So if Ostheer doesn't get free tech, does it mean USF doesn't get free officer as well?
If one want to a comparison between the Ostheer and USF one could either consider things that unlocked by BP as "free" and Officer also as "Free" or consider that both things as having a cost.
In any case and imo the immediate impact of a unit with equipped with Thompson/bar or Thompson/no tech bazooka is bigger than the unlock of BP1, since in most cases the benefits of BP1 come over time.
But a USF/Ostheer tech comparison is more complicated since USF are more flexible while Ostheer tech is more rigid.
Now if one wanted to compare UKF tech with Ostheer tech both being more linear, I would point out that Ostheer tech is more complicated since it requires both a tech unlock and a building while that the Hammer/Anvil is more cost efficient than BP3. At a cost of 200/50 the benefit that come with Hammer/Anvil are probably worth it even if one does not built a Comet or Churchill.
Finally from my 2vs2 games I have seen more times UKF players successfully rushing to unlock Hammer/Anvil than Ostheer player rushing a T4.
if bf 1 was divided in 2 tech both 20 fu wich said granede up. and lmg up. would it change something ?
In that case Ostheer would become more flexible.
For instance Spamming grenadiers would not require going a G43 doctrine or having the option for early grenades would make assault grenadiers stronger.
The same goes for OKW that if they had the option to unlock the P.Faust as a side tech they would be able to deal with M3A1, WC and WC51 easier.