This is laughably wrong. You lose a bit of RA (armour is glorified RA anyway) for half the reinforce cost. No brainer.
So Shocks have 1 Target Size and 1.5 armor, while cons have 1.09 TS and 0 armor. If my understanding of the penetration calculation is correct, then the chance for dealing damage against armor is (penetration/armor x 100).
Now, I'm not an information digger, so I might be wrong, but the only infantry weapon I know of that goes above 1 penetration is (besides the MG42 teamweapon) the LMG42 which ramps up to a whopping 1.2 penetration at close range.
So, against just about any small arms fire (G43, STG44, Kar98k, etc.) shocks have a 66% chance to be dealt damage. (1/1.5 x 100) Unless they are face to face with an LMG42, where it is an 80% chance.
That is effectively .66 target size. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Shocks gain a buff to target size with vet, but it's nowhere close to the base amount.
So you're trying to tell me that reinforcing a .66 base target size CQC squad (where it really matters!) with any amount of 1.09 target size models, is worth the nominal amount of MP gained and higher risk of losing DPS fast from model drops.
I can definitely see this not being an issue in close quarters maps with a whole lot of sightblockers so you can strong-arm infantry off the field with shocks ppsh before they get a chance to retaliate. But anywhere else? I don't think it's "laughably wrong".