what time period is the most even for US vs USSR?

[Imp]

Agree with Andys comment a campaign works well & can continue a bit further as first Abrams is not that effective suffering from a common problem you will notice with the US.
If talking tanks US generaly has better Fire Control but a pea shooter for a gun so cant capitalise much of the time. One sides praying for a hit the other for it to penetrate & the US forgot to install Giros so attacking can be a problem. Good fun as a campaign as it swings back & forth.
If you keep going unless patch has changed you reach a point where both sides have trouble destroying the others tanks as armour outraces firepower for a while.

[PlasmaKrab]

Originally Posted by Imp

Agree with Andys comment a campaign works well & can continue a bit further as first Abrams is not that effective suffering from a common problem you will notice with the US.
If talking tanks US generaly has better Fire Control but a pea shooter for a gun so cant capitalise much of the time. One sides praying for a hit the other for it to penetrate & the US forgot to install Giros so attacking can be a problem. Good fun as a campaign as it swings back & forth.
If you keep going unless patch has changed you reach a point where both sides have trouble destroying the others tanks as armour outraces firepower for a while.

True, that's why I find more interest in playing against Soviet opponents around the late-70s-early-80s. Take e.g. 1983, you have the first Abramses in Germany (supported by lots of TI ATGMs), sporting measly 105mm guns which severely degrade the spotting advantage against new-model T-64s and the early T-80s. What good is spotting your target 3km away when your rounds bounce off until they are 1.5km closer?
The opposing T-64/80 have the opposite problem at that time with excessive firepower and lower-grade FC and vision.
Of course this ends tarting 1986 with the M1A1, which can make short work of any opposing armor.
This is only for tanks, but I have found the supporting elements to be more or less matched, give or take a few years.

But if you want an equal game, I agree that you should look at the early 60s or earlier still.

[hoplitis]

I guess that the US "lag" in upgrading "tactical" battlefield weapons/platforms was a result of shifting its attention to "strategic" assets in the post WW2-50s era. No time or funds to improve your armor/antiarmor assets when you've decided that an increased variety and number on nuclear weapons and delivery systems will stabilize or even tip the "balance" to your favor even without actually needing to "press the button". Air-carriers also received attention (succeeding in entering the jet era), strategic submarines, fast interceptors, ballistic missiles etc. The US was "pressing" on the strategic level not the operational/tactical one.

[Imp]

It might just have been stalled atempts to get something off the ground designing tanks was never a US strong suite & copying the likes of the Brit range or at least taking the gun was not a done thing.
As said air arm seems to live by own rules but I think I am correct US army equipment design had to be simple from a manafacturing point of view. Even if you take someone elses gun you have to simplify it then figure out how to make the ammo make up the shortfall for instance. The thing is Russia probably did this to but progressed .
The M1 after all owes being born partly due to the fact Brits invented Chobham shortly after replacing there MBTs so the US was gifted some of the tech that allowed them to be battlefield dominators for the first time.
As I understand it the problem with US guns was generally the arty arm got involved & specified silly lifes for it, perhaps thinking of WW2 & anti infantry role.