Not sure why I'm replying, but the scenario you project doesn't test the superiority of one weapon over another, it tests tactics and soldiering ability. You could take 1000 men with good training and conditioning and give them Lee-Enfield bolt actions and put them against your 3000 with AKs or ARs and they will kick their butts.
During the retreat from Russia, German forces considered it an even match if they were only outnumbered by 7 or 8 to one. More than that and they were in trouble. Less than and you could count on the German forces to win. In the tremendous majority of cases, it is the man behind the weapon that is the deciding factor, not what he is carrying. The quality and features of the weapon, or the lack thereof, merely enhance or detract from his potential, they don't swing it one way or the other.
Rob Leatham with a bone stock, iron sighted 1911 will still kick butt over probably anyone we know personally, know matter how good they are on our local range with their $3000 red-dotted, compensated racegun. Why? Because of superior skills.