Allied Bomber performance ques

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

HHI
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:37 pm

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by HHI »

How did Hellcats get in this discussion. To my knowledge, there were no Hellcats involved in combat in the New Guinea area. By the time the Hellcats were operational, the JAAF and the naval aircraft of the I-GO offensive were nothing but a fond memory for the starving Japanese on New Guinea. They had been annihilated by the P-38s and B-24s of the Fifth Air Force. The aircraft of the I-Go offensive were largely destroyed on the ground by B-24s (superbly escorted by P-38s). Try destroying more than a handful of aircraft on the ground with AE.

HHi
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by EUBanana »

By the way, on the subject of immune battleships, it's been put to the ultimate test in my Guadalcanal game. We're almost done and for a laugh the Viking sent in everything to raid Rockhampton. I saw him coming and we're not under any issues about 4E bombers skip bombing. Here's the result - there must be nigh on 200 bombers in range there, though not all flew.





AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 23, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes


Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 12


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kongo



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes


Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 3


Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort VIII: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Beaufort VIII bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 3
B-17D Fortress x 6
B-17E Fortress x 36
B-24D Liberator x 12
B-25C Mitchell x 13


Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort VIII: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 20 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 1
CA Atago
DD Mutsuki
CA Tone
CA Myoko
DD Yayoi
DD Michishio, Shell hits 2
DD Tokitsukaze
BB Haruna
CA Chikuma
CA Aoba
DD Arashio, Shell hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Beaufort VIII bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17D Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17D Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-25C Mitchell x 17


Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Yayoi
BB Kongo
CA Aoba
CA Myoko, Shell hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17D Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 4


Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei, Bomb hits 2



Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes


Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 3
B-17D Fortress x 3
B-17E Fortress x 22
B-24D Liberator x 9
B-25C Mitchell x 28


Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort VIII: 2 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 14 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 7 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 14 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CA Furutaka
CA Myoko
CA Tone
DD Yayoi
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Arashio
BB Hiei
CA Chikuma
CA Aoba
DD Michishio
CA Ashigara, Bomb hits 1
DD Arashi



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Beaufort VIII bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
8 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17D Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-25C Mitchell attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3


Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Mutsuki



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17D Fortress attacking from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Rockhampton at 95,152

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Furutaka
CA Aoba
CA Ashigara
CA Myoko
CA Atago
CA Chikuma
CA Tone



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 3

BB Hiei firing at Rockhampton ...
BB Haruna firing at 122nd USAAF Base Force...
BB Kongo firing at Rockhampton ...
CA Furutaka firing at 122nd USAAF Base Force...
CA Aoba firing at 102nd RAAF Base Force...
CA Ashigara firing at 102nd RAAF Base Force...
CA Myoko firing at Rockhampton ...
CA Atago firing at 102nd RAAF Base Force...
CA Chikuma firing at 102nd RAAF Base Force...
CA Tone firing at 122nd USAAF Base Force...



If you got battleships, you don't have to worry about Allied bombers.
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by Puhis »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


If you got battleships, you don't have to worry about Allied bombers.

Did those bombs hit belt armor or deck armor?
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: HHI

How did Hellcats get in this discussion. To my knowledge, there were no Hellcats involved in combat in the New Guinea area. By the time the Hellcats were operational, the JAAF and the naval aircraft of the I-GO offensive were nothing but a fond memory for the starving Japanese on New Guinea. They had been annihilated by the P-38s and B-24s of the Fifth Air Force. The aircraft of the I-Go offensive were largely destroyed on the ground by B-24s (superbly escorted by P-38s). Try destroying more than a handful of aircraft on the ground with AE.
Your knowledge is wrong, because Hellcats appeared in mass in October 1943, and Japanese efforts in SWPac started to collapse only after destruction of Truk. In New Guinea, Hollandia was bombed into uselessness only in April 1944. Naval aircraft that participated in the operation I-Go were withdrawn after that (those that survived), and mostly switched from frontline duty to newer planes by the time Japanese carrier squadrons returned to Rabaul and were bombed there in October-November 1943. (This is not to detract from Fifth Airforce successes, its tactics were perhaps the most advanced among Allied LBA and were among the reasons why JAAF was defeated in a few decisive blows in New Guinea, instead of being slowly worn down by superior numbers alone, as happened in CBI theatre.) As about airfield bombings, you should remember, than in AE "destroyed" means "blown up completely", to the point where no repair is possible. Most aircraft "destroyed" on the ground in Wewak, Hollandia, Clark Field, and wherever were only damaged to the point of being unable to fly, and not repaired (or repaired as a slow trickle, that failed to restore units' combat strength) later due to lack of spare parts, mechanics, facilities and so on. Many of them were later found in salvageable condition by Allied troops. You can well do this in AE, by bombing an airfield to the extent, where it cannot fly or repair aircraft, then capturing it - every plane that still was on the airfield will be written off.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


If you got battleships, you don't have to worry about Allied bombers.

Did those bombs hit belt armor or deck armor?

Bit of both, but it doesn't matter - 500lb bombs won't do anything to deck armour either.
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by Puhis »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Bit of both, but it doesn't matter - 500lb bombs won't do anything to deck armour either.

OK. You need dive bombers with bigger boms, 1000 lb will penetrate easily Kongo class BBs.

Of course allied dive bombers have advantage against BBs, japanese Vals only have 250 kg SAP bombs, and that is too small bomb to penetrate...
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by John Lansford »

I don't recall any of my DB's getting penetrating hits on BB's with 1000 lb SAP bombs, even the Kongo's (Kirishima was sunk a few days ago near Milne Bay by my DB's).
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by Puhis »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I don't recall any of my DB's getting penetrating hits on BB's with 1000 lb SAP bombs, even the Kongo's (Kirishima was sunk a few days ago near Milne Bay by my DB's).

Really? I might be wrong then. But still, you managed to sink one Kongo.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Puhis
OK. You need dive bombers with bigger boms, 1000 lb will penetrate easily Kongo class BBs.

1000lb SAP bombs do not penetrate BB decks. They do CAs, though. So an improvement over WITP, where Dauntlesses used GP bombs as standard which made them useless against anything bigger than a CL...
Of course allied dive bombers have advantage against BBs, japanese Vals only have 250 kg SAP bombs, and that is too small bomb to penetrate...

Allied dive bombers are considerably better than Vals, and yes, the 1000lb bomb is considerably more useful than dinky lil 250kg bombs. That said, 1000lb bombs are still not good enough against BBs, and you have to bear in mind that this is the premier Allied antishipping weapon until Avengers show up.

Hence why I think in the early war you may as well run wild with BBs, nothing can really harm you much aside from Allied CVs by sheer weight of firepower, and British torpedo bombers which are few and short ranged.

Only issue is that even 10 sys damage takes ages to fix on a BB, so even minor damage clogs shipyards. But hell. Use em or lose em, when every port has a Beaufort squadron and every carrier bristles with Avengers and escort carriers are everywhere, the day of the BB is over.
Image
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by John Lansford »

I've sunk Nagato, Ise and Kirishima with DB's only so far, where none of the bombs actually penetrated the deck or main gun turret armor.  Nagato was hit by about 20 1000 lb bombs; Ise may have been torpedoed once but she got hit by about a dozen, and Kirishima got hit by about that many too.  I can only guess that the AI has an algorithm in it where it scuttles ships with large numbers of fires on board, because that could be the only way those ships sank...
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've sunk Nagato, Ise and Kirishima with DB's only so far, where none of the bombs actually penetrated the deck or main gun turret armor.  Nagato was hit by about 20 1000 lb bombs; Ise may have been torpedoed once but she got hit by about a dozen, and Kirishima got hit by about that many too.  I can only guess that the AI has an algorithm in it where it scuttles ships with large numbers of fires on board, because that could be the only way those ships sank...

Non penetrating hits still cause fires, I think 20 hits might well be enough to sink a battleship due to the fires.

Still, fact remains - they aren't very effective. 20 hits to sink something is not effective.
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by Puhis »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


Non penetrating hits still cause fires, I think 20 hits might well be enough to sink a battleship due to the fires.

Still, fact remains - they aren't very effective. 20 hits to sink something is not effective.

I did quick check how many bombs IJN BBs took before they sunk.

Huyga and Haruna: at least 10 bomb hits
Ise: at least 15 bomb hits
Yamato: 7 bomb hits and 10 torpedoes
Musashi: 17 bomb hits and 19 torpedoes

And of course there was lot of near misses that cause damage too.

So I think 20 bomb hits is not that far away.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think 20 bomb hits is not that far away.

I'm not saying it's far away.

I'm saying you may as well use your BBs aggressively up until Beauforts. [;)]
Image
xj900uk
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by xj900uk »

It's not just performance per se that decides how good a respective plane is, but also the quality & training of the pilot(s) actually flying it and what tactics they use.  In addition to being a very good plane designed to better the Zero,  USN Hellcat pilots were specifically briefed/versed/skilled in flying tactics designed to kill Zero's and get around the Japanese plane's far superior manoeverability and climb.
 
Also, for what it's worth, Spitfires were a good plane but never available in large numbers in the Pacific and, where they were deployed, were never very successful.  Short range (even with drop tanks),  shortage of spares,  water-cooled in-line engine and the narrow undercarriage bumping along uneven runways (and the navalised version on flight decks tipping wildly!) all served to take this fine plane down a peg or two so that it never enjoyed the same level of success that it did in Europe
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10929
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Spitfires were a good plane but never available in large numbers in the Pacific and, where they were deployed, were never very successful.  .... and the narrow undercarriage .... so that it never enjoyed the same level of success that it did in Europe

I had forgotten about that. IIRC, it struggled with cross wind departure/landings. Swirling winds in the monsoon season are fairly common, so they had a fair number of operational losses. Coupled with the shortage of spares as you mentioned, a real downfall.
Pax
xj900uk
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by xj900uk »

Agreed.  The SW & then Central Pacific was a rough, tough area that called for rough, tough aircraft,  lots of spares,  & plenty of improvisation from ground crews to keep things in the air.  Air-cooled engines were far more rugged and needed less servicing,  + a very wide & forgiving undercarriage for starters.
It is worth noting that the Japanese shot down precious few B17's in 41 through to early '43,  but the losses of this plane for the Americans were astronomical through non-combat operational losses, bad weather, crash landings,  trees, bird-strikes, faulty navigation, mechanical failure or simple wear-out in the theatre.
Fishbed
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by Fishbed »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I have to agree on the P38 - it's crap in game. The service rating means you always have masses of them being fixed, and when they actually do fly, their performance is lucklustre to put it mildly. This plane is not going to break the Japanese airforce, no way. Maybe the P47 will, not got that far.

Try the 1000 miles scenario, my banana friend. It will reconciliate you with the good old P-38 ;)
When used accordingly, it's a beast. My opponent just didn't put planes at Kiska and Attu just because of it
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by bradfordkay »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


Non penetrating hits still cause fires, I think 20 hits might well be enough to sink a battleship due to the fires.

Still, fact remains - they aren't very effective. 20 hits to sink something is not effective.

I did quick check how many bombs IJN BBs took before they sunk.

Huyga and Haruna: at least 10 bomb hits
Ise: at least 15 bomb hits
Yamato: 7 bomb hits and 10 torpedoes
Musashi: 17 bomb hits and 19 torpedoes

And of course there was lot of near misses that cause damage too.

So I think 20 bomb hits is not that far away.


Keep in mind that a lot of those bomb hits were probably overkill. The allied pilots probably didn't know that the ship was already doomed and kept after it. I know that I would have...
fair winds,
Brad
xj900uk
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Allied Bomber performance ques

Post by xj900uk »

Interesting update from my campaign against the AI - it's January '42 and the Japanese are spreading south fast - Rabaul & Kirinawa have both fallen & there are landings all along the NE coast of PNG.  Lexington & Enterprise in their TF supporting the rapid development of Noumea, Luganville & Efate head north towards New Britain, obviously out of range of Japanese LR search planes as guess what they encounter a small but powerful Japanese TF heading SW around Rabaul towards the SE coast of Australia,  no doubt to cause as much mischief amongst the lightly escorted Allied shipping that is scurrying around.  Jap TF consists of the Battlecruiser Hiei,  a light cruiser, and at least three or four destroyers when they encounter Big 'E' and Lady Lex quietly moving north and, despite the bad weather, the US carriers succeed in launching two big strikes both of which find their targets - the result is that the light cruiser takes one bomb hit and is reported sunk,  Hiei takes up to a dozen 1000 lber hits (even allowing for over-exaduration from exuberiant US pilots,  it's taken a real battering) and another destroyer takes two bomb hits (but oddly doesn't seem to sink).  The only black spot is the TBD's - in all 48 attack the Japanese TF and not a single fish is seen to hit...
 
Overall though the US carrier bombers seme to have done pretty well,  out of about seventy sorties in the day against unescorted but fast-moving surface warships they must have reported something like twenty hits or near misses.  Losses were light - four TBD's shot down by flak, another through Op Losses & one damaged SBD seems to have crash-landed back on Lexington causing 6 system damage + 1 hull (nothing major)
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”