I've been playing ARMA for almost twenty years (yeah yeah I know) and this tracks. The US arsenal has no equivalent to a lot of Russian systems and I've never understood why. The RPG-7 alone is such a complete no-brainer, giving small units a lot of very simple, portable firepower. The US has things like the MAAWS, but it's not really the same. And for a long time the US had POS rocket launchers like the bazooka and the M72. The M72 was disposable. Sure it's light-weight, but but it's also low power. The entire system and launch tube weighs as much as one HEAT round for the RPG. The RPG system is heavy but you can distribute rockets throughout the squad to compensate for that, and for most of it's life-time it was a credible anti-tank weapon, and can still threaten most armored vehicles with the latest generation of rockets.

The Soviets also put anti-aircraft defense at every level from strategic down to tactical, meaning almost any Soviet unit of any size had it's own air defense capability. NATO never quite did this for reasons I've never understood. The guy answering the Quora question doesn't even mention the Soviet man-portable air defense missile launchers that meant even an infantry squad could threaten low flying aircraft and attack helicopters. The Shilka self propelled anti-aircraft platform deserves it's own entry. Those things are monsters. Four guns, huge rate of fire, radar guided aiming, they're absolute death to anything that gets within their effective range. They shred helicopters. But their guns are also 23mm, and can depress low enough to engage ground targets, and high enough to shoot up mountains, which means they can functions as mobile blender for turning light armored vehicles, unarmored vehicles, and infantry in to vapor. They were used in Chechnya to clear occupied apartment blocks by simply stitching cannon fire across the front of the building. I don't think the US ever had an effective system that served the same role, and certainly not a system that could kill planes, helicopters, light armored vehicles, soft targets, and infantry platoons all in one package. The US had the M-6 linebacker, but it was just a modified bradley with stingers, so it had all the problems of the bradley and all the problems of the stinger. I guess the US maybe has a new Anti-Aircraft platform, but god knows if it works in battlefield conditions.

The Bradley from the aforementioned Pentagon Wars, is a piece of shit. Not enough armor to be a tank, not enough space to be a troop carrier, too tall to hide. The only thing it has going for it is reasonable mobility and ATGMs, which you could just put on a jeep for a fraction of the cost. There's a reason the US has gone through like four generations of wheeled armored vehicles over the course of the War on Terror, all trying to patch up the gaps left by the Bradley and our other shitty troop carriers, all failing to fill the role that the BMP series fills so well. Like don't even get me started on MRAPs. They're good for surviving small IEDs and absolutely nothing else.

There's just no NATO equivalent to the Hind. The A-10 is maybe comparable in role and that's a jet aircraft. The Hind is a flying tank, extremely durable, with a huge weapons payload, and it can carry troops. They were applied with extreme effect in Afghanistan and the Mujahedeen had no reliable way to fight them. Even the vaunted stinger was only marginally effective, usually when the helicopter was taking off and landing. I think NATO figured that they would get air superiority with their fleet of fancy fighter jets, but I don't know if that was ever realistic. But to do what the Hind does NATO would need a blackbird and an apache working in tandem.

Honestly, when you look at it, NATO's development of weapon systems is a clusterfuck. They have some really good aircraft, like the F-16, But everything else is kind of a jankey disconnected mess of compromises, budget overruns, changing specs, and hasty improvisations. In Iraq, for instance, the US had totally un-armored humvees moving most of it's troops around in 2003. Well, they started to get shredded by IEDs, so the US commissioned every firm that could build vehicles to design "MRAPS", which stands for mine-resistant-ambush protected. These were huge armored trucks with v-shaped hulls to disperse the blast pressure of an IED going off under them. They were protected against small arms fire, reasonably resistant to some RPG rounds, and could survive IEDs to a point. But they sucked at everything else. They were extremely heavy due to all the armor. They were usually very tall, which isn't a good thing on a modern battlefield. They held very small numbers of troops. And their off-road performance is awful. They're so top heavy that they can only attack slopes at 90*. If they try to go up too steep of a slope at too much of an angle they tend to topple. And there are at least a dozen different specs of them. They were built because US troops had no good armored troop transports and no good body armor, and troop deaths, while small in absolute numbers, were causing a huge embarrassment to the Cheney administration. So they were basically just slapped together in a rush and it shows. Many US police departments are now equipped with these beasts because they're really not good for anything except terrorizing civilians.

I don't know how the fuck the US would expect to win any serious conventional war. We've only got 5,000 MBTs. We've got a lot more light armor but it's not particularly good. Air superiority is great and all but with all the cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles and air defense platforms running around these days I don't know how long the US could sustain an air campaign against a near-peer enemies. The surface fleet is made up of floating coffins that would get taken out by China's invisible submarine fleet pretty quickly if hypersonic missiles didn't get them first. The F-35 is a gold plated white elephant.

On top of that de-industrialized America wouldn't be able to go to war economy in the advent of a real war. We just don't have the production capacity anymore. And even if we did we'd need to design actual war-time weapons mostly from scratch, since everything we have is overengineered and very expensive. You can't expect the US to build enough apaches or abrahms to make up war-time losses, and the airforce production schedule is so fragile that every plane is effectively irreplaceable.