Posted by Matty on November 28, 2010, 15:17:17 Message modified by board administrator November 20, 2011, 11:31:04
--Originally Posted 11/28/10--
Regardless what kind of WWII ship-enthusiast you are, you gotta love Ranger CV-4:
Here seen on August 18, 1942, in the new livery of her first wartime refit - including blue tiger-stripe MS-21mod paint job almost identical to that famously worn by Hornet - Ranger would, throughout her entire service retain all the features that really distinguished her as Ranger: the six outboard funnels, unique "bird-beak" clipper bow, and above all the "island-with-an-overbite". The style of all these - particularly the forward-canted island, conical funnels and their squiggly, "S"-curved uptakes - can only be described as "art-deco" in appearance, as indeed was the fashion generally in 1920's, when she was designed.
Ranger was the USN's first dedicated, from-the-keel-up aircraft carrier, following conversion of the two Lexington-class CBs and the very first, Langley, converted from a collier (Jupiter). After Ranger came the Yorktown-class, of which an anonymous pilot, upon seeing one for the first time, reputedly described it as "a cross between Ranger and Lexington". That latter was a nod to Yorktown's massive, slab-sided funnel - however the far deeper design similarity was the open hangar-deck superstructure - inherited from Ranger - and harkening back in turn, not to the Lexingtons, but clear back to Langley (as also the hinged funnels, aft). This lightweight hangar arrangement would prove so successful - primarily in its allowance for a large number of stowed aircraft - that it would be adopted as standard on all subsequent USN carriers until the Midway class, in 1944.
Here are the drawings of Ranger I have found (so far):
Click on Image to Enlarge
At left is an official profile (top) and below it, yet another pic - both again showing her refitted appearance in August, 1942. At right, the overhead view at bottom and portside profile (middle) also show this fit, while at the top, the starboard side profile depicts some later (1944?) fit, including more- and larger (undoubtedly 40mm) gun tubs, and apparently now missing the pair of Mk33 gun directors previously on the island. (These, it seems, would have had to have been replaced by Mk37s, though none are shown.)
Unlike her contemporaries, Ranger's wartime record was relatively undistinguished - her main claim to fame being participation in the (pretty much) cake-walk of Operation Torch, off North Africa. By way of explanation, Ranger has been much historically maligned as having been too small, and too slow for optimal use. However, at 14,576 tons (standard) Ranger's size compared well - and that of her aircraft complement, far superior - to IJN Soryu-class carriers, which were so successful in the Pacific as to be adopted (belatedly) as the basis for a standard (Unryu-class) fleet carrier design. And Ranger's top speed of 29.25 knots was only about 5 slower than the Essexes - the standard USN fleet carriers of WWII. I think Ranger was kept in the Atlantic (until very late in the war) simply to preserve her, as all but two of her contemporaries were lost, one after the other, in the first year of the war. Ranger, the next-oldest and most beloved after the (oft-torpedoed and perpetually drydocked) survivor, Saratoga - as well as the first, dedicated-construction USN carrier, with all its ground-breaking innovations - was simply not going to be risked. So, they put her in the "easy" sea war - against the Germans and Italians - and didn't risk her very much there, either. That's fine - I only wish they would have preserved her, after the war - for all the above-mentioned reasons - instead of ingloriously scrapping her, in 1947.
Historical exploits notwithstanding, to the pure carrier enthusiast Ranger was an undisputedly graceful ship - long and lean as any cruiser:
Click on Image to Enlarge
This is one of those notoriously lousy drawings continually offered on eBay - don't trust any of its specific details - but it is the only one I've found (so far) showing a very plausible below-waterline hull, making the similarity in appearance to the Yorktown class look even more pronounced. Indeed, Ranger's length of 730' at the waterline was only 31' less than Yorktown's - thus, without any adjustment in (waterline) length, the Revell 1:490 Yorktown hull could be converted into a Ranger of 1:470 scale. Likewise, her beam of 80' - just 3.25' less than Yorktown's - would scale out essentially identically (to 1:471) using the Revell hull, with virtually no adjustment whatever. If you required a true 490-scale Ranger, to accompany your Revell Yorktown, then 0.76" of the hull would have to be removed (no doubt optimally taken from amidships) and only 0.08" - less than 1/10th of an inch - from the beam (which, again could simply be disregarded, at this scale, IMHO).
Likewise - except even better - in (about) 1:600 scale, the Aurora Enterprise CV-6 hull - which actually scales out (by WL length) to 1:623.3 for a Yorktown-class - would, unmodified, make for a Ranger conversion of 1:598 scale! That's essentially a true, 1:600 scale - identical with, for example, your Airfix flush-decker DD (hear that, Mikey?). While the beam on the Aurora mold is (as best I could measure) slightly overscale, the error will still be less than 2% - again, truly negligible (especially) at this scale.
I am so far away from having the time - not to mention first catching up on my other builds - to start on this conversion idea. However, to paraphrase Khan, from Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan - in turn quoting Mody Dick's Captain Ahab, before him - this Ranger Mania "tasks me"...He Tasks me...
Cheers,
-Matty
A THIRD Contender!
Posted by Matty on November 20, 2011, 12:30:01, in reply to "RangerMania!"
While battening down all my kits for an impending move, one of them caught my eye as yet another promising Ranger-conversion candidate:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Also IIRC released by Ideal/ITC, this is an ancient "box scale" depiction with LOA= 15.1" - on that basis making it 1/467 scale, and ostensibly compatible with all the Imex 450-scale merchantmen. But for some reason I've never been impressed with Savannah - and moreover, those who know more about it (which could be just about anybody) apparently find this kit to be about the least accurate depiction of her, ever.
Ancient though it may be, this mold nevertheless includes a hull which looks very plausible - for (at least) SOMETHING or other:
To me, fairly screams "carrier" - and maybe its all the raked, sleek lines but, particularly when viewed from the side, says: "Ranger"!
At 13.6 LWL, this equates to a Ranger in 1/644 scale - however, based on the more important BEAM (max.) of 1.75", it could be lengthened to produce a Ranger in 1/549 scale. That would provide a third conversion candidate, squarely between the 490-scale Revell Yorktown- and 600-scale Aurora Enterprise options - and closer than either to your 570-scale Revell North Carolina, and Lindberg Riley DE. Yum! (And likewise for the rest of your historical lineup of 1/525 Lindberg Essex, 1/535 Revell Missouri, and 540-scale Revell Midways and later, angled-deck Essexes.)
You would have to add a whopping 2.37" to the length, for a 549-scale Ranger, but note the center section of this hull does comprise a slab-sided area where this would be easy to do. Alternatively, it would also be relatively easy to make a true, 600-scale Ranger - by adding exactly 1.0" in length, but also reducing the beam by 0.15".
In any case, it's an enticing use for this reputedly innaccurate Savannah mold - correcting which might well require just as much effort as making it into Ranger(!) - particularly if you want to spare your Aurora Enterprise mold, and have far less interest in building Savannah, in the first place, than your obsession with (a 550-ish scale) Ranger!
Cheers,
-Matty
Thanks, Guys!
Posted by Matty on December 7, 2010, 19:59:32, in reply to "RangerMania!"
Paulo, we have got to get you off this infatuation with 1/700 scale! Seriously though, my major complaint against 700-scale models is that their details are practically never rendered to scale - particularly the all-important weapons and similar fittings. At that scale, such things as gun barrels and airplane wings become extremely delicate - with the results that most decently-detailed "700-scale" fittings are actually 600-scale. (I know you've seen this issue personally, as you have started to work with the tiny, tiny Matt Stein Models Twin-3"50cals - and they're only in 1/550 scale!)
Oh well - just keep buying Matty's Models parts and you will be building in 1/540 scale for decades - problem solved!
And Donny, you're cracking me up with your mini geo-political summary of the Pacific War, buddy. And (in a twisted way) it's true: nothing makes you "everybody's new best friend" faster than droping two atom bombs(!) in the neighborhood. Oh my God, what a F-ed Up World we've been living in - a Change Got To Come!
And that's my Thought for The Day, Pearl Harbor Day December 7, 2010.
Cheers,
-Matty
Re: RangerMania!
Posted by Don Murphy on December 7, 2010, 10:43:24, in reply to "RangerMania!"
I always felt she was kept in the Atlantic so as to keep an American naval presence in the ETO, thus keeping colonials (Britain and France) from wanting to come East. By the time France and Britain came East, the Americans had largely set themselves up in Asia as the new friend of everyone.
Cheers,
Don
Re: RangerMania!
Posted by Paulo Roberto on December 3, 2010, 20:19:15, in reply to "RangerMania!"
Hi Matty,
Very interesting article! It would be nice to have a 1/700 kit of Ranger. A Wasp (CV-7) and a new Enterprise (CV-6) would be nice too. Anyway, the project you have in mind sounds good.
Best regards,
Paulo Roberto
All hail Ranger!!
Posted by Mike Kozlowski on November 30, 2010, 6:19:55, in reply to "RangerMania!"
...In my heart, I shall always honor the lost - Lex, Hornet, Wasp, Yorktown, and even little Langley. I revere Enterprise and the men who flew from her and fought her. But I love Ranger. She was probably the first ship whose name I ever learned as my Uncle Jack, gone these 40 years next month, would tell us about his war. There was - as Matt points out - something wonderfully graceful about her, "long and lean as any cruiser". And as well there should have been; she was designed in an era when it was believed the CVs should be scouts the same way the CLs and CAs were. Her initial design was 'island-free', just like Langley, that distinctive island was an afterthought - shown clearly by a picture taken on her birthday, 25 February 1933, that can be seen over at navsource.org. She was supposed to have had three sisters, but by the time Ranger herself was ready, it was clear tha the Lex/Sara model was the way of the future. Two of those ships got the historical dignity of names, however - Yorktown and Enterprise. I've often wondered what that notional CV-7 would have been called, but I digress. For all their beauty, however, Ranger's lithe, purposeful lines were her downfall. She had roughly the same level of underwater protection as an Omaha class CL, but when one added the unique dangers of a CV to the mix she was a liability at best against an enemy like Japan, and at worst a flat-out danger. She actually acquitted herself well at North Africa - it was her aircraft that finished off Jean Bart, and a French SS managed to get through the screen and get a spread of four fish off at her. Only the fact that they were set just a bit low saved her. When the Royal Navy ran out of carriers, she was sent to serve with the Home Fleet out of Scapa Flow and landed some good solid punches on the Germans in Norway. They must have hurt; the Germans announced that they'd sank her on at least one occasion.
Matt speaks wisdom as always; she was in the Atlantic patrolling and training until early '45 when she became the night fighter training CV in the Pacific. When the Kamikaze started their reign of terror at Okinawa the damage they did was so serious that there were quiet discussions about putting Ranger into the line there, but in the end it was realized that one good hit would have finished her. Her skippers - and FADM Ernest King - recommended a refit that would have lengthened and reengined her along with better torpedo protection. She would have probably come out looking a lot like Wasp, but in the end BuShips convinced King that the resources were needed elsewhere. She most definitely should have been saved, but she met her end on that desolate stretch of the New Jersey shore whose scrapyards claimed so many of the USN's greatest warships. She came within an inch of a spectacular finish at Bikini - the orders had been cut - but at the last moment some soul decided to send Sara to glory there instead, probably because her size and armor more approximated the enemies we'd face in the future.
Matt, if you ever decide to pull out that old Revell Yorktown, let me know - I've got a full set of blueprints for Ranger in her final rig. I've got the gorgeous (but hideously expensive) Corsair Armada 1/700 kit waiting in the stash someday myself. In the meantime, thank you so very much for remembering this tough little ship that so many others forget.
Mike
I'll take 'em, Mikey!
Posted by Matty on November 30, 2010, 19:03:28, in reply to "All hail Ranger!!"
Mike, I could definitely use those plans - particularly for the accurate below-waterline contours, about which I'm really short on references.
Speaking of which, clearly you've been reading some detailed works on Ranger - are those books or (primarily) websites? Any titles and/or URLs greatly appreciated, buddy!
It was my pleasure to make the post, Mike - glad you enjoyed it. I may also post a ton of additional Ranger pics I've downloaded. And also stay tuned for a piece on Langley, one of these days...
Cheers,
-Matty
Ranger References....
Posted by Mike Kozlowski on November 30, 2010, 20:34:05, in reply to "I'll take 'em, Mikey!"
Matt -
Anytime on the plans!! They're 1/192nd from the great folks over at Floating Drydock, which gets down to some incredble detail. I also made sure I spent the extra couple bucks for lines and offsets too, so you'll have those hull contours.
As far as books go, you really only need one: USS Ranger The US Navy's First Flattop From Keel To Mast, 1932-1946 by Robert Cressman. Although the technical side could be a bit more robust, the book is pretty darn near a day-by-day log of the ship and her activities from keel laying to decomm, along with some great 'action pics' from North Africa and Norway. It's available at amazon, but be advised new copies are reaching the $80 mark. My dad has a lot of my Uncle Jack's stuff from his service aboard Ranger (just after North Africa to her final docking, when Jack and most of the crew were sent over to activate Philippine Sea CV-47) including duty rosters and other admin odds and ends. But in any event, my resources are your resources!
Mike, if you're copying those plans and can reduce them to 32.107%, that would be 1:598 scale - exactly what I need (or at 32.0%, to 600 scale, would also be fine) - and would save you on paper, too.
Thanks also for the Cressman reference - and I just happen to have a $100 Amazon gift card sitting around here, too!
Finally, if you have any photos of Ranger (and Philippine Sea, for that matter) taken by your uncle, and can scan them, I'd love to see- and post 'em, here, buddy!