I really think there is a place for your 15 ish minute videos, a lot more detail than a 5 minute guide, but much more digestible than an hour long video essay that covers every minor detail
14:00 Adding onto that. When Ranger was assigned to this particular role. She was with Saratoga as part of Carrier Division 11 under Rear Admiral Matthias Gardner. One of the Air Groups she trained was Night Air Group 90. Which eventually embarked on Enterprise in December 24 1944.
My grandfather served aboard this ship from Operation Torch through to her decommissioning as a radar operator. I always wanted to learn more about her, but at the time my grandfather was telling me war stories it was still the 1980s and I was pretty young. Thank you for this video, I feel more connected to my grandfather's service and the reason I enlisted in the USN myself
My grandfather was also on the Ranger during Torch. He later went to the Pacific on the Belleau Wood. Fun to think they might have known each other. :)
What I enjoy about your work is you "fill in the corners" that other naval historiographers like Drachinifel can't/won't/don't have the time to cover. It's novel content and it's enjoyable.
While in my readings of WW2, I'd seen references to the USS Ranger, but nothing ever came close to this. Thank you for this. I just very recently found your channel & I'm more impressed with each video I watch.
Torpedoes were smaller/unknown (Long Lance) in power when Ranger was designed. British "trade" Arethusa light cruisers used 2" armor as well. The Rangers primary defense was intended to the the air group, which was about double that of the British "armored" carriers. All designs are a compromise. As that which assisted through trials and testing USN aircraft transitioning from biplane to monoplane types, the Ranger was highly successful.
HMS HERMES was Layed down first but construction was delayed/ slowed down so they could get the feedback from from HMS EAGLE and HMS FURIOUS first leading to the idea of where to put superstructure/island/tower and for it to be on one side
It makes more sense to use Saratoga as a crossroads target as she much better represented a normal fleet carrier and the damage caused you be more the result of the bomb and not the weight cutting flimsiness the Ranger was. Besides, with so many carriers in the fleet by then, Saratoga and Ranger were both old and in need of replacement.
My uncles WW2 American infantry (torch operation) remember being told the USS Ranger was there to provide air support until the Army Aircorp got ashore
Your videos are good. The length is fine. I'm glad you go longer. It gives the viewers the opportunity to know more information and more details about the subject.
There isn't a single thing wrong with these videos. That really good to listen to while I'm driving around and work all day. Keep They're just the way they are
I agree w you & the comments. This is a nice length for a ship series. I also like that you let the viewer know when there is uncertainty. You don't put show over substance. Thanks!
There is NO reason to disparage the service of the Ranger in WWII. Certainly the Japanese successfully operated older and less capable carriers as did the British. She held the line until other more capable flat tops came on line AND she doubled her worth by later becoming a training carrier. She did was was asked of her and she did it well... and she survived the war. She deserves to be remembered.
No, they weren't all the same, they ran from the old Langley the first U.S. carrier which was converted from a Collier and sunk by the Japanese early in the war as a seaplane tender, to the two Lexington battle cruiser conversions, the 2 light carriers built to meet treaty restrictions, the excellent Yorktown class carriers, the mighty Essex class carriers, and a multitude of light carriers built on cruiser hulls, and Escort carriers built on commercial ship hulls.
Say what you want about her deficiencies Ranger still packed more offensive punch than any Royal Navy carrier. Her airwing had the capability to sink the Bismarck without any assistance from surface forces. For a Navy that developed most of the technology for aircraft carriers their carriers were inefficient, inferior designs. The Royal Navy's penultimate large deck design, the CVA 01 project of the 1960s was less capable than an Essex class rebuilt to the SCB 125 standard.
The Royal Navy's problem is that their air defence (the Royal Naval Air Service) had been merged with its land equivalent (the Army Air Corps) in 1918 to form the RAF with the result that from that point onwards Britain lagged behind Imperial Japan and the US in maritime aircraft development It did regain its autonomy in 1937 but by then the damage had been done It's for this reason that as the war progressed the Royal Navy increasingly had to rely on lend-lease supplied US aircraft I'm not sure you're right about the CVA-01? The rebuilt Essex's were superior to the modernised Audacious class but I don't think that would have been the case with CVA-01 and anyhow as it remained a stillborn we'll never know for sure
@@stephenchappell7512 The loss of control of naval aircraft retarded the development of naval aircraft but the Royal Navy still controlled aircraft carrier development. They just built inefficient ships. British naval aircraft development lagged behind 20 years after they regained control. The subsonic Sea Vixen was deployed in 1959, two years after the F8U. You measure a carrier's combat power by its airwing. The SCB 125 mods carried more and better aircraft than proposed CVA01 design.
@@johnshepherd9676 I wouldn't say better aircraft The modernised Audacious carried F-4's while the rebuilt Essex's embarked Crusaders As for Strike the Buccaneer was widely regarded as the top maritime strike aircraft of its generation
Great history of the USS RANGER CV61, I served on her from 1979-1981. There was a fire near my birthing department in the captains mess hall that I can't seem to find in her history! I was an radioman Rm2 , so our sleeping quarters was closer to the coom equipment on the flight deck! Can anyone help me with this??
Skynea, whilst I'm reasonably new to your work, you do a great job, have a different flavour to Drachinifel, maybe some day you 2 can do a collaberation together.? Somethng that ticks both of your boxes, a specific ship you both like very much, or one that you'd both like to explore for whatever reason/s.
The "more carriers" principle was largely upheld by the escort carriers of World War 2, many of whom gave very effective service and air support. Also, regarding torpedo bombers, given their horrible performance and survival rates in the Pacific, it was honestly just as well she didn't carry any at first. Torpedo bombers, as a whole, were just not very effective except in specific circumstances like the attacks on Bismarck, Yamato, Musashi, and Pearl Harbor, all of which were unprotected by air cover and unescorted by smaller ships to bolster their antiaircraft batteries. Torpedo bombers just weren't very successful or effective against ships underway. Midway was won by the divebombers, after the torpedo bombers unwittingly sacrificed themselves with only one surviving crew member.
It sounds like the Ranger was an excellent prototype-type aircraft carrier. Get the major mistakes out of the way early. America would go on to build the best (though the British might take exception to that - the US had far more resources to apply to the program as carriers evolved.
You are surprised that the Germans claimed to have destroyed your carriers? They regularly claimed to have sunk HMS Ark Royal until she was actually lost.
Well done and very informative. when the content is there, time should always be added. try to rush baking a cake and it will fall. just saying. thanks
That's great advice which should be shared with the Dark Seas/Dark Skies people. I'd rather have historically accurate information with visuals to match. Nice job here!
Actually, the U.S. still had the Enterprise, Hornet, and (a damaged) Yorktown in the Pacific after the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. And, the Saratoga was undergoing repairs and refitting on the West Coast at the time. But things got dicey for the U.S. Navy's carrier operations in late '42, when the fighting for Guadalcanal and the southern Solomons left us with only the Enterprise and/or the Saratoga. The British briefly lent us a carrier for the war in the Pacific until the first Essex-class carriers were deployed in early 1943.
I really think there is a place for your 15 ish minute videos, a lot more detail than a 5 minute guide, but much more digestible than an hour long video essay that covers every minor detail
Long form videos are the best for a long haul trucker to listen to, don't have to constantly scroll to find new ones every 5 minutes
To repurpose the US Army saying: Ranger truly leads the way. A very good coverage of the compromise carrier that did quite a lot of good service.
Don't worry about the videos being too long, that is what makes them great.
14:00 Adding onto that. When Ranger was assigned to this particular role. She was with Saratoga as part of Carrier Division 11 under Rear Admiral Matthias Gardner. One of the Air Groups she trained was Night Air Group 90. Which eventually embarked on Enterprise in December 24 1944.
My grandfather served aboard this ship from Operation Torch through to her decommissioning as a radar operator. I always wanted to learn more about her, but at the time my grandfather was telling me war stories it was still the 1980s and I was pretty young. Thank you for this video, I feel more connected to my grandfather's service and the reason I enlisted in the USN myself
My grandfather was also on the Ranger during Torch. He later went to the Pacific on the Belleau Wood. Fun to think they might have known each other. :)
What I enjoy about your work is you "fill in the corners" that other naval historiographers like Drachinifel can't/won't/don't have the time to cover. It's novel content and it's enjoyable.
While in my readings of WW2, I'd seen references to the USS Ranger, but nothing ever came close to this. Thank you for this. I just very recently found your channel & I'm more impressed with each video I watch.
She was, despite being a bit unconventional, a beauty; especially in measure 32 paint ❤️
Torpedoes were smaller/unknown (Long Lance) in power when Ranger was designed. British "trade" Arethusa light cruisers used 2" armor as well. The Rangers primary defense was intended to the the air group, which was about double that of the British "armored" carriers. All designs are a compromise. As that which assisted through trials and testing USN aircraft transitioning from biplane to monoplane types, the Ranger was highly successful.
American air launched torpedoes were a complete waste of space until late 1943… (When BuOrd finally admitted just how defective they were).
My father George Reall served on the Ranger from early 1940 to mid 1941.
Oh wow. My grandpa, James Riddensdale, served on Ranger from '42 to '45 as part of the Marine detachment.
She did her best for what she had and did it quite well. What more could you of asked of her.
I was on USS Ranger CV-61 from 1990 to 1992, R division, (flying squad)
HMS HERMES was
Layed down first but construction was delayed/ slowed down so they could get the feedback from from
HMS EAGLE and HMS FURIOUS first leading to the idea of where to put superstructure/island/tower and for it to be on one side
Good program! Excellent info on USS Ranger.
It makes more sense to use Saratoga as a crossroads target as she much better represented a normal fleet carrier and the damage caused you be more the result of the bomb and not the weight cutting flimsiness the Ranger was. Besides, with so many carriers in the fleet by then, Saratoga and Ranger were both old and in need of replacement.
Great work Skynea, the Ranger is my favorite US carrier. Such a unique design with rich history.
My uncles WW2 American infantry (torch operation) remember being told the USS Ranger was there to provide air support until the Army Aircorp got ashore
Your videos are good. The length is fine. I'm glad you go longer. It gives the viewers the opportunity to know more information and more details about the subject.
Good video. I've never seen anyone ever cover it. It was all new to me.
There isn't a single thing wrong with these videos. That really good to listen to while I'm driving around and work all day. Keep They're just the way they are
I agree w you & the comments. This is a nice length for a ship series. I also like that you let the viewer know when there is uncertainty. You don't put show over substance.
Thanks!
There is NO reason to disparage the service of the Ranger in WWII. Certainly the Japanese successfully operated older and less capable carriers as did the British. She held the line until other more capable flat tops came on line AND she doubled her worth by later becoming a training carrier. She did was was asked of her and she did it well... and she survived the war. She deserves to be remembered.
Good video. Need more about the USS Ranger CV-4.
Very well done! Thank you
Yep. Great if you enjoyed too ! Let's go along, men :) Cheers from France 🇫🇷... ! :-)
My dad served aboard the Vietnam era Ranger CVA-61
The long video blew my mind. Now I am on wiki reading about the captains of the USS hornet
I like your content, your style, and your format. The length concern is a surprise to me: your vids feel just about right. So, thanks!
Where can I learn about American aircraft carriers. I thought the ww2 ships were all the same. I had no idea and want to read
There’s some videos on this channel, and Drachinifell has some very good overviews of carrier development.
No, they weren't all the same, they ran from the old Langley the first U.S. carrier which was converted from a Collier and sunk by the Japanese early in the war as a seaplane tender, to the two Lexington battle cruiser conversions, the 2 light carriers built to meet treaty restrictions, the excellent Yorktown class carriers, the mighty Essex class carriers, and a multitude of light carriers built on cruiser hulls, and Escort carriers built on commercial ship hulls.
Say what you want about her deficiencies Ranger still packed more offensive punch than any Royal Navy carrier. Her airwing had the capability to sink the Bismarck without any assistance from surface forces. For a Navy that developed most of the technology for aircraft carriers their carriers were inefficient, inferior designs. The Royal Navy's penultimate large deck design, the CVA 01 project of the 1960s was less capable than an Essex class rebuilt to the SCB 125 standard.
The Royal Navy's problem is that their air defence (the Royal Naval Air Service) had been merged with its land equivalent (the Army Air Corps) in 1918 to form the RAF with the result that from that point onwards Britain lagged behind Imperial Japan and the US in maritime aircraft development
It did regain its autonomy in 1937 but by then the damage had been done
It's for this reason that as the war progressed the Royal Navy increasingly had to rely on lend-lease supplied US aircraft
I'm not sure you're right about the CVA-01? The rebuilt Essex's were superior to the modernised Audacious class but I don't think that would have been the case with CVA-01 and anyhow as it remained a stillborn we'll never know for sure
@@stephenchappell7512 The loss of control of naval aircraft retarded the development of naval aircraft but the Royal Navy still controlled aircraft carrier development. They just built inefficient ships. British naval aircraft development lagged behind 20 years after they regained control. The subsonic Sea Vixen was deployed in 1959, two years after the F8U.
You measure a carrier's combat power by its airwing. The SCB 125 mods carried more and better aircraft than proposed CVA01 design.
@@johnshepherd9676
I wouldn't say better aircraft
The modernised Audacious
carried F-4's while the rebuilt
Essex's embarked Crusaders
As for Strike the Buccaneer
was widely regarded as the
top maritime strike aircraft
of its generation
@@stephenchappell7512 The F8 was a superior fighter until radar homing missiles became reliable. The A7 carried the same bomb load as the Buccaneer.
Great history of the USS RANGER CV61, I served on her from 1979-1981.
There was a fire near my birthing department in the captains mess hall that I can't seem to find in her history! I was an radioman Rm2 , so our sleeping quarters was closer to the coom equipment on the flight deck! Can anyone help me with this??
Skynea, whilst I'm reasonably new to your work, you do a great job, have a different flavour to Drachinifel, maybe some day you 2 can do a collaberation together.?
Somethng that ticks both of your boxes, a specific ship you both like very much, or one that you'd both like to explore for whatever reason/s.
The "more carriers" principle was largely upheld by the escort carriers of World War 2, many of whom gave very effective service and air support. Also, regarding torpedo bombers, given their horrible performance and survival rates in the Pacific, it was honestly just as well she didn't carry any at first. Torpedo bombers, as a whole, were just not very effective except in specific circumstances like the attacks on Bismarck, Yamato, Musashi, and Pearl Harbor, all of which were unprotected by air cover and unescorted by smaller ships to bolster their antiaircraft batteries. Torpedo bombers just weren't very successful or effective against ships underway. Midway was won by the divebombers, after the torpedo bombers unwittingly sacrificed themselves with only one surviving crew member.
The length isn't bad. Then again, I speed them up to 1.25 or 1.5.
thanks, I didn't know much about Ranger. This was very interesting!
It sounds like the Ranger was an excellent prototype-type aircraft carrier. Get the major mistakes out of the way early. America would go on to build the best (though the British might take exception to that - the US had far more resources to apply to the program as carriers evolved.
•pauses video•
_brings up Kenny Loggins' Danger Zone_
_Enjoys_
_returns to watching this video_
Sorry... ADD...
well, only USA was a navy that could afford the luxury of having a full combat-ready carrier sent to reserve 2nd line role job like Ranger did
Really enjoy your pace
A friend of mine was CW operator on it before the war.
Yeah, much of your potential audience just doesn’t know they should be subscribed. And they should be, this is the good stuff.
TopGun Bar None CV By God 61... Dude great video
Deserved the credit for neutralizing Jean Bart, but Massachusetts stole the credit.
You are surprised that the Germans claimed to have destroyed your carriers? They regularly claimed to have sunk HMS Ark Royal until she was actually lost.
More carriers means more command billets.
Well done and very informative. when the content is there, time should always be added. try to rush baking a cake and it will fall. just saying. thanks
That's great advice which should be shared with the Dark Seas/Dark Skies people. I'd rather have historically accurate information with visuals to match. Nice job here!
She had her flaws but Ranger was good ship
If you won't be pressed in to service that is bad when after the Coral Sea we had nothing
Actually, the U.S. still had the Enterprise, Hornet, and (a damaged) Yorktown in the Pacific after the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. And, the Saratoga was undergoing repairs and refitting on the West Coast at the time. But things got dicey for the U.S. Navy's carrier operations in late '42, when the fighting for Guadalcanal and the southern Solomons left us with only the Enterprise and/or the Saratoga. The British briefly lent us a carrier for the war in the Pacific until the first Essex-class carriers were deployed in early 1943.
why would we want torpedo bombers when we didnt have dependable torpedos????
make the video fit the content not the other way around
Nice informative video. Thank you!