I think some people are misunderstanding the OP. He does not want a purely realistic game due to balance reasons. However, he is suggesting that the developers use real-world data as a starting point for balance. Relic would refer to real-life numbers and statistics to get an accurate representation of that unit, and then tweak some numbers/abilities/cost in order to achieve gameplay balance. Personally, I agree with the OP.
Some aspects of the game are ahistorical and unreasonable. The IS2 dealing 160 damage, Kubels surviving howitzer shots, ISU HE shells barely tickling a tank. These are just several of the bizarre moments in COH2 that makes me cringe. I think there are ways to improve upon the historical accuracy of COH2 WHILE achieving balance.
I think there are a lot of people in this thread seeing this problem in terms of polar opposites. "You can't have realism if you can't balance!" or "I want a balanced game not a simulation!" are some of the attitudes I have observed on this thread. I think it is possible to have a good degree of both. Therefore, it is important to have a good starting point: historical data and figures.
I agree with Hannibal's post, especially about "stabbing in the dark". Relic seems to be balancing the game within the parameters of the game. This is a WW2 game. It was marketed as an authentic WW2 experience. Does this mean a purely realistic and accurate game? No i don't think so. I think Relic has slowly deviated from historical context and molded their own version (of course creativity and artistry are important, but right now, the deviations are unreasonable).
i am jealous of your ranks 
1
Relic Entertainment
