ORIGINAL: thomasharvey
The MG losses for the Japanese seem in line with the losses of the rifle squads. It is about 1MG per squad which is the equipment for the Japanese division. The difference is the MGs do not get replaced as fast as the rifle squads. The US made more MGs in ONE MONTH than the Japanese made in the entire war. So the limitations of Japanese industry is evident here.
We also need to pick up the pace on combat as the pools of replacements of nearly all equipment on both sides is too high. That will change once the Americans get some substantial aircraft assigned to the fronts. It is too costly to try and engage the Japanese without strong air cover.
I do have a general question of TOAW on this subject. With aircraft, sometimes the replacement pool is filled with plenty of aircraft of a given type but then will not replace an air unit of that type. It is just left eliminated and the equipment continues to build up. With the equipment in the replacement pools there should be NO Japanese or Allied aircraft still eliminated in this current scenario but there are. There is plenty of equipment to replace them. The problem gets worse if units are not replaced because less combat occurs to use them up and the pools bulge even more with additional unused equipment. Ground units do not seem to do that but air units do. At least that is my impression. Am I alone in this view? Anyone see similar results?
Um........I admit that I haven't been monitoring the replacement equipment pools all that closely. I'll keep an eye out. Say, one way
to fix part of this problem is to boost the replacement priority for some of the problematic equipment types.
Here's the Burma situation now. Thomas has been pushing his British and Indian units and now they have almost linked up Burma
with Malaya. My Malaya troops are out of supply and are forced to withdraw if they can. The situation is fluid.
