how good is russian and chinese weapons compared to US?

7.

>>34882466
The ones they actually have or the ones they create and then are too poor to issue.
>AK12
>AEK971
>AN94

>>34882504
I mean military, english isn't my native language.

I really mean the weapons they'll use if they go at war against each other.

File: Born2Meme.jpg (42KB, 344x344px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 344x344px

We'll never really know 'coz they'd probably just nuke each other to oblivion before any kinetic war.

The closest thing we have is observations of proxy wars, and even then, it's still not clear because "MUH MONKEY MODULZ!"

>>34882497
6

>>34882561
5.

>>34882589
2 lowest i go

>>34882466
Russian>US>shit>chinese

>>34882521
Small-arms wise, its pretty even and doesnt matter in the grand scheme. We can get into the nitty-gritty of inconsequential details of how one has slightly more range, or slightly less recoil, but it doesnt matter too much.

Optic wise, the US wins hands down. Aimpoints and Acogs and Eotechs for days.

Its heavy weapons where you start to see divergence.

>>34882687
Finally someone who isnt a complete retard. Thank you anon.

>>34882466
small arms are literally irrelevant. russian and chinese ones are outdated by comparison to US but it's not a huge deal. literally the last thing to care about in a war. dumb frogposter.

>>34882466
Russians and chinese blatantly lie about what weapons they have and how well they work. The US tends to embellish a bit on both fronts.

If the US top of the line is a 10 then the russian's is a 7 and the chinese's is a 6 or 6.5.

Then the average american's is like a 7.5 or 8 while the average russian's is a 4 and the chinese's is a 3. Of course that's assuming they could "properly" unfit them in the first place, which is hard to do when a lot of your armor and crew served weapons either never existed in the first place or haven't worked for decades.

>>34882959
brainlet

>>34882687
but muh artificial differences
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE