OK, I agree... but it doesn't mean that chart is bad when it is valid for the most time. Maybe only that arrow from Infantry to HiTech tanks is a bit of confusing.
Right, but it's not really valid either. Infantry beats everything else in the game provided they have numbers and can close the range. That's why ambushes against reinforcement routes are so often infantry hidden in a suitable forest or building. Gunships also work against everything, including AA systems they can outrange and without proper scouting even systems they don't outrange. High-tier tanks are so useful because they are the kings of ground battle, and can take anything head on as long as they can keep at range. Their usefulness drops directly with range. They are also expensive, which is why ATGM vehicles beat them point for point. Infantry beats rocket helicopters if the helos are silly enough to fly over a forest.
It depends too much on ranges and terrain to make a chart like that. It's simply loaded with assumptions: why aren't helos a counter to artillery? Because artillery is practically always behind a curtain of AA. Why doesn't cheap spam beat high-end tanks? Because it's assumed the tanks will move out of the way and pick at the horde from distance. Why does arty beat infantry? Because it's assumed the infantry is far, far away and artillery can shoot in peace instead of being pestered by Deltas from a range of 100 meters. Why do ATGMs beat medium tanks? Because it's assumed they can land a hit before coming under fire from tank machine guns.
I'm not against helping new players, but this doesn't help. It instills the wrong mentality and makes units seem more like one-trick ponies than they really are. Activity, aggression, combined arms and numbers matter usually a lot more.