Yea, I guess your right. I didn't really think of Rangers and especially the paratroopers with RR (mentioned in the previous post). It's been too long!!
I'm being swayed. USF could really use some more unit diversity. I never see paratroopers. Actually, in 90% of games the only damn units I every play against are Rifles, RE, M5s and Shermans.
Basically, I really don't mind no heavy tank if it's compensated by some better AT infantry and mines.
Vet3 on US units meant something. Less on armor than on infantry. But everyone knew to fear vet3 RRs, Rangers and Rifles. The Calliope actually MEANT something. The Pershing was both AI and AT and was at least pretty mobile. OMCGs gave you up to 1300 mp worth of units for 800. I didn't fear vet3 Axis infantry but I did vet3 armor (the vet3 buff was simply too much when you can't "eliminate" the veterancy by killing the unit like happens with US).
A vet3 57mm had huge penetration and much better damage, especially when firing APS. Of course loss of could be great.
Most of what was wrong with US late game was vet3 axis armor, an Airborne bomb-run that cost 250muni and was useless except in very limited situations (like a braindead opponent), and the m10 misfire bug.
What does USF have to compare? Is there a vet3 USF unit that people actually fear? Or are they just threats to be prioritized?