Ranger instead of Ark Royal

[T. A. Gardner]

A simple switch. If the US was involved in the war and hunting for Bismarck, and it was Ranger that sent aircraft to attack the battleship, would the USN do better, roughly the same, or worse in doing so? At the time, Ranger would have had about 30 SB2U-2 Vindicators and 6 TBD Devastators aboard in three squadrons. The pilots would have been almost entirely long-term aviators with considerable flying time. US carriers at the time had YE/ZB homing systems installed so the crews will have an easier time finding the carrier after the strike.

[Richard Anderson]

A simple switch. If the US was involved in the war and hunting for Bismarck, and it was Ranger that sent aircraft to attack the battleship, would the USN do better, roughly the same, or worse in doing so? At the time, Ranger would have had about 30 SB2U-2 Vindicators and 6 TBD Devastators aboard in three squadrons. The pilots would have been almost entirely long-term aviators with considerable flying time. US carriers at the time had YE/ZB homing systems installed so the crews will have an easier time finding the carrier after the strike.

No VT on Ranger in 1941. VT-4 was established 10 January 1942. She had VF-41 and VF-42, VS-41, and VB-42. Nominally that would be 36 F4F and 30 SB2U. Otherwise a few utility aircraft.

[Takao]

Just curious on your source for RANGER's TBDs. The earliest i have found was December, 1941.

Also, the YE homing outfit was not installed until her yard period in July, 1941.

[T. A. Gardner]

Just curious on your source for RANGER's TBDs. The earliest i have found was December, 1941.

Also, the YE homing outfit was not installed until her yard period in July, 1941.

YE first: This site says 1938

It could have been an earlier variant as it appears most carriers had some sort of homing system like YE, if not YE.

http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB ... tation.pdf
https://www.aafradio.org/docs/YE-ZB.pdf
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/system/files/c ... awards.pdf

The TBD's appear to have been part of VS-42, possibly as testing aircraft to see if the Ranger could operate them. Just 6 were aboard and it stayed that way at least initially when they became VT -4

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/0 ... er-part-i/



But for the purposes of the discussion here, it's not totally critical we have a 100% historical Ranger. I think 30 Vindicator in two squadrons and a small 6 plane torpedo squadron is a reasonable and historically accurate enough air group for the ship to be carrying at war in mid 1941.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Richard Anderson stated :

No VT on Ranger in 1941. VT-4 was established 10 January 1942.
She had VF-41 and VF-42, VS-41, and VB-42. Nominally that would be
36 F4F and 30 SB2U. Otherwise a few utility aircraft.

As one picture is worth ten thousand words, I will simply post four photos for your
study. Obviously in the first half of 1941, there were TBDs on board the Ranger, serving
with VS-42.

TBDs aboard USS Ranger - 1941

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Richard Anderson]

Just curious on your source for RANGER's TBDs. The earliest i have found was December, 1941.

Three TBD were assigned to VS-42 with pilots drawn from VT-3 to begin working up a new squadron apparently sometime in 1941 and operated as VS, for the very simple reason that Ranger had no torpedo stowage until it was authorized 17 October 1941. The torpedo stowage was physically installed during her refit at Norfolk, which is where she was putting into on 7 December 1941. When she left the yard on 23 December 1941 she had torpedo stowage, torpedoes, and three additional SBD, the six being the embryo of VT-4, which was stood up 10 January 1942.

So I am afraid I was not completely correct. Ranger had VT in 1941, for the last eight days of the year.

[EKB]

A simple switch. If the US was involved in the war and hunting for Bismarck, and it was Ranger that sent aircraft to attack the battleship, would the USN do better, roughly the same, or worse in doing so? At the time, Ranger would have had about 30 SB2U-2 Vindicators and 6 TBD Devastators aboard in three squadrons. The pilots would have been almost entirely long-term aviators with considerable flying time. US carriers at the time had YE/ZB homing systems installed so the crews will have an easier time finding the carrier after the strike.

The air-dropped Mk 13 torpedo was not dependable until 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_13_torpedo

[Takao]

Outside of the historical quibbles. There really is no comparison, the ARK ROYAL could mount a torpedo strike of 15 Swordfish compared to the possible 6 TBD of Ranger. At least 2 Swordfish had ASV radar, which proved instrumental in finding & attacking Bismarck. The low cloud deck would prevent the Vindicators from dive-bombing, not that they were really capable of meaningfully crippling Bismarck anyway.

The advantages are all in ARK ROYAL's favor.

RANGER instead of ARK ROYAL...BISMARCK escapes and makes port.

[T. A. Gardner]

Outside of the historical quibbles. There really is no comparison, the ARK ROYAL could mount a torpedo strike of 15 Swordfish compared to the possible 6 TBD of Ranger. At least 2 Swordfish had ASV radar, which proved instrumental in finding & attacking Bismarck. The low cloud deck would prevent the Vindicators from dive-bombing, not that they were really capable of meaningfully crippling Bismarck anyway.

The advantages are all in ARK ROYAL's favor.

RANGER instead of ARK ROYAL...BISMARCK escapes and makes port.

I'd say that discounting the dive bombers is a mistake. While that's Jean Bart, that's also what the 1000 lbs. bombs the SB2U would be carrying could do to the hull structure of Bismarck. Given the weather in the Atlantic, that would be pretty severe damage and cause a significant flooding problem aboard the ship. As we know from history, the SB2U really wasn't fully capable of dive bombing in any case. The attacks were more likely to be steep descents in a more shallow glide.
While it's unlikely that it would sink Bismarck, just a few 1000 lbs. bomb hits would have severely degraded the ship's performance in the same way torpedo hits would have including reducing speed significantly to limit flooding if there were large holes in the deck and or hull.

The US solution to finding Bismarck would have been to send planes out to search for the ship while holding back a full strike. So, the full strike might be 6 TBD and 20 SB2U.

[Richard Anderson]

I'd say that discounting the dive bombers is a mistake. While that's Jean Bart, that's also what the 1000 lbs. bombs the SB2U would be carrying could do to the hull structure of Bismarck.

Um, sorry. Not only would the Ranger not have torpedoes aboard in May 1941, she also would not have those 1,000-lb AP M-52 or AN-Mk53 bombs. The US did not begin manufacturing them until March and October 1942, respectively. Nor are there any of the much more powerful 1,600-lb AN-Mk1, which was not available until January 1942. The only bombs available were the 1,000-lb and 500-lb GP HE bombs of various marks.

[T. A. Gardner]

I'd say that discounting the dive bombers is a mistake. While that's Jean Bart, that's also what the 1000 lbs. bombs the SB2U would be carrying could do to the hull structure of Bismarck.

Um, sorry. Not only would the Ranger not have torpedoes aboard in May 1941, she also would not have those 1,000-lb AP M-52 or AN-Mk53 bombs. The US did not begin manufacturing them until March and October 1942, respectively. Nor are there any of the much more powerful 1,600-lb AN-Mk1, which was not available until January 1942. The only bombs available were the 1,000-lb and 500-lb GP HE bombs of various marks.

They don't need armor piercing bombs to do that damage. HC or SAP models would work just fine like the M59 or M65. The 1000 lbs. Mk 33 AP bomb should also be available.

[Takao]

Outside of the historical quibbles. There really is no comparison, the ARK ROYAL could mount a torpedo strike of 15 Swordfish compared to the possible 6 TBD of Ranger. At least 2 Swordfish had ASV radar, which proved instrumental in finding & attacking Bismarck. The low cloud deck would prevent the Vindicators from dive-bombing, not that they were really capable of meaningfully crippling Bismarck anyway.

The advantages are all in ARK ROYAL's favor.

RANGER instead of ARK ROYAL...BISMARCK escapes and makes port.

I'd say that discounting the dive bombers is a mistake. While that's Jean Bart, that's also what the 1000 lbs. bombs the SB2U would be carrying could do to the hull structure of Bismarck. Given the weather in the Atlantic, that would be pretty severe damage and cause a significant flooding problem aboard the ship. As we know from history, the SB2U really wasn't fully capable of dive bombing in any case. The attacks were more likely to be steep descents in a more shallow glide.
While it's unlikely that it would sink Bismarck, just a few 1000 lbs. bomb hits would have severely degraded the ship's performance in the same way torpedo hits would have including reducing speed significantly to limit flooding if there were large holes in the deck and or hull.

The US solution to finding Bismarck would have been to send planes out to search for the ship while holding back a full strike. So, the full strike might be 6 TBD and 20 SB2U.

9 bombers, 2 hits, against a stationary lightly defended target...Does not bode well for success against a maneuvering defended Bismarck in poor bombing weather.

You also neglect to mention the one hit & one near-miss on Jean Bart with SBDs & 500 pounders that inflicted only light damage in a previous strike.

The odds are not in favor of RANGER's success against BISMARCK.

[Terry Duncan]

I think you will find the major damage to Jean Bart in the pictures is usually credited to the Massachusetts, which was hitting with a far heavier weapon than the planes carried.

[T. A. Gardner]

I think you will find the major damage to Jean Bart in the pictures is usually credited to the Massachusetts, which was hitting with a far heavier weapon than the planes carried.

Dunlin, Garzke, and Webb in Battleships Allied Battleships in World War II describe both hits as by 1000 lbs. bombs from SBD from Ranger. There were other near misses that did splinter damage to the ship as well, but those two hits shown are definitely 1000 lbs. aircraft bombs.

That aside, Takao is correct in that the weather will be an issue. The dive bombers would likely have to level bomb from around 1000 feet or less rather than dive bomb at all. Their advantages would be they could skirt in and out of the cloud cover on approach, and approach from bow or stern rather than abeam like torpedo planes. Given the roughly double approach speed, and coming in off the bow or stern, they'd face far less antiaircraft fire.
If the attack were coordinated with the TBD, I'd think the Bismarck might concentrate more on those planes than the SB2U, but the AA fire would be split in any case at best.
Depending on the time of day and range the Ranger is launching against Bismarck, it is fully possible that two strikes could have been managed too.

[Takao]

I think you will find the major damage to Jean Bart in the pictures is usually credited to the Massachusetts, which was hitting with a far heavier weapon than the planes carried.

Dunlin, Garzke, and Webb in Battleships Allied Battleships in World War II describe both hits as by 1000 lbs. bombs from SBD from Ranger. There were other near misses that did splinter damage to the ship as well, but those two hits shown are definitely 1000 lbs. aircraft bombs.

That aside, Takao is correct in that the weather will be an issue. The dive bombers would likely have to level bomb from around 1000 feet or less rather than dive bomb at all. Their advantages would be they could skirt in and out of the cloud cover on approach, and approach from bow or stern rather than abeam like torpedo planes. Given the roughly double approach speed, and coming in off the bow or stern, they'd face far less antiaircraft fire.
If the attack were coordinated with the TBD, I'd think the Bismarck might concentrate more on those planes than the SB2U, but the AA fire would be split in any case at best.
Depending on the time of day and range the Ranger is launching against Bismarck, it is fully possible that two strikes could have been managed too.

Well...in the photos, they are described a 1000 pounders(kilogram equivalent) in the text they are described as 500 pounders(kilogram equivalent)..

Also worth noting that they also note that the devastated stern quarter was hit by a 500 pound bomb, 16-inch shell, and the 1000 pound bomb.

The US attacks at Midway were barely coordinated & they had much better weather.

This would be RANGER'S first combat outing, as opposed the combat tested ARK ROYAL.