Fixed it for you, because the upper four aspects definitely belong to OKW.
OKW was such "everything at once" faction, and it was problem those days and I wrote about it a lot on official forums. But... here came UKF and even OKW looks like "very nice designed and balanced faction" compared with it.
I only think, that if they giving to faction so powerful defensive game with tough and strong emplacements - let it have no real offencive gameplay then, or really difficult and overpriced offencive gameplay. It's reasonable, it worked in vCoH. And it works with USSR, but in another way. USSR don't have any defencive structures and their defensive gameplay is complicated and requires a lot of micro, head ache and such things, but for that - offensive HMGs, offensive spammable tanks, offensive spammable infantry... It's trade - powerful offensive to non-existed defencive.
So, why is it not allowable to USSR to have both defencive and offensive gameplay, but allowable to UKF? Why UKF have in stock tanks, compareable in power with Tiger and in same time - emplacements, which covers half of map with fire and destroying everything, even their counters, but when I suggest to give to USSR "defensive HMG bunkers for to make point and frontline protection less problematic" everyone says "You gonna make USSR OP, nevar!!!"?
Where is logic of faction balance then? One factions have everything, other have to suck and everyone admits it as normal, just because "1v1 stats show us, that everything is fine". They are fine because people are skilful enough to play as such shitty faction and win, not because it's good.