Effective use of the Mk27 Cutie

[WernherVonTrapp]

I think my previous post was misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. I've read and can suggest more books than I care to remember but that is not the point. I was merely trying to make a point about, what I perceived as, a gross understatement concerning our armed forces actual effect on the Japanese ground forces during WWII.
I only digressed to the reference of casualties because I anticipated it as a potential point of distraction in a future reply. Incidentally, a Casualty is that which causes a soldier to become "combat ineffective". It doesn't necessarily mean that the soldier cannot return to fight another day, obviously depending on the type of illness or injury. A casualty can last merely the duration of a battle/campaign or it can last the entire war. Therefore, wounded men are not necessarily "in most cases no longer combatants".

Some may takes days, others weeks and other still, months to recover, but for the immediate necessity, they are considered casualties because they can no longer fight effectively in the battle at hand. As far as ignoring other losses, I'm not sure what you mean by that; Trench Foot, Dysentery, Malaria perhaps? The same things that effect the enemy troops fighting in the same area?

Anyway, back to my original subject which opened and closed my previous post. One of the best indicators that an engaged enemy is combat effective, is that his army/troops go on the offense and advance. One of the first indicators that his army is becoming less combat effective is that he is forced to withdraw or go into a defensive mode. I'm not talking a tactical defense, which can sometimes be implemented to sustain an advance, I'm talking strategically, on a grander scale involving all of the enemy's resources, including his ground forces.
I think it was Bull Halsey who quoted, "Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure -- after Guadalcanal he retreated at ours."

Retreating is an act by an enemy who has lost, or is losing, his combat effectiveness. This should be self-evident, unless of course, it is used as a ploy or in a tactical manner to maintain a position pending reinforcements. This however, was not the case concerning the Japanese Army.
I didn't tender my perspective in order to change yours. I don't need to list my own study references in order to try and sway your opinion. I was simply expressing some facts that I believe are self-evident. Some things just don't need any further explanation. Like, if a car veers off the road and strikes a tree, the tree cannot be blamed for the driver failing to maintain control of his vehicle.
I'm not upset in the least bit and I apologize if I upset you with my different perspective. I was only addressing the issue of "doing little to affect their ground forces".