WI: Ranger was lost in 1934?

[Salvare7097]

Ranger although doing yeoman's work in the Atlantic during the second world war was not really a Frontline Fleet carrier. So what if she had an accident and was lost in the interbellum. I remember reading somewhere that the USN was rather unsatisfied with her after testing her out due to her rather small size and Rangers existence actually hampered the design process of the Yorktown's by taking up tonnage. Requiring them to go with non-unit Machinery which was a detriment in battle. If this is true How does the 13,800 tons freed up by her loss affect the USN?

Scenario 1 USS Ranger strikes an Old World War One era Sea mine laid by the Germans and is either CTL or outright sinks. Say that they control the initial damage. But due to being a green ship failed to notice that the gas tanks have been cracked by the explosion and are leaking sometime later someone flips a switch causing an explosion due to the spark.

Scenario 2: USS Ranger in the dead of night of collides with a Smuggler that has their lights blacked out leading to The Smuggler sinking and Ranger going on with a Large hole. The hole is patched leading to the crew missing a major problem. But due to being a relatively green ship crew fails to notice that the Avgas tanks are cracked from the shock of the impact which leads to someone flipping a switch in the hanger which causes an explosion. thereby leading her to suffer the same fate as Lexington at Coral Sea.

In both cases she is lost on August 4th 1934.

 

[quickdraw101]

Kinda hard to believe that hitting a single WW1 era mine would sink Ranger, especially since its peacetime, and she'd have escorts to help her out. Hell, pulling into Britain or France is likely if they hit close to the coast. Aside from the USN being ridiculed for losing a carrier in peacetime, it won't really do much. Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga were already in service, and Yorktown and Enteriprise would follow in 1937 and 1938.

 

[Salvare7097]

Kinda hard to believe that hitting a single WW1 era mine would sink Ranger, especially since its peacetime, and she'd have escorts to help her out. Hell, pulling into Britain or France is likely if they hit close to the coast. Aside from the USN being ridiculed for losing a carrier in peacetime, it won't really do much. Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga were already in service, and Yorktown and Enteriprise would follow in 1937 and 1938.

I mean, yeah, they get ridiculed for it. But the loss of ranger might free up the tonnage used on her. I seem to recall reading about a debate in the USN whether to go with five roughly 13,000 ton carriers or three larger 20,000+ ton vessels. I honestly think the “best” way for it to happen would be for her to suffer a similar feat to Lexington at coral sea. E.g. the mine damages her severely not enough but not to actually sync her. but it does crack her avgas tank. Someone then flip the switch good into a spark that causes an explosion.

 

[GTStinger]

What aboutfire that guts the hanger before getting extinguished? Would Ranger get rebuilt or send to reserve with her tonnage used for larger carriers with better AV Gas facilities and procedures implemented?

 

[jlckansas]

If you just get a hanger burn out with the flight deck affected, not much, It could be an easy rebuild since the US design didn't have the flight deck be structural and your hanger deck is the actual top deck structurally of the ship. You could cut everything down to just below that level and do a good rebuild with what they knew then from the year of operation of Her, the Lexington/Saratoga, and the Langley. They won't want to spend the money to build a completely new CV unless the Navy is able to show it being cheaper to build new than rebuild it.
Since this is still in the depression, any work would also be looked at as a "jobs program" for whoever gets the rebuild/build new and that brings a whole lot of other factors in play with the House and Senate.

 

[CV12Hornet]

They’d most likely order a repeat of Wasp - by the time Ranger is mobile enough to run over a mine both Yorktown and Enterprise have been laid down and the design teams are busy with Wasp. In the interest of time and with treat limits still applying a repeat Wasp is the way to go.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If this is true How does the 13,800 tons freed up by her loss affect the USN?

It's added to the 14,000 tons used up to build USS Wasp and they build an extra Yorktown Class Fleet Carrier,

 

[jlckansas]

You are still going to have to get congress to go along with putting the money in a new CV instead of just building another one of the same design. They also might wonder why we are giving up a build to have 1 ship instead of two ships like they would have with the Wasp and Ranger's replacement on a new build. You aslo would have to make a good argument of why you cannot rebuild the Ranger is it does not sink. This is 30's penny pinching congress that doesn't necessarily want to spend money on the Navy unless they get something good politically out of it.

 

[I want to learn]

Kinda hard to believe that hitting a single WW1 era mine would sink Ranger, especially since its peacetime, and she'd have escorts to help her out. Hell, pulling into Britain or France is likely if they hit close to the coast. Aside from the USN being ridiculed for losing a carrier in peacetime, it won't really do much. Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga were already in service, and Yorktown and Enteriprise would follow in 1937 and 1938.

Peacetime loss of a large warship is not completely without precedent. France lost a battleship and Britain lost a cruiser to rocks between the world wars, and Britain had lost a battleship to rocks before World War I. Additionally, Britain, Japan, and Italy each lost a battleship to magazine explosions, admittedly during wartime, apparently without enemy action.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Peacetime loss of a large warship is not completely without precedent. France lost a battleship and Britain lost a cruiser to rocks between the world wars, and Britain had lost a battleship to rocks before World War I. Additionally, Britain, Japan, and Italy each lost a battleship to magazine explosions, admittedly during wartime, apparently without enemy action.

Plus there's the loss in 1914 of the brand new super dreadnought HMS Audacious to a single mine.

HMS Audacious (1912) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CV12Hornet]

It was even baked into the Washington Naval Treaty, Part 3, Section 1, article c:

In case of loss or accidental destruction of capital ships or aircraft-carriers, they may immediately be replaced by new construction, subject to the tonnage limits prescribed in Articles IV and VII and in conformity with the other provisions of the present Treaty, the regular replacement program being deemed to be advanced to that extent.

History and Technology - Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[Navigator]

There were plenty of places in the world's seas and ocean that weren't properly charted in the 1920s and '30s. Hell, even now parts of the southern Indian Ocean still aren't.

Send her on a flag-waving cruise somewhere with a rocky and remote coastline and have a storm push her inshore onto a uncharted outcrop that's only two or three fathoms under. Rip fifty feet of bilge out and she'll either go down there or be salvaged for scrap once the storm abates. Then, as @CV12Hornet says, 3.1.c some new construction.

 

[NHBL]

The treaty allows replacement in a case like this, so that's not a problem. Ninjaed

 

[Salvare7097]

What aboutfire that guts the hanger before getting extinguished? Would Ranger get rebuilt or send to reserve with her tonnage used for larger carriers with better AV Gas facilities and procedures implemented?

You are still going to have to get congress to go along with putting the money in a new CV instead of just building another one of the same design. They also might wonder why we are giving up a build to have 1 ship instead of two ships like they would have with the Wasp and Ranger's replacement on a new build. You aslo would have to make a good argument of why you cannot rebuild the Ranger is it does not sink. This is 30's penny pinching congress that doesn't necessarily want to spend money on the Navy unless they get something good politically out of it.

What I was thinking that she suffers the same fate as Lexington at coral sea. Basically her of Avgas tanks become a giant fuel-air bomb. Even if they get her back to port after this she won’t really be reparable.

They’d most likely order a repeat of Wasp - by the time Ranger is mobile enough to run over a mine both Yorktown and Enterprise have been laid down and the design teams are busy with Wasp. In the interest of time and with treat limits still applying a repeat Wasp is the way to go.

wasn’t CV-7 an unarmored Yorktown? I seem to remember there being design studies for larger Yorktown’s. Why won’t they just go with that? Let’s say this happens in on May 4, 1935. Couldn’t they be modified on the Ways? According to my research negotiation for second London began on December 9 1935 and the treaty itself was signed on march 25 1936. So this would be pre-second London.

 

[jlckansas]

The problem with a catastrophic explosion like that congress will defiantly want something done before they even consider building anything else. They won't rubber stamp any CV's until they have a reason for that happening in peace time. Congress was not wanting to spend the money until they absolutely had to in the 30's and this gives them an excuse to not spend anything and to actual slow what is being built down until they have a clear reason for the problem and a solution better than we will fix when we build it.

 

[CV12Hornet]

wasn’t CV-7 an unarmored Yorktown? I seem to remember there being design studies for larger Yorktown’s. Why won’t they just go with that? Let’s say this happens in on May 4, 1935. Couldn’t they be modified on the Ways? According to my research negotiation for second London began on December 9 1935 and the treaty itself was signed on march 25 1936. So this would be pre-second London.

Yes, but it's a bad idea. Modifying ships on the stocks to that extent has a tendency to end in disaster given how much detail work has to go into the designs.

 

[Dorknought]

High speed accident at night.

Not like the USN doesn't have them.

 

[Salvare7097]

Yes, but it's a bad idea. Modifying ships on the stocks to that extent has a tendency to end in disaster given how much detail work has to go into the designs.

Fair, maybe they order wasp as a full Yorktown?

High speed accident at night.

Not like the USN doesn't have them.

This works quite well as well and is now able to scenario two in the op . so modification instead of hitting a mine she hits another ship a Smuggler(her lights are blacked out) in the dead of night. this leads to the other ship sinking. but Ranger appears relatively fine unbeknownst that crew however her out of gas storage tank is cracked due to shock. this leak is not noticed until someone flips a switch which causes a spark which then causes an explosion. In both cases she is lost on August 4th 1934.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Fair, maybe they order wasp as a full Yorktown?

They could, but that would mean giving up a sixth carrier, and personally I don’t think they’d go for that.

 

[jlckansas]

Congress controls the purse strings and if they want a slow down and redo no body can stop it.