@Bunnies:
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
Next time post your own topic. It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.
The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways. It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.
The underlying question is, should Japan attack India at J1 if there’s only 2 inf and 1 AA Gun.
Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong. The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is.
The mistake that the Allies need to avoid is to allow Japan to destroy those inf on J1 and capture the AA Gun, without any kind of retribution.
Usually the best idea is to place 2 Russian armor in Caucasus - if the Japanese risk going after India (and the AA Gun can ruin any attack) then the Russians can retake it and meanwhile the Japanese have been delayed on the Indian corridor.
Another possibility is to evacuate India to Persia and then retake it. It is perfectly valid but at the same time, if the UK keeps India then Japan will have more targets to hit - the more attacks it makes, the bigger the possibility that one of them will fail. Also, if the UK is placing itself to sink the German Med fleet on SZ15 on UK2 then most likely you won’t have a plane available to help those inf on Persia retake India.