

Would have been nice to preserve her as a museum piece as the first purpose built carrier, along with CV-6 the most decorated ship of the war, Enterprise!

[@JohnReall]

My father served on the Ranger before the war.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Off to the 'Breakers' with you ! Arrrrrrrrgh!

[@dancahill8555]

I see a picture here of a Vought Scout Bomber, and elsewhere I've seen one on the Ranger's flight deck during Operation Torch. Did these take part in the action?

[@christopherrowe7460]

From Robert Cressman's "USS RANGER", page 196, "With VF-9, VF-41, and VS-41 embarked (the last-named squadron having only recently transitioned from the SB2U to the SBD), the RANGER sailed for Bermuda on 3 October...". This was in preparation for Operation TORCH, so it's possible there were a few spare SB2U aircraft on board for flag or staff use, but there's no record of them being used in combat.

[@needap0078]

Alright Drach lad Any chance of doing a vid on the IJN Kagero?

[@christopher5723]

It's too bad we didnt keep her as a museum ship instead of one of the multiple Essex we have, if nothing else for some variety.

[@christopherrowe7460]

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd rather have saved the ENTERPRISE if given the choice. (And I say that as the grandson of one of RANGER's commanders.)

[@stab74]

@@christopherrowe7460 I agree. And perhaps Saratoga as well.

[@christopher5723]

@@christopherrowe7460 I agree there's stuff of more significance I'd prefer to see, but ranger still beats out another Essex

[@gregorywright4918]

@@stab74 Saratoga would have been nice, but she was very big and in very poor condition at the end of the war.

[@americanrambler4972]

Actually, I do not think the Ranger would have been a good choice for a museum ship. While she did have combat service and inflicted damage, there are not really any major historical events nor major technology introductions involved in her design and construction. I would label her a a “practice” and “Prototype” carrier. They tossed a lot of ideas and other haphazard things together on this ship to see how they fit. And at the end of the day, she did not measure up to the needed standard to be a front line combatant. And the people responsible for her use and mission assignments recognized her limitations and utilized her accordingly. There was just not enough of the “right stuff” to make her a viable ship for long term and costly museum status. You cannot save them all. Even though my hoarding nature of never throwing anything away screens otherwise.

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks 👍

[@bdm9649]

Can you do a segment on the USCG Secretary Class cutters?