If it gets done for every fraction then I would see no problem(execpt less diffrences between the fractions)
It's my own personal opinion that all Armies should have the basic tools, like Mainline Infantry, Engineer units, support weapons, medium tanks and tank destroyers, light vehicles and so forth, basically at the core, everybody would be similar to each other, like it really was during the war, besides that is where the Armies really were and should be different.
For instance -
Germany used a 10 men squad, each having an LMG with them, the rest were armed with Rifles (K98k-s) and the SL was armed with either a G41/G43 or an MP40. The basic idea was that the LMG section of the squa (2 or 3 people) would provide cover for the rest of the rifle armed squad while they moved in or were on the flanks of the MG when defending.
In the US Army the squad was 12 men, pretty much all of them armed with the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle so they already had a lot of firepower on their own, but they also had an Automatic Rifleman armed with B.A.R. and was along with 2 other riflemen in their own small LMG section similar to the Germans. Of course since they were differently arranged and differently armed their tactics also differed from the Germans.
But do you see the connection here? Both Armies had at least one automatic weapon capable of firing rifle caliber rounds but they were used in a different manner, plus the US squad had their combat power spread out amongst the squad while the Germans had their concentrated in their MG.
Another example is each Army's tank doctrine, the Germans had developed theirs as arguably the best, they had Light, Medium and Heavy tanks, a plethora of fixed gun Tank Destroyers, the StuG III which was the most successful was also the cheapest to produce and again, arguably most successful, assault guns, Self-propelled guns and so forth, they also made a large use of captured enemy equipment.
The US Army thought of their Light and Medium tanks as Infantry support such so we had no means or intentions to combat other enemy vehicles, and logistical problems prevented us from developing and sending more Heavy tanks like the Pershing over to Europe, hell I don't even think if you can really consider the Pershing as a heavy.
The AT role was left to AT gun detachments and Tank Destroyers, which were not heavily armored but were heavily armed and fast, and were turreted compared to the German ones and were designed to be used at the enemy's rear or flanks, not front, again, like the German ones.
Then we come to the British, who only had Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry tanks were slow, heavily armored but not particularly well armed designed to solely support infantry, while the Cruiser tanks were designed to be fast, lightly armored and again, not well armed, made to exploit breakthroughs in enemy lines and so on. They didn't even have any good tank guns until like 1943/1944 with the mounting of the 17 pounder on American tanks, like the Sherman, to create the Firefly, and M10 to create the Achilles.
So again, they all have the basic tools and weapons, but they still had differences between them, in their uses, tactics, amounts and so on, so you couldn't really compare them to each other because while at their core they were similar, they were not 1:1 the same.
So that's the reason for my belief that each Army can have the basic tools while still being unique.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
