Talk:USS Ranger (CV-4)

Which flag?

After discussions, the advice is to use naval ensigns, not jacks - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. The correct US flag has been selected by a template - see the US entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Folks at 137 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Request Ranger (CV-4) page be moved up from a stub

I want to request a review of this page by editors as a candidate to be moved from a stub article to a full article based on the fact that it has now been extensively inline referenced and verifiably sourced with citations applied.

Ussrangercv4 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy

Friedman in his book US Aircraft Carriers says that the Ranger was unprotected and on page 391 lists "none" as the belt, bulkhead and deck armor. Do we know for sure the armor cited in the article is correct?Ski206 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  NavsourceLists her having 2" sides and bulkheads. I've read she did not have a belt
   and looking at all of the pictures and models found around the Internet I'd have to agree. They didn't make internal belts in
   those days. I think labeling it a belt is inaccurate. --Traumatic (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of Carriers at the Start of the War

The introduction includes a sentence regarding the number of carriers lost during World War II. The proper reference point is to say that the U.S. began the war with seven carriers and only three survived, Ranger being one. To include Langley is improper, as it had been converted to a seaplane tender before the war. Yes, Langley was lost during the war, but this sentence discusses carrier losses, not seaplane tender losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:9680:36:4891:26C6:FCF4:D605 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been removed, which is probably for the best. - BilCat (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Emailed photo

I've received an email circular containing amongst other things what looks like a good quality official photo of Ranger in the Atlantic in 1941. It shows the stern, 50 biplanes + the island and funnels. Would anyone be willing to add it if I sent it -or has this been discussed and rejected before? Regards JRPG (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason for absence from Pacific

At http://www.armouredcarriers.com I read (don't remember the exact page) that the reason for Ranger's absence from Pacific was her lacking underwater protection. Does anyone have other sources (books etc.) to verify that? 93.142.165.145 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

James Alvey has recently published an article addressing this subject in The Northern Mariner (https://doi.org/10.25071/2561-5467.1131). He argues that the US Navy's operational commanders considered Ranger fit for combat duty in the Pacific but requirements for a large fleet carrier in the Atlantic were not settled until 1944. Then when finally free of the Atlantic in 1944, the Fast Carrier Task Force no longer needed additional large fleet carriers as much as it needed a large fleet carrier in the training program to furnish fully-trained air groups for the large carriers.WispyWillows (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Torpedo stowage

I find this a little confusing:

To save money, Ranger was initially designed and commissioned without torpedo stowage or a torpedo bomber squadron. Wasp was designed and commissioned to match.

I'm not sure what this passage is trying to say about the Wasp. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)