Obviously you can't take that claim into total truth. There are some
dedicated weapons that Russians have, like a suppressed subsonic 12.7 mm
sniper rifle, that the West doesn't have. But the man portable
thermobaric role that the RPO possesses is something we have too.
We are discussing the claim that everything new the Russian military industrial complex is offering is inferior to NATO and Chinese equipment currently in service.
Regarding suppressed deployed weapons you are correct, the AS and VSS suppressed 9 x 39mm weapons have been in service more than 20 years and they also have a suppressed subsonic 12.7mm sniper weapon too, which have no equivelent within NATO. What I am saying is that the widely deployed RPO and RPG-7 and RPG-29 are not inferior to anything NATO or for that matter China has in service... and the new models are even better. The latest model of the RPO series... called the SHMEL-M ... http://kbptula.ru/eng/atgw/shmelm.htm has an aimed range of 800m and a max range of 1,700m while being 4 kgs lighter than the original RPO or SHMEL.... the original RPO was 12kgs and the new RPO-M is 8kgs per launch tube.
Obviously there are plenty of things the Russians are making that are likely not up to NATO standard, but their are usually good reasons for that. The BMP-3 is probably under armoured... just look at the weights of IFVs and you can see NATO IFVs are the weight of light tanks, while the Russian infantry vehicles max out at about 20-22 tons. Clearly the NATO IFVs must be better armoured, but that is not the fault of the Russian MIC... they could easily make their IFVs heavier if the Russian military decided amphibious and air drop capability is no longer a requirement.
Which doesn't change the fact that a 30/40 mm bouncing grenade isn't comparable to a 25 mm air burst grenade.
Of course they are comparable. The 40mm bounding grenade will come up short because the user still has to get the round on target without a laser range finder or ballistic computer showing him where to aim. The 25mm weapon will come up short with a much smaller grenade, and of course the requirement for a reliable source of batteries and ammo... which the person with the 40mm grenade launcher will not be short of.
At ranges under 300m, the 5.56 preforms fine v.s. a human target, so it
would be unfounded to say that either rounds are inferior or superior to
Firstly that proves my case... this idiot is saying that new Russian gear is not up to scratch for NATO or China, and you clearly agree it is as good as the NATO standard round.
I would suggest that from an SA80 or M16 the 5.56 is very effective out to 250-300m, but from an M4 carbine it will lack the velocity to fragment which makes its terminal ballistics similar to a .22 WMR.