USS Wasp (CV-7) - The Baby Yorktown

[@skyneahistory2306]

Want to support the channel? www.patreon.com/Sky_T65

[@ph89787]

Having done international law at uni. The US Navy theoretically could have gotten away with building Wasp as a full Yorktown if the keel was laid down in 1937 or 38. As Japan and Italy having been absent from negotiations prevented an agreement to combine tonnage allocation. Plus the original Washington Treaty tonnage limits expired on 31 December 1936.

[@paprizio1073]

Yes, but now the Americans (and the British) can joke that they do respect naval treaties, not like the backstabbing Japanese or Germans, so a win at the end of the day.

[@ph89787]

@@paprizio1073 I know what you’re getting at. But there really wouldn’t have been anything illegal (aside from a few million being swiped from Congress) about building Wasp as a full Yorktown in 1937-38

[@MarkYeung1]

Great point

[@Ah01]

Being hit by a three torpedo salvo, it would most likely have sunk a carrier even with a yorktown scale protection. Heavy blisters added late could have helped.

[@ph89787]

@@Ah01 eating three long lances would also sink a Yorktown. Heck even an Essex-Class Carrier would be in trouble with that kind of damage. But the reason I bring up the idea of Wasp as a Yorktown. Is not so much her surviving the torpedo salvo from I-19. But being deployed to the Pacific far earlier. As her original design meant she was initially stuck in the Atlantic. But with the loss of Lexington at Coral Sea and Yorktown at Midway. The U.S. Navy deemed it necessary for her to be transferred to the Pacific.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Had a professor who survived the sinking. He was a Marine aide to the ship’s captain. A WW2, Korea, and Vietnam vet. Went from PFC too LCOL

[@michaeleasterwood6558]

Thank you WASP for your service. You did good

[@Straswa]

Agreed. RIP Wasp and her crew. o7

[@Will_CH1]

Wasp was by far, the best light carrier of the war.

[@Mechanized85]

I don't believe the USS Wasp can be classified as a light carrier due to its size and tonnage. Despite having little to no armor, it had a significant aircraft-carrying capacity, capable of accommodating up to 75 or more aircraft. It featured two elevators, including the experimental and operational deck edge elevator, which was a pioneering feature for carriers at the time. However, its speed was not as fast as standard light carriers, similar to the USS Ranger (CV-4), with a maximum speed ranging from 28.5 to 30 knots. The USS Wasp had comparable dimensions to the Ranger in terms of length and beam, with the main difference being the island/superstructure/bridge configuration. The Wasp had a single funnel combined with the bridge/island structure, while the Ranger had six smaller funnels that could be raised or lowered on the rear stern deck. Given these factors, it is evident that the USS Wasp was better suited to be classified as a fleet carrier rather than a light carrier. so yeah, that's why.

[@Will_CH1]

@@Mechanized85 It was a 14900 tonne standard ship compared to the Colossus which were 13200 tonnes standard. The Colossous class were only designed for 52 aircraft making the Wasp a much better design.

[@lapuamies8718]

The declassified documents from the 1970's of the USS WASP's sinking show that the wrong coordinates had been sent to the task force sending them into an area known to be infested with Japanese submarines instead of having avoided the area. In other words the loss of the WASP, the O'Brien and the hit on the North Carolina were all because of a transcription error of a classified message. My uncle was lost on the WASP. He was working in the location of the third torpedo strike.

[@Mitsuolevel]

My great grandfather served on it and the horrors he told of the people that survived was awful, most said that they wish they didn't

[@Straswa]

Condolences for your losses

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

Yet another example of how well machines were built back then. They don’t make’em like they used to anymore.

[@ph89787]

Also Wasp did have one advantage over her Yorktown half-sisters (cousins) in that she had alternating boiler and machinery rooms. As opposed to having them placed right next to each other. Which partially explains why she was slow in sinking

[@eze417]

I had an uncle in the Panama Canal Zone when the war with Japan started. He saw the Wasp squeeze through the Canal with a very small amount of room on either side. After that it didn't take the Japanese long to knock her out permanently. I'm sure the Navy would have preferred to keep Wasp in the Atlantic, but they were desperate for carriers in the Pacific at that point. Ranger was if anything less fit for battle than Wasp. Long Island was a small and slow escort carrier. And the Essex class were still under construction. Very sad story of the Wasp. In retrospect it's much easier to see that a smaller air group and more protection for the ship would have been better.

[@Straswa]

Great work Skynea, Wasp was certainly a fascinating carrier despite her flaws.

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

Quite right. She NEVER stops surprising!!! ♍ I can say more; you may be astonished by a guy from Europe this deep sitting in the history of US carriers and writing not bad language, but we the shiplovers here are all to a high standard, as your carriers are too. All the best in service and always safe return home from the sea, friends. 😊👍

[@billotto602]

I wonder how many planes got away from them with that elevator rig ? 🤣🤣🤣

[@gildavis8266]

The problem was dealing with that navel treaty and the limits imposed on our country. If I had been alive at the time and an adult, I would have advised the war department to design the Hornet and Wasp in such a way where their tonnage and ability would be easily increased by adding to their design later once the treaties were null and void. In other words, design a phase two supplement adding what was necessary to bring them up to Yorktown class standards. How do you do that? By engineering an outer protective hull designed to fit around the existing one increasing torpedo protection. To counter the extra weight added, her engines could have been designed to accept upgrades and having them ready to add to the ship simultaneously when the opportunity came along.

[@alephalon7849]

I WILL NEVER FORGIVE NAVY PROPONENTS OF 8-INCH GUNS ON CARRIERS! That was an enlightening video on the "baby Yorktown", especially since you covered her duty hauling Spitfires to Malta.

[@panzerdeal8727]

Um...Layte Gulf 1944...IF the wasp had been with Taffy 3.....

[@albertoswald8461]

When the Lexington and Saratoga were built they really weren't sure what they would be doing in a future war and weren't sure how good their airplanes were. Having a few heavy guns was a reassuring concept. That they sucked since they couldn't really fire to port was found out over time.

[@brianlaneherder3666]

Originally carriers were just cruisers that carried airplanes for the scouting role. Before operational radar was fitted in 1940 any warship could sneak up on you over the horizon if your planes weren't in the air. Since you could theoretically outrun battleships of the era, that meant you needed cruiser guns to fight off what you couldn't outrun.

[@Straswa]

@@panzerdeal8727 That would be an interesting scenario.

[@marckyle5895]

@@albertoswald8461 I'd hate to have been the sailor who said "Sir, there's a slight _problem_ with the deck due to this firing exercise we're in." What good is a weapon that disables your primary weapon half the time it's needed?

[@stevedownes5439]

I look forward to the video about catapult launching from the hangar deck. Nothing quite as crazy in appearance as an Avenger launching sideways from a ship underway, at least the Hellcats were only single seaters. There are some articles that mention radar and fleet tactics being the "final" deciding factor in their removal from the Essex class carriers that they had been installed on, though some articles note Shangri-La and the second Hornet retained theirs until the end of the war.

[@ph89787]

I’m surprised Shangri-La was even built with one.

[@RetiredSailor60]

I served on USS Wasp LHD 1 2000-03....

[@Straswa]

Thank you for your service!

[@michaelwellner6292]

Thank you for your service! My Grandad Owen Dallas Sharp on the wasp RIP POP POP!!

[@NewCastleIndiana]

My dad served on Wasp CV-7 including when it was hit by the torpedo. Her also served on cvl-22 that also got hit.

[@kidmohair8151]

compromises have a way of working out it seems... do the job until circumstances (being sunk) make doing that impossible

[@maureencora1]

USS Wasp CV-7 & CV-18 is My Birthday July 18th, So Cool. (smile)

[@Rocketsong]

It should be noted that not a single US Fleet Carrier was sunk by Japanese bombs. Every single one succumbed to a torpedo attack. Even Lady Lex, which had battlecruiser grade torpedo protection.

[@GOPGonzo]

There was an old joke among the USN bomber pilots in WWII. If you want to start a fire send a dive bomber, but if you want to sink them you need to use a torpedo. The success of US dive bombers at Midway is largely due starting such big fires that Japanese destroyers had to supply the torpedo's.

[@nogoodnameleft]

And on the flip side I think zero Japanese carriers were sunk by aerial torpedoes. At the Battle of the Philippine Sea for example the planes from the U.S. carriers sank zero Japanese carriers. The 3 sunken carriers were due to U.S. submarines. Those American aerial torpedoes and torpedo bombers sucked.

[@pattrick9490]

Ijn Hiyo was sunk by aerial torpedo at the battle of Phillipines sea.

[@leoamery]

The USS PRINCETON, sunk by a single bomb at Leyte Gulf, would like a word with you.

[@Gearing-s8q]

@@leoameryPrinceton was a cvl. He says fleet carrier

[@dennislewis9400]

I wished she had some kind of protection of the destroyer’s screen would had done a better job.

[@Ricky40369]

Excellent presentation.

[@randywise5241]

When the war started , why didn't they upgrade her hull? Was the need for her at that moment so great they sent her has was? Seems like a couple of weeks in drydock and she would have had torpedo blisters and more armor and better power plants.

[@DrBLReid]

She needed torpedo blisters added before she was sent to the Pacific.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The navy hadn’t the time to put Wasp in a shipyard. The Navy was even begging the British to loan a fleet carrier too the Pacific Fleet. Which did happen.

[@Straswa]

@@Idahoguy10157 HMS Victorious aka USS Robin

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@Straswa …. Yes. Eventually. By that time Wasp was long gone.

[@padurarulcriticsicinic4846]

​@@Idahoguy10157 Hornet too.

[@jayfrank1913]

Keep up the great work! I look forward to your videos.

[@mikepette4422]

those edge elevators always make my eyes pop open wide when I see them in use. it just looks dangerous

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

As always a question from me in Poland. The Baby Yorktown is said to be the only (?) WW2 carrier to have circumnavigated the Globe under war conditions. Is that true or not?... Regards and greetings from an old Wreck in Słupsk, PL ♍👍

[@DrBLReid]

USS Wasp should have had torpedo blisters added before being sent to the pacific.

[@dougc190]

I would agree but maybe she was just too light to take the extra weight if that makes any sense

[@DrBLReid]

@dougc190 I understand. At the time, the U.S. was between a rock and a hard place. Adding torpedo blisters, as was done later to CV-6 USS ENTERPRISE, could have possibly saved the YORKTOWN, WASP & HORNET. However, the USA industrial base was still shifting to a war footing and what became possible in 43 to 45 was just not happening in 42.

[@dougc190]

@@DrBLReid I'm sure if those other ships had survived they would have gotten blisters like Enterprise did. And I'm sure they would have survived that they did have the blisters. It's not like those ships didn't give Davy Jones the finger and same with the men trying to save them

[@Aelxi]

Never thought of that nickname for her. Quite cute actually.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Three Japanese torpedoes would sink most WW2 carriers. Being scuttled an additional three exploding U.S. torpedoes only just were enough to sink her.

[@padurarulcriticsicinic4846]

Hornet took even more to be sent to the bottom.

[@budwyzer77]

They seriously made a movie in which the "protagonist" punches out an elderly hero.

[@bradjohnson4787]

We operated with a Wasp! 1967

[@padurarulcriticsicinic4846]

CV-18, was to be named Oriskany, but was renamed Wasp in honour of CV-7.

[@raymondyee2008]

Well at least this video is balanced unlike that of BlackTail.

[@muddog13b]

I-19..if i recall the same sub that bagged Hammon and Yorktown..

[@pattrick9490]

I-168 sank Yorktown and Hamman at Midway . I-26 torpedoed Saratoga and later sank Juneau.

[@jerrymccrae7202]

No your incorrect in that, it was Commander Tambe in the I68 that sunk the Yorktown and Hammonn. Fyi the japs re numbered their subs about that time so I68 became I168. Have a nice weekend!

[@georgepobi3531]

Japan said fuck off to the treaty . Th

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

Yeah, they did as early, as in 1937. Thus the gate was open to build e.g. the famous Hiryu with her strange flight deck arrangement, or the 'Yamato'-Hotel (😊) ♍