cap_and_gown(j) v witpqs(a) - no witpqs

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

Good moves all around!

Did you also start moving those subs to positions for possible intercepts on the heavily damaged cripples?

[CapAndGown]

Yes, subs were sent southeast. I am not expecting much from them, though.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Below is a screen shot showing my AC losses. I would agree that the flak losses seem rather light. Another problem, I think, is that in both the morning and afternoon, the first strike of the phase was able to basically get past the CAP scott-free. Later strikes were treated very roughly by the CAP, but not the first strike of the phase. I have seen that in strikes against land targets as well, both in my game and in PzB's game where Andy's later strikes get mauled but the first strikes do OK.

Im starting to develop a theory on why ppl are seeing the disparity(complaining/discussing) in flak losses in battle that japs take vs allied. Its been out there for a while that def doesnt help bombers vs figthers but do help vs flak.
Im start to think that the by far most significant factor in why jap dosnt seem to take many flak losses while allied seems to take more is that high Def seems to be the "beat all" factor/modifier in flak losses.

My theory stems from noticing how allied takes alot of flak losses vs fairly light jap AA TF, while it seems if jap side have keept their naval aviators up too starting par, "no matter" much the allied AA rise ppl have noticed the "light" jap flak losses vs even the later war high AA TFs.
So in the end the AA factor doesnt do "that much" its more a question of pilot quality. Possibly too much, but thats ofc some thing up for debate.

Cap from what i gather and plz correct me if im wrong ur pretty much keept ur pilot(def rating) of ur naval avaitors up to high standarts right? not having lost many of ur initial pilots high quality pilots.
I seek an answer as some thing that could strengthen or dispell the theory.

I dont have the time atm, but if some one out there do it might be an interresting thing to test. X number of planes with X def pilots vs X AA rating TF. Then new set of Def. Match that with same 2 or more set of pilots vs another AA rating TF.
Would be interresting to see if there is or isnt a cut off point. In terms of 99 def pilots are being impossible to shoot down with out a cut off point.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[CapAndGown]

Bomber pilots generally have higher def ratings because I spend lots of time cross training them on various skills. So, for instance, they will train or torpedo, then on NavB, then on ASW. During all that time their def rating is going up. Naturally, the KB gets the best of the best, and until now have had very highly experienced pilots. That is going to change after this battle, of course, and we will have pilots that are no better than the allies. [:(]

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Bomber pilots generally have higher def ratings because I spend lots of time cross training them on various skills. So, for instance, they will train or torpedo, then on NavB, then on ASW. During all that time their def rating is going up.

Exactly my point. If there are no cut of point in the def skill vs flak in the code that could be one reason ppl see "low" jap flak losses vs high allied AA TFs.

Ur not doing any thing wrong. im just speculating over the possible causes that have "ppl" up in arms over seeing low flak losses.
IF my theory is correct i think its debateble. Sure better pilots are better at surviving, but DB dive is a DB dive. Pilot can only do so much. 40mm AA shell is a 40mm shell no matter who the pilot are. Especially if there are 1000's comming at you. If the AA gunner is skilled/lucky his 40mm shell can kill any one.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

I don't know why my guys don't react and other people's do. They are set to no react and follow around a surface combat group. This used to work in UV. I thought that might have changed in WitP, but I can't confirm. I am fairly certain that witpqs uses the same arrangement and that is why his CVs do not react.

I had not thought of that before, but I bet a Million Yen that's the reason; the Surface Combat won't react, and the CVs are set to follow that TF.

CVs consistently react even if REACT is set to ZERO otherwise.

Hurry up and send the turn please![:D]

[krupp_88mm]

srsly no update yet im on the edge

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I had not thought of that before, but I bet a Million Yen that's the reason; the Surface Combat won't react, and the CVs are set to follow that TF.

CVs consistently react even if REACT is set to ZERO otherwise.

Hurry up and send the turn please![:D]

This is very useful to know.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Bomber pilots generally have higher def ratings because I spend lots of time cross training them on various skills. So, for instance, they will train or torpedo, then on NavB, then on ASW. During all that time their def rating is going up. Naturally, the KB gets the best of the best, and until now have had very highly experienced pilots. That is going to change after this battle, of course, and we will have pilots that are no better than the allies. [:(]

C&G, that was a great operation! Don't risk your fleet unnecessarily. But, keep planning the way you are and you should do great. At the very worst, you'll miss, but if it works, you should trash those damaged ships.

Concerning pilots, if you don't have enough quality pilots in your pool, you can always cull a %% from your land based units to flesh out KB. I'm sure there are daitai in some out of the way locations where the pilots are playing pinochle.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

I don't know why my guys don't react and other people's do. They are set to no react and follow around a surface combat group. This used to work in UV. I thought that might have changed in WitP, but I can't confirm. I am fairly certain that witpqs uses the same arrangement and that is why his CVs do not react.

I had not thought of that before, but I bet a Million Yen that's the reason; the Surface Combat won't react, and the CVs are set to follow that TF.

CVs consistently react even if REACT is set to ZERO otherwise.

Hurry up and send the turn please![:D]

I forgot about this little WITP trick, but it seems that you are right. I will go back to using it. Even with a careful commander my carriers reacted.

No worries about moving aircraft for smaller carriers to consolidate on larger ones. The Allied player gets replenishment carriers so this is not gamey at all.

[veji1]

This is killing me... I am login in every hour or so for this specific AAR...

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: veji1

This is killing me... I am login in every hour or so for this specific AAR...

Good to know I'm not alone! [:D]

[castor troy]

holy crap, I´m just reading about the carrier engagement... 575 aircraft in your first wave and I thought the 505 ac strike I had to suffer from 8 months game time ago would have been a mess.[X(]


With the last carrier engagement in my AAR and this one here it´s again a nice example of the Japanese range advantage PzB was complaining about NOT to have... [;)] though it is there indeed it seems...

flak losses to massed Allied flak in late 43 is just as pathetic as it is in my PBEM... far too pathetic IMO, it seems IJN flak of real life was the way to go for all flak in AE. [&:]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well the diversionary force only drew a small attack and perhaps it would have not drawn an attack at all if Cap's carriers were actually in range, but they were not and that was the Allied players main mistake. However, if I was the opposing player and half of my force went after the bait then I would have been very unhappy. So yes, bait is OK but it really needs to be something of value. I would not hesitate to do it with a CVL or two if I was the Allied player.

It just goes to show that you need to move your carriers every turn to prevent the Japanese player from exploiting the range advantage. To sit in one hex invites disaster. Really, when you have the advantage in numbers as the Allies, the best move might be just to rush on in and not fool around. I must also say that I am surprised that neither force reacted. It seems like that happens most all of the time in these AARs.

CAP, pleases tell us how many of your aircraft were lost to flak? How many you shot down as well? I would be interested to know. Right now this seems to be the biggest defect in carrier actions.

Thanks.

easier said than done IMO because if you want to guard your invasion then you have to stick close by and unfortunately the spot you want to invade isn´t going to move. Imagine moving the carriers and the Japanese positioning themselves to fly a 600 ac strike against your invasion force. Three divisions sunk with all APA down. This would be as severe (probably worse) than losing six fleet carriers as APAs are worth their weight in gold.

[CapAndGown]

I am at work now, so even if my opponent sent the turn, I would not have the opportunity to play it for a while. I am sure he will need to spend some time considering his options, just as I spent a good deal of time considering my move.
 
After rereading the suggestions here, I am wondering if I was not cautious enough. Many people advised holding back some. Losing some carrier now would stink. But if it means the allies lose 5-6 CVs and 3 CVLs right now, it could mean their entire offensive will be stymied until after the March 1944 reinforcements. That certainly would be worth 3-4 carriers
 
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

I don't know why my guys don't react and other people's do. They are set to no react and follow around a surface combat group. This used to work in UV. I thought that might have changed in WitP, but I can't confirm. I am fairly certain that witpqs uses the same arrangement and that is why his CVs do not react.

I had not thought of that before, but I bet a Million Yen that's the reason; the Surface Combat won't react, and the CVs are set to follow that TF.

CVs consistently react even if REACT is set to ZERO otherwise.

Hurry up and send the turn please![:D]

that isn´t the case. I had two carrier engagements in my PBEM and in both I had my carriers set to 0 react and both times had them following a surface combat TF. In the first case, we already were in range to strike but my CVs nevertheless reacted AWAY from the SC TF (even though it would have been smarter to stay in the same hex to have the enemy´s strike being more dispersed on different TFs). Result, my Navy got their head handed over.

In the second engagement just recently, I had even more carriers and again been following a SC TF. Again set to 0 react. Same as in this AAR, my carriers had the order to guard an invasion TF, therefore their position wasn´t that hard to guess for my opponent. Result was a 8 hex IJN strike for NO USN strike. And my carriers did NOT react away from the SC TF even though this is what would have been a MUST. And I again was the one to took the damage. It also again shows that it would just be better to throw all the "non ordered" reaction routine overboard and leave it to the player if react or no react. Usually the reaction (or non- reaction) the game comes up with by itselve is just stupid. If you don´t have them following a SC TF you may end up with your carriers running into an enemy battlefleet in AE because they are treated as moving "first" [8|] and being followed "later" by the SC TF if you set the SC TF following the CV TF.

Sorry to hijack the AAR, but be asured that CV TFs following SC TFs DO react, they even react if you have set your carriers to "react 0".

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well the diversionary force only drew a small attack and perhaps it would have not drawn an attack at all if Cap's carriers were actually in range, but they were not and that was the Allied players main mistake. However, if I was the opposing player and half of my force went after the bait then I would have been very unhappy. So yes, bait is OK but it really needs to be something of value. I would not hesitate to do it with a CVL or two if I was the Allied player.

It just goes to show that you need to move your carriers every turn to prevent the Japanese player from exploiting the range advantage. To sit in one hex invites disaster. Really, when you have the advantage in numbers as the Allies, the best move might be just to rush on in and not fool around. I must also say that I am surprised that neither force reacted. It seems like that happens most all of the time in these AARs.

CAP, pleases tell us how many of your aircraft were lost to flak? How many you shot down as well? I would be interested to know. Right now this seems to be the biggest defect in carrier actions.

Thanks.

easier said than done IMO because if you want to guard your invasion then you have to stick close by and unfortunately the spot you want to invade isn´t going to move. Imagine moving the carriers and the Japanese positioning themselves to fly a 600 ac strike against your invasion force. Three divisions sunk with all APA down. This would be as severe (probably worse) than losing six fleet carriers as APAs are worth their weight in gold.

Well, nobody said it was easy. Protecting the invasion is key but really as the Allies you have to eventually face down KB or no invasion will ever be secure. I think in this case I would have suspended landings (even at the risk of losing ground troops already landed) pulled the valuable AKAs back and gone for KB. It is just too dangerous letting the Japanese player with a full KB pick and choose the course of action. I know you got hammered hard in your carrier fights but from reading the AARs the carrier fights have had just as many major Allied victories. This was the time for the Allied player to go for KB and accept what could have been a very equal fight. CT knows what he is doing and he is controlling the action well. Only way to counter it is to do what he does not expect.

As the game is now, Japanese LBA is just too strong to go the traditional route of seizing forward bases and then using your LBA to bull your way. It kind of blows, but I am beginning to see that the path to Japan in AE is by taking out the Japanese fleet. Now with the patches, it is hard to fight in N. OZ, hard to fight in Burma, impossible to take out the Japanese merchant fleet and very tough to gain air superiorty (disclaimer, I am playing scen #2) until deep in the game.

You gotta find a way to sink warships.

And yes, Allied naval flak is not just bad, it's "stupid" bad....[;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
that isn´t the case. I had two carrier engagements in my PBEM and in both I had my carriers set to 0 react and both times had them following a surface combat TF. In the first case, we already were in range to strike but my CVs nevertheless reacted AWAY from the SC TF (even though it would have been smarter to stay in the same hex to have the enemy´s strike being more dispersed on different TFs). Result, my Navy got their head handed over.

Castor Troy,

Just curious: Did you have the CV fleet following the SCTF set to "direct; absolute" under movement guidelines?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: castor troy
that isn´t the case. I had two carrier engagements in my PBEM and in both I had my carriers set to 0 react and both times had them following a surface combat TF. In the first case, we already were in range to strike but my CVs nevertheless reacted AWAY from the SC TF (even though it would have been smarter to stay in the same hex to have the enemy´s strike being more dispersed on different TFs). Result, my Navy got their head handed over.

Castor Troy,

Just curious: Did you have the CV fleet following the SCTF set to "direct; absolute" under movement guidelines?

yes, both times, otherwise the CVs would take a different path to follow the SC TF.

[CapAndGown]

Oct. 26, 1943

There were so many titles I could think of for this post: JFB wet dream; decisive battle in technicolor; now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle station; death from above, and below; restricted to mature audiences. I believe allied offensive potential, except of 4E bombers, has been set back at least 6 months.

I will cover this action and its outcome in several posts, but here is the initial report everyone has been waiting for.

I am sorry about the length of this post. I have edited out lots of the CR. But there were critical portions I wanted to keep in to provide both you an myself with vital intelligence.

Contrary to expectations, the allies decided to press ahead with their invasion of Ponape. They have landed two divisions and numerous supporting troops and will have no problem taking the place. But at what cost!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Ponape - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

723 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
CL Trenton, Shell hits 8
CL Detroit, Shell hits 8, on fire
CL Richmond, Shell hits 7, on fire
DD Meade, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Kalk, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
DD Lansdowne, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Duncan, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Renshaw, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Radford, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Kimberly, Shell hits 6
DD Kidd, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
AKA Betelgeuse, Shell hits 4
LST-482
LST-483, Shell hits 4, on fire
LST-479
LST-481

This was during the night phase. Also during the night phase, our subs apparently sank two allied CVEs that were being moved in to support the invasion. (judging by the fact that a sinking sound occured after each attack, though that could have been some other ship sinking.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Ponape at 121,115

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 6

Allied Ships
CVE Breton, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DE Rathburne

SS I-22 launches 8 torpedoes at CVE Breton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Ponape at 121,115

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
CVE Copahee, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
DE Rathburne

SS I-26 launches 6 torpedoes at CVE Copahee

When the sun came up, the slaughter from yesterday resumed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,114
Weather in hex: Overcast
Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 18
A6M5 Zero x 45
A6M5b Zero x 12
B6N1 Jill x 17
B6N2 Jill x 22
D4Y1 Judy x 68

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7
FM-1 Wildcat x 21
F4U-1 Corsair x 27
F4U-1A Corsair x 1
F6F-3 Hellcat x 73

Allied Ships
CL Denver
BB Indiana, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Washington
CV Bunker Hill, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CV Pago Pago, Torpedo hits 1
CV Essex, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Montpelier
BB Massachusetts, Bomb hits 1
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 119,113
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 52
A6M5c Zero x 7
B6N1 Jill x 21
B6N2 Jill x 53
B6N2a Jill x 13
D4Y1 Judy x 44

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 46

Allied Ships
CVE Corregidor, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Anzio, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CVE Santee, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3
BB Colorado, Torpedo hits 4
CL Richmond, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA San Diego
AKA Jupiter, Torpedo hits 1
CLAA Atlanta
CVE Natoma Bay, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
CLAA Juneau
CL Detroit, on fire
CLAA San Juan

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Anzio
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Corregidor
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring BB Maryland
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring BB West Virginia
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Natoma Bay

Allied Return Strike
this was coming from his carriers. Strikes originating out of Kusaie were tiny and ineffectual. I will not list those here. Also, witpqs set some B-24s at Alinglaplap to naval attack at 10k feet. They did not hit anything, though they seemed to have inflicted damage on my fighters.

This strike is from the fleet carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 44 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 26
A6M5 Zero x 151
A6M5b Zero x 17
A6M5c Zero x 35
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 36

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 44
SBD-5 Dauntless x 144
TBF-1 Avenger x 54

Japanese Ships
I will post a screen shot of the damage later. Shoho is fairly heavily damaged, the others could all make it if not for allied subs, which will probably find some of them.
CV Taiho, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Kasagi
CV Ikoma, Bomb hits 1
CV Zuikaku, Torpedo hits 1
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 2
CVL Chiyoda, Bomb hits 1
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
CVL Chitose, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVL Zuiho
CVL Ryujo
CL Kitakami
DD Fumizuki
DD Hatsukaze
DD Kuroshio, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Makigumo
DD Takanami
DD Onami

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Taiho
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVL Shoho

This strike is from the CVEs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 57 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 21
A6M5 Zero x 116
A6M5b Zero x 13
A6M5c Zero x 28
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 19

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6
FM-1 Wildcat x 19
F6F-3 Hellcat x 27
TBF-1 Avenger x 33

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 14
A6M5 Zero x 86
A6M5b Zero x 12
A6M5c Zero x 24
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 14

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 6

Japanese Ships
CV Taiho, on fire
CV Ikoma, on fire

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Taiho

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 6
A6M5 Zero x 47
A6M5b Zero x 7
A6M5c Zero x 20
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 12

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 8

Japanese Ships
CV Taiho, heavy fires
CV Kasagi

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Taiho

Goodbye cripples
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,117
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 10
A6M5c Zero x 17
B6N1 Jill x 12
B6N2 Jill x 13
D4Y1 Judy x 11
D4Y3 Judy x 22

Allied Ships
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 8, and is sunk
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Beale, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Bache
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Aulick

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Lexington
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring an Allied CVL

Afternoon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,114
Weather in hex: Light cloud
Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 12
A6M5 Zero x 54
A6M5b Zero x 7
B6N1 Jill x 13
B6N2 Jill x 26
D4Y1 Judy x 62

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 Spill Over CAP
FM-1 Wildcat x 11 Spill Over CAP
F4U-1 Corsair x 18 LRCAP
F4U-1A Corsair x 1 LRCAP
F6F-3 Hellcat x 52 Local CAP

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Columbia
BB Washington, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Bunker Hill, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB Massachusetts, Bomb hits 3
CV Essex, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CV Pago Pago, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1
CL Denver
CL Cleveland, Bomb hits 1
CV Google
CL Montpelier

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Essex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 119,113
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 20
A6M5c Zero x 20
B6N1 Jill x 5
B6N2 Jill x 22
B6N2a Jill x 11
D4Y1 Judy x 34
D4Y3 Judy x 35
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 27

Allied aircraft
FM-1 Wildcat x 5
F6F-3 Hellcat x 9

This is the group the Breton and Copahee were with
Allied Ships
BB Colorado
BB West Virginia, heavy damage
APA Henderson, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVE Altamaha, Bomb hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Nassau, Bomb hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DE Rathburne, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AKA Alcyon, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DE Kennison
APA U.S. Grant, Bomb hits 2, on fire
APA Hunter Liggett, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring APA Henderson
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring an Allied AO
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring an Allied CVE
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DE Rathburne