I have a list somewhere that gives the comparative costs of a large amount of different pieces of equipment. When I find it I will come back to this issue of cost. Suffice it to say that much of this luxurious German equipment is far more expensive than any of its competitors. This suggests that it is good quality, but that the cost of equippiung the squad will be prohibitve, and threfore the total number of squads that can be fielded will be limited. This, in my opinion makes the path of providing the most expensive and lavish scale of issue exactly the wrong way to go
Before embarking on the equipment issue, one has to understand the theory of small unit tactics, so that the right balance of force structure to unit costs can be arrived at. In WWII there were subtle, but important differences between the main combatants.
The most revolutionary concept in squad makeip came from the germans, involving principally the addition of a second LMG to the squad, and later, the introduction of assault rifles. An interim measure was the use of SMGs whyich gave enhanced firepower, but at short range.
The British tended to view the rifle section as a separate element to the support guns. With the Lee Enfields they were equipped with, they could just get away with that thinking, but I think overall it was a mistake to view the rifle group as a separate source of firepower for the squad. I think the germans were closer to the mark, when they began to introduce a second LMG to the squad, which gave them an effective enfilade capbility. SMGs greatly increased the short range firepower of the squad, but this ability was achieved without loss of range with the late war assault rifles.
Strangely, the US squads had greeatly enhanced rates of fire with their garand equipped Infantry, but were then promprtly let down by LMG they were using, the BAR, which in no sense could be considered as adequately fulfilling the role of support gun for the squad
Anti-tank defence was also and issue. Early on this tended to be provided by AT rifles, but later these were supplanted by PIATs, Bazookas and the german equivalents. The Russians and Japanese failed to produce an effective squad level tank defence system in the late war period. For the japanese this was somewhat understandable, and in any case every third squad could rely on their 70mm BN guns, which remain one of the most versatile little pieces of ordinance ever devised. The Japanese were fighting mostly in restricted terrain, so their lack of a dedicated ATG is understandable (they also had access to a very effective 20mm ATR, so this explains why they did not make much effort in this regard). But until the end, the Russians relied on the ATRs they had had since before 1941, and these were pretty useless even at the best of times.
Understanding Squad doctrines is the key to answering this issue. I thought people might want to look at that issue, so here is a link to a favourite page of mine....
Small Unit Formations