Profile of Frencho

Obersoldaten and Fallschirmjagers perform very well.

If a player keep losing them constantly against other infantry squads; it is merely because A) He can't micro them properly B) "Yoloes" them as if they were shock troops/conscripts.
Sit them behind cover and witness how amazing they are.

Which brings their achilles heel, and it's a substantial one. Full health squads get insta-wiped far too often by pack howies, scotts, 120mm mortars or other sources of indirect fire. That's over 440 manpower (+60 munis for Obers) drained, quite reliably.

Both units could use a "flack jacket" upgrade that would increase resistance to explosive AoE damage for something like 30-40 munitions.

It's the only reason I prefer to use G43 panzerfusilier blops over them. At least they can survive the constant shelling that blagues the current meta.

Snip

Agreed, there really wasn't any political will to start a new war.
http://ww2history.com/videos/Eastern/Yalta
http://ww2history.com/videos/Eastern/Yalta

So far we're all suggesting a long protracted high intensity conflict. But Maybe due to the lack of political will, it might have resulted in a short war where each side would cut their losses for minimal gains and concessions or even a status quo ante bellum if it started to drag too long.

Even worse such a scenario would plant the seeds for an even stronger resentment and revanchism that would surely resulted in a fully fledged WW3 (and likely nuclear holocaust) by mid the 1960s. Just as if we had learnt nothing from the lessons of WW1 and WW2.

Wrong. 1918 never forget.

Should be never forget 1915, Battle of the Somme and Battle of Gallipoli

I really don't buy the untapped USA's manpower reservoir theory.
Let's not forget that they are a democracy on another distant continent and they were already bitching about the toll of the war effort by 1945. Why do you think they nuked Japan instead of invading it?!

Anglo-saxons are notoriously wimpy when it comes to human losses on foreign battlefields.
Public opinion would have surely negatively affected a war against the Soviet Union in 1945, thus the USA would not have been able to use it's manpower card effectively against the Red Army.

The superior Western Navies are a bit ineffectual against the Soviets + their allies, you can't really blockade the entirety of Eurasia...

Moreover it's a coin toss to know which side France, with a large and incredibly well organized communist faction would have backed, also Charles de Gaulle met Stalin in December 1944 in Moscow. Maybe France would just try to stay on the periphery through "active neutrality" like the Scandinavians did during WW2. At worst it would have resulted in another french civil war.

In any case, I bet that a 1945 Cold War gone hot would have resulted in a status quo ante bellum.

Lastly people need to stop drinking the Soviet Gear is crap Kool-Aid. This is the product of Cold War propaganda designed to smear it. I think that in 1945 we were on equal footing, but Soviet armament was superior to Western by the very late 50s (With the exception of naval armament and strategic bombers).
Nato won the Cold War specifically by avoiding a conventional conflict with the USSR, as the Soviets sank considerably more ressources into their armed forces than us. Massive Armed forces that bankrupted them and that they never got to use; because due to the traumatism of WW2 the Soviet Politburo would never initiate the hostilities but only counterattack. This is what led to the economic collapse of the USSR.

Define right after WWII?
Is it late 1945 or later dates like 1950s?

USA + Western Europe has a small edge merely due to possession of the A-bomb. Only until 1952 when the Soviet Union got their own operational.

But do note that The Red Army outclassed the US Army in 1945. France, Italy and Germany had virtually no cohesive armed forces anymore nor any competent industrial base to equip them as they laid in ruins; and the British are terrible at waging land wars in Europe.

I doubt the USA could financially and logistically afford to fund all of Western Europe on top of fighting the Red Army themselves. Also remember that the USA has to load the supplies & armament in the USA's East Coast, ship everything across the Atlantic and unload it at European ports, creating an extra logistical bottleneck whereas the Soviets can use rail or road infrastructure, making the logistical burden more manageable.

Then it goes downhill for us.
Starting from the mid 1950s, the Soviets had conventional superiority and nuclear weapons superiority over NATO until the very late 1980s/early 1990s.