This is a simple question I ask people every time I read "BuT thEy ArE tOo SimiliAR!11!!"
Do you want a balanced game or do you want an asymmetric game, because you can't have both as time and time again has proven.
You want examples? The USF was given the mortar team while the OKW was given the MG34 and they swapped out the Sturmtiger for the Panzer IV. Why? Because the Armies were badly designed and needed these changes. This is also why the UKF got their AT snare for the Sappers but also needs a mobile mortar in my opinion and it's also why the USF is getting a restructure of their tech as well.
And I will keep repeating these facts until you all get it through your thick noggins.
Anyhow, on topic. Here are some recent threads I found on the issue with some valuable feedback and suggestions in my opinion:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/83096/looking-at-usf
https://www.coh2.org/topic/83604/usf-radical-design-changes-ideas
First one is basically about the overall USF teching while the 2nd one is more or less about the officers.
I understand that people don't want the factions to play similarly but I'd personally always take a faction being slightly more similar than the faction being absolute garbage and different. USF was awful solely because of its "asymmetical" tech structure, hopefully now they will be relevant again.
I think asymmetry is possible but certain things (IE tech Structure, certain necessary units for a faction to function) should be relatively the same.