A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4 in Aircraft Carriers Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4

Author	Comment
bomberjim	A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4	Lead	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 2 12 3:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	For some reason I've always had a soft spot for Ranger - CV-4. Of course she has always been considered as something of an "Odd Duck" and her design is generally described as "not successful", yet she was a pretty ship, and served with distinction for many years including combat missions in WW II. The number of fliers trained, experiments conducted, lessons learned etc. make it hard for me to accept that she was a "failure"... What think you?? Likewise I am intrigued by the idea of the MAC's. It's too bad that they could not have been brought to service earlier in the war in the North Atlantic. Anyway thought I'd share and ask - what you guys thought about the lil' old Ranger and what other "odd ducks" people have soft spots for...really could be any ship, type, or plane I guess. For airplanes I've always liked the Martin B-10. An interesting airplane that was the bomber "bridge" (in the US) between the older "kites" and the newer highly formidable and effective bombers of WW-II. James
	Remove this ad
sergeante		#1	[-]
Posts: 4257 Mar 2 12 6:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't really have any strong opinions about any US CV/CVN. My favorite "odd ducks": Ship: USS Long Beach, CGN-9 (of course) Aircraft: Fa 223 helicopter AFV: US armored amphibians, as a class, but particularly the LVTP-5 Ans, just for sh!ts and giggles, artillery: 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 (an odd duck because it used a tractor-type rocket motor with the payload in the rear)
IcelofAngeln		#2	[-]
Posts: 5931 Mar 2 12 7:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would toss in the spring-loaded PIAT.
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#3	[-]
Posts: 220 Mar 2 12 7:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ranger was the first American carrier designed and built from the hull up, and her most impressive feature was the superimposition of her hangar decks above, and essentially separate from, the main hull. This feature would be included in all American carrier designs from Ranger to the Midway-class. Her funnel system, however, was an unsuccessful reversion to the hinged smoke-pipes of Langley. Ranger demonstrated that an obsession with economy leads to substandard carriers and prototype carrier she was found wanting even before her completion in 1934. Ranger's trouble was the mistaken attempt to fit a large air group into a small carrier, with the result that the required hangar space could only be provided at the expense of machinery space and, hence, speed. Your Text Signature ...
Bob Henneman		#4	[-]
Posts: 1582 Mar 3 12 1:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ranger did provide valuable training, experimentation, and experience, so she is not a failure in the sense that she was not worth building. But as she was intended to be a front line carrier, and not a training/ experimental ship, then she certainly failed to live up to expectations. My favorite odd ducks have always included the Erie Class gunboats. Large, good seaboats, well armed, long range, decent protection, good looking- more of a colonial cruiser than a gunboat. Tough too- Erie survived a torpedo long enough to reach port and beach herself. Great for showing the flag, training cruises, convoy escort, and littoral warfare, not very expensive to build, and they did not count against London Treaty limits. they were perfect peacetime ships for the US Navy. Too bad only 2 were built, and too bad they proved to be rather worthless oddballs in a world war. The Lun class ekranoplan "ground effect vehicle" is technically classed as a ship, though it is more of a low flying plane. One off, very fast, looked good on paper- ultimately worthless. But it looks cool as hell. I have a soft spot in my heart for Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien also. Withdrawn from service in 1916 as too obsolete, they ended up being invaluable between the wars, and fighting until the closing days of WWII. As for aircraft, the oft scorned Bell P-39 Airacobra was a unique plane, and arguably not a very good one after Congress deleted its turbocharger. But it looked unusual, and managed to rack up more individual air to air kills than any other allied fighter. The much maligned Brewster F2A Buffalo suffered from serious obsolescence by the time WWII started and it had to face Zeros. But it proved itself capable, reliable, and rugged enough to operate in the Winter War of 1939, racking up a 32:1 kill ratio against the Soviets while making 36 Finnish Buffalo pilots aces. The Fins LOVED them, though just 2-3 years later they were considered to be flying coffins.
Bob Henneman		#5	[-]
Posts: 1582 Mar 3 12 1:53 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wow, double post. Last Edited By: Bob Henneman Mar 3 12 2:06 AM. Edited 1 times.
bomberjim		#6	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 3 12 3:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If I remember right, part of the problem with Ranger was "tonnage limitations". The designers tried to fit too much into too little, but the navy didn't want to waste the tonnage allowance so they went ahead. Of course even negative lessons learned are valuable lessons and the highly successful Yorktown class benefited from mistakes made on Ranger. Some other nice oddities posted. I hadn't even heard of some of these. I like the P-39 too. fine looking plane...and the Russians loved the ones they got via lend/lease. They used them mainly for ground attack and tank busting. James
bager1968		#7	[-]
Posts: 7592 Mar 3 12 6:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	However, most of the air-air kills scored by P-39s were in USSR service... due to the lower-altitude fighting on the Eastern Front. The Lun-"class" (hard to call a one-off a "class") was indeed strange... a missile corvette in the shape of an airplane. The ekranoplan concept has been put into production, however. Before the Lun was built, a planned fleet of 120 A-90 transport versions were ordered, but only 4 operational units were built. However, new production of this type is under planning by the Volga Shipyard. A number of smaller types and numbers have been built, and development has been carried out in several countries. In Singapore, Wigetworks has continued the development of the technology and has obtained certification from Lloyd's Register for entry into class. AirFish 8-001 was successfully registered into Singapore Registry of Ships (SRS) on 31 March 2010. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
Bob Henneman		#8	[-]
Posts: 1582 Mar 3 12 8:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah, the ground effect vehicle (GEV) development continues to move along at the blistering pace of a narcoleptic turtle...but the LUN is da bomb! She (it?) is unique, and looks like some kind of frigging nightmare a designer had, or maybe something a kid put together with legos. Sort of like a C-124 Loadmaster had an illegitimate child with a Slava class missile cruiser, then someone came along with a welder and attached every jet engine, radar dome, and even gun they could find on the crap pile. They can built a million GEV units, but there will only be one that I have a soft spot for.
Larrikin22		#9	[-]
Posts: 4343 Mar 3 12 8:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If I'm a fighter pilot and I kill the Lun, do I get credit for an air to air kill, or a ship? Or could I make a case for both, and thus get to put one of each on the nose of my 'plane? You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
Bob Henneman		#10	[-]
Posts: 1582 Mar 3 12 10:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HA! Trick question! You CAN'T kill the Lun! The Lun kills YOU! Chuck Norris has nightmares about the Lun! Superman dresses up as the Lun on Halloween! James Brown jumps back and kisses the Lun! The Lun can touch M.C. Hammer! The Lun is what you gonna do when they come for you! The Lun is what Willis was talkin about! The Lun is something completely different! Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters L-U-N! The Lun does not need to buy a vowel! The Lun DOES fit, but you STILL must acquit! You will end up living in the Lun...down by the river! Ok, I'm done now.
	Remove this ad
Obi Wan Russell		#11	[-]
Posts: 897 Mar 3 12 1:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bob, stop beating about the bush as regards the LUN and tell us what you really think! As for Ranger, I regard her as being a positive, simply on the grounds that as an engineer, one of the first things you are taught is that you learn nothing from a successful test! She was far from perfect, but she was a one off and supplied enough information to the designers to produce the Yorktown class, and thence to the Essex class. Not bad for two steps in the design process. She was still capable of serving in combat during the War and indeed survived in one piece (albeit going to the breakers yard in 47). USS Wasp CV7 was effectively an improved Ranger, eliiminating the worst aspects of the design (Funnel placement being the most obvious) but she was still handicapped by small size.
bomberjim		#12	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 3 12 3:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would also expect that lessons learned on Ranger were particularly applicable to the later CVL's Touching on the MAC's for a moment, I've always wondered what effect these oddballs would have had on the Convoy war if say 6 or 8 had been available in 1940... Certainly they could not be as effective as a dedicated CVE but they still would have been something of a nasty surprise for the U-boats. James
emc		#13	[-]
Posts: 6743 Mar 3 12 4:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bomberjim wrote: If I remember right, part of the problem with Ranger was "tonnage limitations". The designers tried to fit too much into too little, but the navy didn't want to waste the tonnage allowance so they went ahead. Of course even negative lessons learned are valuable lessons and the highly successful Yorktown class benefited from mistakes made on Ranger. Some other nice oddities posted. I hadn't even heard of some of these. I like the P-39 too. fine looking plane...and the Russians loved the ones they got via lend/lease. They used them mainly for ground attack and tank busting. James They also used them to great effect against the Luftwaffe's aircraft. See http://www.historyofwar.o...39_Airacobra_Soviet.html and www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_19.html. It was, apparently, very good at low altitudes, even against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer. Why is it the same people who promote evidence-based medicine and evidence-based school systems object so strenuously to evidence-based biology and evidence-based climate science?
MBecker01		#14	[-]
Posts: 2328 Mar 3 12 6:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sergeante wrote: I don't really have any strong opinions about any US CV/CVN. My favorite "odd ducks": Ship: USS Long Beach, CGN-9 (of course) She is a worthy successor to Fuso. If looks could kill, they'd still make ships like her today. bomberjim wrote: I like the P-39 too. fine looking plane...and the Russians loved the ones they got via lend/lease. They used them mainly for ground attack and tank busting. James No they did not. This story is the result of a mistranslation. The VVS used them for something that is 'coverage of ground forces' if you translate the russian phrase word by word, which one should not do. The correct translation of the phrase is 'air superiority mission', meaning the P-39 was their 'Spitfire/Mustang'.
bomberjim		#15	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 3 12 7:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	MBecker01 wrote: sergeante wrote: I don't really have any strong opinions about any US CV/CVN. My favorite "odd ducks": Ship: USS Long Beach, CGN-9 (of course) She is a worthy successor to Fuso. If looks could kill, they'd still make ships like her today. bomberjim wrote: I like the P-39 too. fine looking plane...and the Russians loved the ones they got via lend/lease. They used them mainly for ground attack and tank busting. James No they did not. This story is the result of a mistranslation. The VVS used them for something that is 'coverage of ground forces' if you translate the russian phrase word by word, which one should not do. The correct translation of the phrase is 'air superiority mission', meaning the P-39 was their 'Spitfire/Mustang'. I stand corrected. My understanding was that they used them for tank busting on account of the 37 mm cannon in the nose...and the lack of a supercharger made them pretty usesless above 15000 feet. But on further quick research, I see that the 37 mm was not effective against German tanks and that they were used as cover for the Shturmoviks who were doing the tank busting... Thanks for the clarification. James
bager1968		#16	[-]
Posts: 7592 Mar 3 12 7:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Obi Wan Russell wrote: As for Ranger, I regard her as being a positive, simply on the grounds that as an engineer, one of the first things you are taught is that you learn nothing from a successful test! She was far from perfect, but she was a one off and supplied enough information to the designers to produce the Yorktown class, and thence to the Essex class. Not bad for two steps in the design process. She was still capable of serving in combat during the War and indeed survived in one piece (albeit going to the breakers yard in 47). USS Wasp CV7 was effectively an improved Ranger, eliiminating the worst aspects of the design (Funnel placement being the most obvious) but she was still handicapped by small size. Ranger was only placed "in combat" a couple of times, and then only where there was little enemy air power (Torch, etc). Before Torch she ferried P-40s to west Africa (well south of French territory), and afterwards she served with the British Home Fleet through all of 1943... cruising north along Norway and north-west to Iceland, not exactly Luftwaffe hot-spots. With the exception of one more ferry mission to north Africa in April 1944, she spent the rest of the war in US waters (both coasts and Hawaii) as a training carrier. Wasp was definitely better... proving that Ranger had given valuable data to the USN. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
bager1968		#17	[-]
Posts: 7592 Mar 3 12 7:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bomberjim wrote: Touching on the MAC's for a moment, I've always wondered what effect these oddballs would have had on the Convoy war if say 6 or 8 had been available in 1940... Certainly they could not be as effective as a dedicated CVE but they still would have been something of a nasty surprise for the U-boats. James Or if a couple had been available in September 1939... how would having one of them on that ASW patrol in the western approaches have altered things... how much would have having Courageous around for Norway have altered things... does Glorious still get surprised by S&G? If not, then the RN has 2 more "medium" fleet carriers available! Even if D'Oyly Hughes still gets her sunk through his stupidity, then there is still Courageous to boost resupply ops for Malta, add to the forces hunting Bismark & Prinz Eugen, and possibly to give Admiral Phillips some fighter cover off Singapore. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
MBecker01		#18	[-]
Posts: 2328 Mar 3 12 7:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bomberjim wrote: I stand corrected. My understanding was that they used them for tank busting on account of the 37 mm cannon in the nose...and the lack of a supercharger made them pretty usesless above 15000 feet. But on further quick research, I see that the 37 mm was not effective against German tanks and that they were used as cover for the Shturmoviks who were doing the tank busting... Thanks for the clarification. James Yes and the P-39 the VVS got were much improved. The P-39D the USAAF used on GC and NG had engines that quickly lost power above 12k feet, the -N/-Q's engines had a critical altitude of 16k feet and above that they lost power not nearly as quick as the -D. They could maintain their (higher) top speed up to 20k feet.
ChrisPat		#19	[-]
Posts: 5884 Mar 3 12 8:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bager1968 wrote: bomberjim wrote: Touching on the MAC's for a moment, I've always wondered what effect these oddballs would have had on the Convoy war if say 6 or 8 had been available in 1940... Certainly they could not be as effective as a dedicated CVE but they still would have been something of a nasty surprise for the U-boats. James Or if a couple had been available in September 1939... how would having one of them on that ASW patrol in the western approaches have altered things... how much would have having Courageous around for Norway have altered things... does Glorious still get surprised by S&G? If not, then the RN has 2 more "medium" fleet carriers available! Even if D'Oyly Hughes still gets her sunk through his stupidity, then there is still Courageous to boost resupply ops for Malta, add to the forces hunting Bismark & Prinz Eugen, and possibly to give Admiral Phillips some fighter cover off Singapore. AIUI U-Boats submerged on sighting an a/c early in the war, meaning they couldn't shadow a convoy to set up a wolfpack attack while not being able to get into an attack position themselves, depending on the speed of the convoy and the positions at the time of sighting. All of which helps a lot even if the a/c did't spot the boat, let alone attack it. I don't think they'd be a great surprise, it's kind of hard to explain away a wide open flat deck on an oiler or a grain ship...maybe you could put false clutter all over it but then your own aircrew couldn't train on it. Not sure a dedicated CVE would actually do much better than a MAC in '39 - '40. More a/c but not enough escorts to stay and kill a detected U-boat, no air or escort radars, no HF/DF, no Ultra, no Hedgehog or Squid. CVEs were part of a team and most of the rest of the team weren't there yet. Meanwhile more a/c might be a bit helpful but the FAA didn't have enough crews to fill the carriers they did have. Bager, one or both of those carriers surviving is one of my favourite what ifs. Add in the RN making the best of their aircrew shortage by having Furious brought up to a sort of Courageous with a full length flight deck and decent AA standard. That's three more "mediums" for the loss of a "small to medium". Last Edited By: ChrisPat Mar 3 12 9:02 PM. Edited 1 times.
ChrisPat		#20	[-]
Posts: 5884 Mar 3 12 8:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	IcelofAngeln wrote: I would toss in the spring-loaded PIAT. Indeed. For; A real threat to tanks in '44 unlike rifle grenades, no backblast, limited firing signature, can be used as a mortar out to about 600 yds. Against; Heavy, awkward, fires the priming cap straight back down the line of flight. Given some development I could see a sensible firing spring (after all pistols are fired by percussion caps and I've never heard of anyone rupturing themselves cocking one of those), recoil absorbtion by a separate spring or other method and smoke and HE or HESH ammo. The bomb was based on a 3" mortar bomb so that last shouldn't be hard. Soft launch of a rocket propelled warhead would be nice for extended range, if the basic bomb went to c90m then getting a bigger one to about 20m should be doable. It would still be heavy, but so was a Carl Gustav 84mm.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4