Shortround6
Major General
Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes ships wound up with similar (outwardly) characteristics for different reasons.Your classification into different types of carrier makes it sound like each nation had some pre-ordained plan to achieve that end.
They certainly were not a "class". But they were both smaller, cheaper carriers built to budget/tonnage restrictions. And they sacrificed similar things. Like protection and speed although not in same amounts. The Wasp, being about 5 years newer could take advantages of some advantages in marine propulsion/machinery and other things.Edit:- Ranger and Wasp can't, IMHO be classified as a "type". Their origins and the drivers for their designs were totally different.
My point, although not stated well, was that the two 'smaller' carriers would be more difficult (although not impossible) to combine into tactical units with the bigger, faster carriers.
They might have worked OK together although that never happened.