Slitherine

What do you think about Nation specific abilities in WWII (strategical and tactical) ?
From my point of view:
- France - low moral, passive war tactic & strategy.
- Germany - magnificent interaction between various types of military forces (Kampfgroups), sturmtroopers tactics, using 8.8 FlaK against tanks.
- Soviet - no surrender, very useful in camouflage, mass attack.
- US - using war technics/vehicle instead a man, strong air support fire.
- UK - ability fast evacuate troops, huge fleet with navy support fire.

What else ?

Italy - bad equipments, few motivations, few national cohesion

A rather stereotype-based idea, perhaps; and hence not overly relevant. For example: British good at fast evacuations...? Based on two strategic-scale incidents spread over the course of the war; so hardly something to build a special ability around.

If it's going to be done, base it on actual operational level doctrine, rather than either small unit tactics (which should be reflected in unit stats) or by making sweeping and statements regarding common misconceptions and myth, such as the idea that the US infanty and armour relied on technical kit more than other nations, which is frankly a nonsense: No US infantry bore the attitude, 'I will not fight as hard because I have a better gun and pair of boots'.

For example, British artillery was capable of very adroitly dropping coordinated and concentrated multi-battalion 'stonks' on units, which increases initial casualties as there is time to effectively reach cover (the UK learned a lot from WWI as regards artillery tactics). Meanwhile German guns were not well coordinated in artillery generally slower to respond because they decided that spotting artillery by bearing rather than grid references was somehow a good idea.